EMPLOYEE SILENCE: INVESTIGATION OF DIMENSIONALITY,
DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES, AND EXAMINATION OF RELATED FACTORS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Chad T. Brinsfield
*****
The Ohio State University 2009
Dissertation Committee: Approved by: Professor Roy J. Lewicki, Advisor
Professor Howard J. Klein ______Professor Steffanie L. Wilk Advisor Labor and Human Resources Graduate Program
Copyright by
Chad T. Brinsfield
2009
ABSTRACT
The intentional withholding of information by employees at work has been linked
to many important individual and organizational outcomes. Only in recent years,
however, has the concept of employee silence as meaningful beyond the absence of
speaking-up become an important area of inquiry in the organizational sciences.
Notwithstanding this emerging interest, relatively little is known about the underlying
nature of this abstract phenomenon. In an attempt to increase our understanding of this
phenomenon, a model of employee silence is presented and three related studies are
conducted. The proposed model illustrates proximal and component factors of employee silence and their proposed relationships. This model adapts elements of cybernetic control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982) and psychological field theory (Lewin, 1936,
1943) to explain different aspects of the manifestation of employee silence at different
levels of abstraction. The three studies which follow are designed to: (a) investigate the
nature and dimensionality of the motives for employee silence, (b) develop survey
measures of employee silence based on these dimensions, and (c) use these new measures
to investigate factors related to the manifestation of the various dimensions of employee
silence. The results indicate that employee silence is pervasive, multi-dimensional, can
reliably be measured, and is significantly related to other important organizational
behavior phenomena.
ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all of the people who provided
me with professional and personal support throughout this research project. I am
especially grateful to the members of my dissertation committee. The chair of my committee, Dr. Roy J. Lewicki, has been especially helpful and supportive, both intellectually and personally. He has never hesitated to give of his time and energy, and has been an exemplary role model. Dr. Howard J. Klein has also provided tremendous support throughout this project. His professionalism, work ethic, and attention to detail have been invaluable in my professional development. Dr. Steffanie L. Wilk has also been of immense help on this project. She helped me to look at issues from multiple perspectives and to see how this research fits into a broader context.
I am also grateful for the financial and administrative support I received from the
Department of Management and Human Resources. The department chairperson, Dr.
David B. Greenberger, graciously provided opportunities for additional funding for which
I am very grateful. Heidi Dugger, and Joan Evans, have never hesitated to assist me with a variety of requests too numerous to mention.
In addition to my committee members, numerous other faculty at the Fisher
College of Business have provided ideas, suggestions, and support throughout my
iii educational experience. I would specifically like to thank Dr. Raymond Noe, Dr. Jill
Ellingson, Dr. Robert Heneman, Dr. Sharon Alvarez, and Dr. Robert Lount.
I would also like to thank Dr. Jerald Greenberg for his important assistance in the early stages of this project. His guidance served as an important catalyst for this research, and his exacting standards have motivated me to reach new heights.
I am also very appreciative for the support I received from numerous colleagues.
Particularly, I would like to thank Chongwei Wang, Aino Salimaki, Dr. Marie-Elene
Roberge, Aden Heuser, Dr. Janice Molloy, Nilesh Khare, Erin Coyne, Joe Cooper, Brian
Saxton, Chuan Liao, and Dr. Naga Damaraju for their friendship and support.
And last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank the unwavering support of my family. Particularly, my mother has been instrumental in helping me throughout this journey. She has provided much needed emotional, as well as substantive support. I would also like to than my father for his generosity during this time. I also want to thank my daughter, Ava Marie, for inspiring me, and her mother, Natalie, for doing way more than her fair share of parenting duties during this time.
iv VITA
June 5, 1964 ...... Born - Lima, Ohio
1991...... B.B.A. Bluffton College
1994...... M.B.A. The Ohio State University
PUBLICATIONS
Alge, B., Greenberg, J., & Brinsfield, C. (2006). An identity-based model of organizational monitoring and control: Integrating information privacy and organizational justice. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 25, pp. 71-135). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Ltd.
Brinsfield, C., Edwards, M., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Employee voice and silence: An historical overview. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.). Employee Voice and Silence in Organizations (pp. 3-34). Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.
Lewicki, R. & Brinsfield, C. (2009). Trust, distrust and building social capital. In V. Bartkus & J. Davis (Eds.). Social Capital: Reaching Out, Reaching In. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
FIELD OF STUDY
Major Field: Labor and Human Resources
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii
VITA...... v
LIST OF TABLES...... x
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1 Overview...... 1 Focus of this Dissertation...... 5 Overall Value-Added...... 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...... 12 Background...... 12 Definition ...... 46 Boundary Conditions ...... 49
CHAPTER 3: GENERAL PROCESS MODEL OF EMPLOYEE SILENCE ...... 57 Control Theory...... 59 Psychological Field Theory ...... 62 Presentation of a General Process Model of Employee Silence...... 64 Input Stimulus...... 67 Voice-Motives...... 67 Silence-Motives ...... 69 Target Factors ...... 70 Individual Factors ...... 71 Contextual Factors ...... 74 Comparator ...... 76 Voice-Silence Discrepant States...... 77 Outcomes of Employee Silence...... 80 Input to a New Iteration of the Process...... 87 The Construct of Employee Silence ...... 88 Model Summary and Logic for Empirical Studies ...... 91 Continued
vi Table of Contents continued
CHAPTER 4: STUDY 1 - INVESTIGATION OF DIMENSIONALITY ...... 93 Plan for Study 1 ...... 94 Methodology of Study 1 ...... 96 Terminology...... 96 Subjects...... 97 Pilot Study...... 100 Surveys to Obtain Incidents, Targets, and Motives ...... 101 Verification and Editing of Survey Responses ...... 102 Creation of Employee Silence Exemplars and Coding of Responses...... 103 Exemplar Categorization ...... 104 Development of Ratings of Psychological Proximity...... 105 Creation of a Silence-Motive Categories Similarity Matrix...... 107 Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Silence-Motive Categories...... 107 Results of Study 1 ...... 108 Employee Silence: Incidents...... 108 Employee Silence: Categorization of Silence-Incident Exemplars ...... 112 Employee Silence: Targets ...... 116 Employee Silence: Motives ...... 118 Employee Silence: Categorization of Silence-Motive Exemplars...... 122 Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Silence-Motive Categories...... 129 Analysis of the MDS Silence-Motive Category Configurations ...... 137 Silence-Motive Cluster 1: Self Protective Silence...... 140 Silence-Motive Cluster 2: Acquiescent Silence...... 144 Silence-Motive Cluster 3: Prosocial Silence...... 146 Silence-Motive Cluster 4: Deviant Silence...... 147 Silence-Motive Category Not Included in Dimensional Cluster ...... 151 Discussion of the Employee Silence-Motive MDS Analysis ...... 152 Results of Employee Voice Study ...... 156 Employee Voice: Incidents...... 156 Employee Voice: Categorization of Voice-Incident Exemplars...... 157 Employee Voice: Targets...... 160 Employee Voice-Motive Exemplars...... 161 Employee Voice: Categorization of Voice-Motive Exemplars ...... 164 Employee Voice: MDS Analysis of Voice Categories...... 170 Analysis of the MDS Voice-Motive Category Configurations...... 174 Voice-Motive Cluster 1: Constructive Voice ...... 174 Voice-Motive Cluster 2: Desire to be Heard ...... 174 Voice-Motive Cluster 3: Self-Interested Voice ...... 175 Voice-Motive Cluster 4: Positive Management Relations...... 175 Discussion of the Employee Voice-Motive MDS Analysis ...... 175
vii Continued Table of Contents continued
Overall Discussion of Study 1 ...... 177 Limitations of Study 1 ...... 187
CHAPTER 5: STUDY 2 - DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES...... 191 Plan for Study 2 ...... 192 Methodology of Study 2 ...... 194 Scale Development ...... 194 Pilot Test of Employee Silence Measures ...... 196 Discussion of Study 2 ...... 204 Limitations of Study 2 ...... 207
CHAPTER 6: STUDY 3 - ITEM REFINEMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF RELATED FACTORS ...... 210 Overview...... 210 Part I: Refinement of Measures ...... 213 Method ...... 213 Determination and Acquisition of Subjects ...... 214 Administration of Measures and Data Collection...... 217 Analysis of the Factor Structure and Refinement of Measures ...... 218 Dimension One: Defensive Silence ...... 221 Dimension Two: Diffident Silence ...... 223 Dimension Three: Relational Silence ...... 225 Dimension Four: Acquiescent Silence...... 227 Dimension Five: Deviant Silence ...... 228 Factor Six...... 229 Part II: Investigation of Related Factors ...... 231 Development of Contextual and Individual Factors Hypotheses ...... 231 Organizational Justice...... 233 Trust ...... 235 Job Withdrawal Behavior ...... 237 Job Satisfaction ...... 239 Workplace Commitment...... 240 Subject Demographics ...... 242 Measures: Contextual and Individual Factors...... 244 Hypotheses Testing and Reporting of Results...... 245 Exploratory Regression Analysis...... 252 Discussion of Study 3 ...... 258 Limitations of Study 3 ...... 263
Continued
viii Table of Contents continued
CHAPTER 7: GENERAL DISCUSSION...... 265 Overview of Findings ...... 267 Practical Implications...... 274 Future Research ...... 275 Concluding Remarks...... 278
REFERENCES ...... 280
APPENDICES ...... 300 A.1 & A.2: Employee Silence: Survey of Incidents, Targets, & Motives.....300 A.3: Index of Individual Difference Items...... 312 B.1 & B.2: Employee Voice: Survey of Incidents, Targets, & Motives...... 314 B.3: Index of Individual Difference Items...... 326 C.1 & C.2: Survey of Similarity Rating of Silence-Categories ...... 328 D.1 & D.2: Survey of Similarity Rating of Voice-Categories...... 355 E.1: Study 2 - Preliminary Employee Silence Measures ...... 365 F.1: Study 3 Survey ...... 369
ix LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Notable Concepts in the Study of Silence and Voice ...... 14
4.1 Study 1 - Subject Demographics...... 99
4.2 Silence-Incidents Exemplars - Sorted by Frequency...... 110
4.3 Silence-Incidents Categories - Initial Categorization ...... 113
4.4 Silence-Incidents Categories - Final Categorization...... 116
4.5 Silence-Target Categories...... 118
4.6 Silence-Motive Exemplars - Sorted by Frequency ...... 120
4.7 Silence-Motive Categories - Sorted by Frequency ...... 123
4.8 Silence-Motive Exemplar Categories IRR...... 127
4.9 Silence-Motive Category Label Abbreviations and Frequencies ...... 129
4.10 Silence-Motive Categories Similarity Matrix...... 131
4.11 Silence-Motive Cluster Descriptive Statistics ...... 139
4.12 Voice-Incidents Categories - Sorted by Frequency ...... 158
4.13 Voice-Target Categories...... 161
4.14 Voice-Motive Exemplars - Sorted by Frequency ...... 163
4.15 Voice-Motive Exemplar Categories - Sorted by Frequency...... 166
4.16 Voice-Exemplar Categories IRR ...... 169
4.17 Voice-Category Label Abbreviations and Frequencies ...... 171
Continued x List of Tables continued
4.18 Voice-Categories Similarity Matrix...... 172
4.19 Comparison of Silence- and Voice-Motive Categories ...... 181
4.20 Silence and Voice: Incident and Target Comparison ...... 184
5.1 Descriptive Statistics: Silence Measures Pilot Test...... 197
5.2 EFA Pattern Matrix: Silence Measures Pilot Test ...... 199
5.3 Comparison of MDS and EFA Silence-Motive Dimensionality ...... 201
6.1 Study 3 - Subject Demographic Statistics...... 216
6.2 EFA Pattern Matrix...... 220
6.3 Dimension 1: Item-Total Statistics ...... 221
6.4 Dimension 2: Item-Total Statistics ...... 224
6.5 Dimension 3: Item-Total Statistics ...... 226
6.6 Dimension 4: Item-Total Statistics ...... 227
6.7 Dimension 5: Item-Total Statistics ...... 228
6.8 Effect Size and Significance Level...... 246
6.9 Subject Demographics: t -tests...... 247
6.10 Summary of Hypotheses...... 248
6.11 The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors of Defensive Silence ...... 255
6.12 The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors of Acquiescent Silence...... 256
xi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 General Schematic of Cybernetic Control Theory...... 60
3.2 General Schematic of Psychological Field Theory...... 63
3.3 General Process Model of Employee Silence...... 66
3.4 The Multidimensional Construct of Employee Silence...... 91
4.1 Visual Representation of All 17 Silence-Motive Categories...... 132
4.2 Visual Representation of 16 Most Frequent Silence-Motive Categories...... 133
4.3 Visual Representation of 14 Most Frequent Silence-Motive Categories...... 134
4.4 Visual Representation of 13 Most Frequent Silence-Motive Categories...... 135
4.5 Visual Representation of 12 Most Frequent Silence-Motive Categories...... 136
4.6 Visual Representation of All 17 Silence-Motive Categories with Indicated Clusters...... 138
4.7 Visual Representation of Voice-Motive Categories with Indicated Clusters...... 173
4.8 Comparison of Silence- and Voice-Motive Category Clusters...... 182
5.1 The Multidimensional Construct of Employee Silence (reproduction of Figure 3.4 for convenience) ...... 192
5.2 MDS Visual Representation of Silence-Motive Categories with Indicated Dimensions (reproduction of Figure 4.6 for convenience)...... 200
6.1 General Process Model of Employee Silence (reproduction of Figure 3.3 for convenience) ...... 212
6.2 Scree Plot: EFA Employee Silence Items...... 219
xii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
Intentional withholding of information by employees has been linked to many important individual and organizational outcomes (e.g., increased depression, reduced performance and satisfaction, widely publicized corporate scandals [e.g., Enron,
WorldCom], the Columbia space shuttle disaster; Cortina & Magley, 2003; Nemeth,
1997; Oppel, 2002; Vaughan, 2006). Although employee speaking-up behavior (voice) has been studied from many perspectives (e.g., organizational learning, issue selling to top management, principled organizational dissent, change efforts, knowledge sharing, complaining, whistle-blowing, organizational citizenship behaviors, procedural justice;
Argyris, 1993; Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Graham, 1986; Hirschman, 1970; Hollenbeck,
LePine, & Ilgen, 1996; Klaas, 1989; Kowalski, 1996; Miceli & Near, 1989; Organ, 1988;
Thibaut & Walker, 1975) these efforts have generally not considered the unique nature or implications of intentional silence. Common to these previous investigations of voice is that silence assumes an absence of the positive and negative effects associated with voice, and factors which contribute to the manifestation of voice subsequently reduce silence.
In this paradigm there is no need to investigate intentional silence because the study of voice already subsumes the study of silence as an innate byproduct.
1 In recent years, however, the concept of employee silence as meaningful beyond
simply an absence of voice has come to be considered an important area of inquiry in its
own right (see Milliken & Morrison, 2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos,
2001). Employee silence is conceptualized in the extant literature as the intentional withholding of work-related information based on a variety of different underlying motives (Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). It is this intentionality to use silence as a means of fulfilling an underlying motive that differentiates employee silence from silence associated with merely an absence of voice.
Similarly, silence arising from simply not having anything to say, or the natural pauses embedded in typical verbal discourse do not constitute forms of employee silence because they also lack this aspect of motive-driven intentionality.
Conceptualizing and studying employee silence as a distinct phenomenon, driven by specific motives, and not merely an absence of voice is important for a number of reasons. Considering that employee silence is an intentional behavior — plausibly based on a variety of different motives — its conceptual domain is potentially much broader and more complex than that suggested by viewing it as simply an absence of voice.
Consequently, it is likely that there are motives for employee silence which are distinct from an absence of, or opposite of, motives for voice. Similarly, individual and contextual factors which lead to employee silence, as well as associated outcomes, likely vary as a function of the underlying motive and therefore are not necessarily the same as those associated with an absence of voice. Moreover, in a recent qualitative study,
Milliken, Morrison, and Hewlin (2003) found that 85% of employees reported that on at least one or more occasions they felt that they could not bring an important issue to the
2 attention of their supervisor. Although apparently a pervasive phenomenon, many
fundamental issues remain unresolved such as: (a) exactly what does and does not
constitute employee silence? (b) is there utility and validity in conceptualizing it as multi-
dimensional construct, and if so, what are these dimensions? (c) how can it be measured?
and (d) what factors give rise to, and result from, these various dimensions of employee
silence? Therefore, the proposed research, which systematically examines the various
motive-based dimensions of employee silence, develops measures of these various
dimensions, and investigates factors related to these specific dimensions, represents an
important step in developing a deeper understanding of this important phenomenon.
Considering its abstract nature along with the nascent stage of the literature it is
not too surprising to find that exactly what does and does not constitute employee silence
remains unclear. Indeed, Pinder and Harlos (2001) noted that one of the main difficulties
associated with the study of employee silence is coming to grips with what constitutes the construct’s boundary conditions. Although they made this assertion over seven years ago, this continues to be the case. Clear definition and articulation of boundary
conditions, however, is essential for sound empirical research (Nunnally, 1978).
Therefore, clearly articulating what does and does not constitute employee silence is a
critical first step if research is to proceed systematically.
In addition to clarifying what does and does not constitute employee silence, a
meaningful understanding of this phenomenon requires a deeper look. Researchers have
conceptualized employee silence as occurring in response to a variety of different types
of issues (i.e., fairness concern, ethical issue, ideas for improvement, etc.), directed at
various types of targets (i.e., supervisor, co-worker, subordinates, authorities outside the
3 organization, etc.). Moreover, although employee silence has been conceptualized as an
intentional behavior (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2005), the behavior itself, disassociated from its underlying reason(s), is ambiguous. Researchers have sought to make sense of the many different reasons for employee silence by conceptualizing it as a multi-dimensional construct based on a variety of different underlying motives (e.g. to be prosocial, cause harm, self-protect, acquiescence, impression management; Greenberg, Brinsfield, & Edwards, 2007; Pinder
& Harlos, 2001; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2003). In fact, Milliken et al. (2003) interviewed 40 MBA students and found a number of different reasons for remaining silent. The reasons they uncovered appeared to be related to the prosocial, self-protect, acquiescence, and impression management dimensions which were previously proposed in the literature. However, beyond this relatively small study by
Milliken et al. (which constrained the domain of silence to the lack of information flow from employee to supervisor), and a more recent investigation by Vakola and Bouradas
(2005; which did not take into account the underlying motives), there has yet to be any empirical investigation relative to the existence, comprehensiveness, measurement, or implications of these proposed motive-based dimensions of employee silence. Therefore, the proposed research which empirically investigates the underlying dimensionality of employee silence, how best to operationalize it, and factors related to its manifestation, is indeed important.
4 Focus of this Dissertation
To enhance our understanding of this phenomenon, a general process model of
employee silence is presented. This model and its accompanying articulation of
component and related factors is necessary for understanding exactly what does and does
not constitute employee silence. Following the development of the model, three related
studies are conducted. Study 1 is designed to explore the distinctions between employee
silence and voice, and develop a comprehensive typology of employee silence
dimensions based on underlying motives. Study 2 is designed to develop adaptable,
reliable, and valid measures of these silence-motive based dimensions of employee
silence behavior. Study 3 is designed to test and refine the measures developed in Study
2, and to advance theory relative to factors related to the manifestation of the various
dimensions of employee silence.
Model of Employee Silence
In order to investigate underlying nature of employee silence and develop valid
measures, it is first necessary to clearly understand what does and does not constitute employee silence. Research to date, however, has not adequately accomplished this objective. Issues to be resolved include development or adaptation of a precise definition, clarification of boundary conditions, explication of component and related factors, and articulation of the likely process which leads to the manifestation of the phenomenon. The proposed model illustrates the ongoing process of employee silence and general categories of factors related to its manifestation. Although specific factors within a category likely vary depending on a number of considerations, the general
5 categories of factors depicted in this model should be applicable across all types of employee silence episodes.
Study 1 - Investigation of Dimensionality
The purpose of this study is to develop a comprehensive typology of employee silence-motives. This is important considering that: (a) the intentional behavior of employee silence by itself is ambiguous, and is only given meaning through an understanding of the underlying motives, and (b) it is likely that factors (antecedents, outcomes) associated with employee silence vary as a function of the underlying motive.
Considering that intentionality and motives are fundamental to identifying and interpreting employee silence, the phenomenon is not readily discernable by outside observers. Furthermore, even if one was to believe they were observing employee silence in another person, the sense making of the observable behavior would necessarily be filtered through the attribution process. Therefore, the assessment of the motives of employee silence, and the subsequent measures, are best viewed from the perspective of the actor and not the observer. This is not to say that observer attributions are not important; indeed, attributions on the part of observers of employee silence are going to be integral to outcomes related to the observer. The conceptualization and measurement of employee silence, however, is necessarily a function of the actor’s perspective and not the observers.
Considering that a primary tenet on which this research is based is that intentional silence is not simply equivalent to the absence of voice, Study 1 also examines motives for voice. Finding that the motives for intentional silence are not equivalent to the
6 absence of motives for voice will provide further evidence of the value of
conceptualizing and measuring employee silence as a distinct construct. These findings
will also be informative for future research focused on employee voice.
The methodology for this study will consist of the administration of a survey
asking subjects (a diverse group of undergraduate, traditional graduate, and executive
MBA students with work experience) to describe the underlying reasons for times when
they were intentionally silent, and times when they spoke up, at work in response to
important issues or concerns (see Study 1 for specific details). These responses will be
content analyzed and a list of silence- and voice-motive exemplars will be derived. I
expect to find a wide variety of motives for employee silence and voice. I also expect
that these motives will logically group into a parsimonious set of meaningful motive-
based categories. To test this assumption the exemplars will be analyzed via multi-
dimensional scaling analysis and a comprehensive, yet parsimonious, set of discrete
motive-based dimensions will be derived.
Study 2 - Development of Measures
Researchers have previously developed many different measures of
communication in organizations, but none have assessed intentional silence. For example, Rubin, Palmgreen, Sypher, Beatty, DeWine, Downs, Graham, Greenbaum,
Kearney, and Perse (1994) reviewed 62 different organizational communication related
measures, but only one of these measures (The Unwillingness-To-Communicate Scale;
Burgoon, 1976) included intentional silence as a component or dimension of
communication. This measure, however, does not differentiate between different motives
7 for intentional silence, and is seemingly confounded with other concepts such as dishonesty (sample item: “I don’t think my friends are honest with me”). Although other researchers have previously discussed the potential difficulty in measuring employee silence (see Pinder & Harlos, 2001), valid and reliable measures nevertheless remain necessary for sound empirical research (Schoenfeldt, 1984). Realizing the necessity for measures of this phenomenon, others have made notable attempts to develop measures of employee silence, but these proposed measures have not been empirically validated, are based on a concept of silence which is not clearly differentiated from an absence of voice, rely on observer attributions, and are predicated on motive-dimensions which have yet to be empirically supported (see Vakola & Bouradas, 2005; Van Dyne et al., 2003).
Considering the apparent value of focusing on employee silence as a distinct construct and not simply the absence of voice, the next logical concern is how to go about measuring this important, albeit abstract, phenomenon. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop reliable, valid, and situationally adaptable measures of employee silence based on the silence-motive dimensions revealed in Study 1.
Employee silence has previously been conceptualized as an intentional behavior based on a variety of different underlying motives (Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003). However, the intention to be silent, and the subsequent behavior of silence, are both unitary concepts. It is the motives which have been conceptualized as multi- dimensional. It is the motives which give this otherwise ambiguous behavior its multiple meanings. Therefore, it is the measurement of the intentional behavior — when that behavior is based on a specific underlying motive(s) — which is of primary interest in
this study.
8 Based on the proposed model and results of Study 1, preliminary scale items will
be developed. Employee silence is not necessarily an all-or-nothing phenomenon.
Therefore, Likert type measures will be developed to assess the graduated extent of
employee silence ranging from complete silence to a complete absence of silence. As
previously discussed, because employee silence is based on motives and intentionality,
which are not always outwardly apparent, the measures will necessarily be of the self-
report variety. Given the inherently attributional nature of third party observations, it is
highly unlikely that measures based on others’ observations would have sufficient
construct validity. These preliminary items will be pilot tested to determine their general
interpretability and suitability for a more extensive item refinement and validation study
(see Study 3).
Study 3 - Investigation of Related Factors
The objectives of this study are to: (a) examine the dimensionality and refine the items developed in the previous study, (b) investigate factors related to specific motive- based dimensions of employee silence, and (c) garner support for the generalizability of
the new measures.
A study designed to investigate antecedents and outcomes of specific dimensions
of silence is necessarily contingent on the results of Study 1. Based on previous
conceptual research (e.g., Greenberg et al., 2007; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al.,
2003), it is expected that the existence of silence based on fear, apathy, prosocial, and
deviance motives will be supported in Study 1. Although never before tested, it
intuitively makes sense that factors (antecedents, outcomes) related to employee silence
9 will vary as a function of the underlying motive. For example, it is likely that antecedents and outcomes of silence based on the motive to protect oneself will be very different from those associated with the motive to cause harm. Similarly, factors associated with silence based on acquiescence are likely very different from those associated with silence based on the desire to be prosocial. This is precisely why it is important to specify the underlying motive when investigating employee silence, and hence the value of the typology of motive-dimensions. If associated factors do not vary according to the underlying motive, then there really is little to be gained by conceptualizing employee silence as a multi-dimensional construct based on different underlying motives. Study 3 will be conducted with a variety of subjects in different field and academic settings. A survey containing the new measures of employee silence developed in Study 2, and various contextual and individual factors will be administered.
Specific hypotheses concerning the relationships between these various contextual and individual factors, and the identified silence-motive dimensions, will be developed and analyzed.
Overall Value-Added
The development of a model of employee silence along with the proposed qualitative and empirical studies should significantly advance our understanding of this complex phenomenon. The model is useful for better understanding the factors and processes involved in the manifestation of employee silence, as well as the specific elements which comprise the construct itself. The systematic determination of motive- based dimensions (Study 1), and subsequent measures based on these dimensions (Study
10 2), will enable much needed empirical research. Study 3, which examines the relationships between various individual and contextual factors, and the different silence- motive dimensions, will provide a practical demonstration of the value in being motive- specific when examining associated factors. In addition to advancing theory relative to specific related factors, Study 3 will also provide further evidence of the construct validity of the newly developed measures.
11 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Background
Although the primary focus of this research is on employee silence, a thorough understanding of this concept requires an examination of how both silence and voice have been examined. While silence is considered significant beyond simply the absence of voice, the two constructs are inexorably related and hence much of the voice literature informs a deeper understanding of silence. Therefore, this literature review focuses on both relevant silence and voice related phenomena.
The breadth of study of silence and voice related concepts both within and outside the organizational sciences is indeed vast. Beginning in the early 1970s and continuing to the present day, a variety of notable concepts have emerged which focused on silence and/or voice from varying perspectives. This section focuses on how silence and voice have been studied in general, as well as how these constructs have been used in specific areas, such as organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior, issue selling, and social ostracism. To assist readers in identifying and differentiating key concepts in the study of silence and voice in organizations, these concepts are summarized in Table
2.1. Specifically, for each of the concepts presented in this table (which are grouped according their voice or silence focus, and then sorted within the two groups by the date of their emergence in the literature), the concept’s primary focus is noted (silence or
12 voice), its direction (upward, lateral, downward, or external), its typical level of analysis
(individual, group, or organization), what the silence or voice is occurring in response to, and a notable definition or description. Following the table a more in-depth review of each concept is provided.
(see Table 2.1 next page)
13 Table 2.1: Notable Concepts in the Study of Silence and Voice Terminology Primary Focus Typical Typical Silence or Voice Notable Definitions/Descriptions Voice/Silence Direction Level of in Response to: Analysis Hirschman (1970) defined employee voice as “any Organizational Change Voice Upward Individual Idea, Need/Improvement attempt at all to change rather than escape from an objectionable state of affairs” (p.30). Procedural justice is focused on the justice of the processes that lead to decision outcomes and is Organizational Justice Voice Upward Individual Fairness concern fostered through granting of voice during decision (Procedural) making or by adherence to fair process criteria (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Learning in organizations occurs at three different Upward Individual Need for information and levels, the individual, the team or group, and the Organizational Learning Voice Lateral Group knowledge sharing among organization. Fundamental to OL is the need for Downward Organization employees information and knowledge sharing among employees (Argyris, 1977). 14 Disclosure by organizational members of perceived Whistle-Blowing Voice External Individual Witnessed wrongdoing organizational wrongdoing to authorities who can take action (Near & Miceli, 1985). “effort by individuals in the workplace to protest Principled Upward Perception of moral wrongs and/or to change the organizational status quo Voice Individual Organizational Dissent External in the workplace because of their conscientious objection to current policy or practice” (Graham, 1986, p. 2) “Issue selling refers to individuals’ behaviors that Attempt to influence Issue Selling to Top are directed toward affecting others' attention to and Voice Upward Individual organizational Management understanding of issues” (Dutton & Ashford, 1993, decision making p. 398). “expressions of dissatisfaction, whether subjectively Upward experienced or not, for the purpose of venting Complaining Voice Lateral Individual Dissatisfaction emotions or achieving intrapsychic goals, or both” Downward (Kowalski, 1996, p. 179) OCB - Voice Focus Upward “promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of (e.g., altruism Lateral constructive challenge intended to improve rather Voice Individual Extra-role improvement dimension, see Smith, Downward than merely criticize” (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, 1983) p.109) Continued
Table 2.1 continued
Terminology Primary Focus Typical Typical Silence or Voice Notable Definitions/Descriptions Voice/Silence Direction Level of in Response to: Analysis Employee Voice A broad term potentially encompassing all of the forms of voice related behaviors reviewed. These Upward various forms of employee speaking-up behaviors Lateral Intentional employee Voice Individual are primarily differentiated by the nature of the Downward expressive behaviors stimulus one is speaking-up in response to, or the External underlying intent of the communication, but all are ostensibly forms of employee voice. Upward The condition in which nearly all members of a Lateral Individual group privately reject group norms yet believe that Pluralistic Ignorance Silence Conformity to social norms Downward Group most of the other group members accept them External (Allport, 1924). Upward The mere perception that other people are also Perceived diminished Diffusion of Lateral Individual witnessing an event will markedly decrease the Silence responsibility to act when Responsibility Downward Group likelihood that an individual will intervene (Latane in large groups External & Darley, 1968). 15 Hirschman (1970) suggested that loyal employees may stay and suffer in silence; confident that things will get better. Farrell (1983) building on the work Response to job Loyalty and Neglect Silence Upward Individual of Hirschman, identified a fourth response to job dissatisfaction dissatisfaction which he labeled neglect which is characterized by apathy, passive disengagement, and silence. Upward A form of thought exhibited by group members who Desire to conform to Lateral try to minimize conflict and reach consensus Groupthink Silence Group perceived thinking of the Downward without critically analyzing, evaluating, and testing group External ideas (Janis, 1972). Individuals’ general reluctance to convey negative The MUM Effect Silence Upward Individual Negative information information because of the discomfort associated with delivering bad news (Conlee & Tesser, 1973). Upward Provides insight into how silence may manifest and Individual Lateral Disagreement with public perpetuate in the conformance to public opinion, Spirals of Silence Silence Group Downward opinion/avoid isolation often due to fear of isolation or self-doubt (Noelle- Organization External Neumann, 1974). Upward Situation where people communicate agreement Individual Desire to conform perceived Abilene Paradox Silence Lateral because they want to conform to the perceived Group wishes of the group Downward wishes or desires of the group (Harvey, 1974). Continued Table 2.1 continued
Terminology Primary Focus Typical Typical Silence or Voice Notable Definitions/Descriptions Voice/Silence Direction Level of in Response to: Analysis OCB - Silence Focus Upward Withholding of work related ideas, information, or (e.g., sportsmanship Lateral opinions with the goal of benefiting other people or Silence Individual Prosocial motives dimension; Organ, Downward the organization - based on altruism or cooperative 1988) External motives (Van Dyne et al., 2003, p. 1368). Organizational failures to Functions as an organizational norm that Deaf Ear Syndrome Silence Upward Individual respond in a positive way to discourages employees’ open and direct expression employees’ complaints of their dissatisfaction (Peirce et al., 1998). The act of being excluded or ignored, commonly Lateral Individual Social Ostracism Silence Exclusionary intent referred to as the “silent treatment” (Williams, Downward Group 2001). Belief that speaking-up is futile, thus compelling the Job Withdrawal Silence Upward Individual Feelings of hopelessness employee into further states of disengagement and withdrawal (see Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Collective-level phenomenon of employees
16 Organizational-wide withholding information, opinions, or concerns Organizational Silence Silence Upward Organization silence norms regarding work-related problems or issues (see Morrison & Milliken, 2000, pp. 706-707). “The withholding of any form of genuine expression about the individual’s behavioral, cognitive and/or Based on fear, apathy, or affective evaluations of his or her organizational Employee Silence Silence Upward Individual prosocial motives circumstance to persons who are perceived to be capable of effecting change or redress” (Pinder & Harlos, 2001, p. 334).
Organizational Change
A central theme with regard to much of the employee voice related research is that it is a behavior intended to bring about some type of improvement. Just what one considers improvement, however, is a matter of perspective. Hirschman (1970) was one of the first scholars to examine the concept of “voice.” He did so in the context of exit, voice, and loyalty. In response to dissatisfaction, customers and organizational members can exercise three options: exit, voice, or loyalty. Some organizational members leave the organization or some customers stop buying the firm’s products: this is the exit option. The firm’s organizational members or customers can also express their dissatisfaction directly to management, or to some other authority to which management is subordinate, or through general protest addressed to anyone who cares to listen: this is the voice option. Hirschman defined employee voice as “any attempt at all to change rather than escape from an objectionable state of affairs, whether through individual or collective petition to the management directly in charge, through appeal to a higher authority with the intention of forcing a change in management, or through various types of actions and protests, including those that are meant to mobilize public opinions”
(p.30). According to Hirschman voice “can be graduated, all the way from a faint grumbling to violent protest; it implies articulation of one’s critical opinions” (p. 16).
Withey and Cooper (1989) suggested that voice is any activity that individuals direct toward improving the situation at work. Banerjee and Somanathan (2001) described organizational voice as the voluntary expression of people’s views to influence organizational actions. LePine and Van Dyne (1998) define voice as “speaking out and challenging the status quo with the intent of improving the situation” (p. 853) and as a
17 “nonrequired behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge with an intent to improve rather than merely criticize” (p.109). As evidenced, there is a significant body of work examining voice as a mechanism for change within organizations.
Organizational Justice
The phenomenon of voice also plays an important role in people’s perceptions of fairness in the workplace. Within the management sciences, employees’ perceptions of fairness have been examined within the context of a body of work referred to as organizational justice. This term was first used by Greenberg (1987) to refer to people’s perceptions of fairness in organizations. Organizational justice has previously been linked to a number of important organizational and employee outcomes including employee theft (Greenberg, 1990a), employee turnover (D. A. Jones & Skarlicki, 2003), organizational citizenship behaviors (Konovsky & Organ, 1996), high quality exchanges between leaders and subordinates (i.e., high LMX; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, &
Taylor, 2000), trust in management (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), withdrawal (Conlon,
Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005), and organizational commitment (Greenberg, 1990b) just to mention a few.
Current thinking is that organizational justice consists of at least three dimensions
(distributive, procedural, and interactional), and possibly four dimensions with interactional justice being separated into the two dimensions of interpersonal and informational justice (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1993b). Distributive justice is focused on the justice of decision outcomes, and is fostered when outcomes are consistent with
18 implicit norms for allocation such as equality, equity, or need (Adams, 1965; Homans,
1961). Procedural justice is focused on the justice of the processes that lead to decision
outcomes, and is fostered through granting of voice during decision making, or by adherence to fair process criteria, such as consistency, lack of bias, correctability, representation, accuracy, and ethicality (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975).
Interactional justice is defined as the interpersonal treatment people receive as procedures are enacted, and is fostered when decision makers treat individuals with respect and sensitivity and explain the rationale for decisions thoroughly. Interpersonal justice refers
to the “respect and sensitivity” aspects of interactional justice, whereas informational
justice refers to the “providing adequate explanations” portion of interactional justice
(Greenberg, 1993b).
One of the most robust findings in organizational justice research is that having a
chance to be heard increases the perception that procedures are fair. This voice effect, as
it is referred to in the procedural justice literature, may make a procedure seem fairer
because the opportunity to be heard gives individuals a chance to influence an outcome.
However, studies have also shown that voice can increase people’s perceptions of
fairness even when they know that they cannot affect the outcome. This is presumably
due to the opportunity to voice signaling to the employee that they are valued by the
organization (see Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990).
Organizational Learning & Knowledge Sharing
Reviews of the organizational learning (OL) literature have noted a tremendous
increase in research interest over the last two decades (see Bapuji & Crossan, 2004).
19 Organizational learning has been linked to many important organizational outcomes such
as the facilitation of innovation (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001), the survival and effectiveness
of acquisitions, diversifications and foreign entries (Barkema, Bell, & Pennings, 1996;
Hayward, 2002), increased customer orientation (Hult, Hurley, Giunipero, & Nichols Jr.,
2000), and the successful implementation of information systems and business process re-engineering (Caron, Jarvenpaa, & Stoddard, 1994; Robey & Sahay, 1996) to mention a few. Although definitions of OL vary, most OL researchers seem to agree that learning in organizations occurs at three different levels: the individual, the team or group, and the organization. While learning must take place at the individual and team level for organizational learning to occur, learning at these levels does not guarantee that organizational learning will result.
Fundamental to OL is the need for information and knowledge sharing among employees. Argyris (1977) noted that the failure of employees to speak to their bosses concerning potential problems at work is a frequent impediment to organizational learning. This type of silence, he contends, keeps organizations from recognizing, correcting, and learning from their mistakes (see also Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison &
Milliken, 2000). Employee willingness to speak-up is critical for learning at the team level as well. Edmondson (2003) proposed that the perceived ease of speaking-up is important for the facilitation of new practices in teams. According to Edmondson, teams whose members speak-up with observations, concerns, and questions are be better able to learn new routines than those in which members are unwilling to say what they are thinking. Voice, in the team context, is integral to experimentation and to building a shared understanding of what works and what does not.
20 A primary difference between individual and organizational learning seems to
reside not only in the process of learning per se, but also in the method by which
knowledge is stored and communicated to other organizational members. Generally
speaking, if individual-level knowledge is going to have wide organizational impact, and
organizational learning is to occur, knowledge must be either transferred or shared (King,
Chung, & Haney, 2008). To these ends, individual knowledge is often stored and transferred through a computer-based knowledge management systems (KMS). The effectiveness of an organizations’ KMS is clearly impacted by the willingness of employees’ to share ideas with other individuals, but it is also impacted by employees’ willingness to share their knowledge with the formal KMS. Therefore, researchers seeking to understand factors which impact employees’ willingness to share information with a KMS will also benefit from much of the employee silence research being done.
Whistle-Blowing
The term “whistle-blowing” gained prominence in the popular vernacular due
largely to the rash of corporate scandals earlier in this decade (i.e., Enron, WorldCom,
Tyco, Adelphia, etc.). This form of employee voice behavior, however, has been the
focus of much research attention dating back over 20 years. Near and Miceli (1985) defined whistle-blowing as disclosure by organizational members of perceived organizational wrongdoing to authorities who can take action. According to LePine and
Van Dyne (1998), voice is distinct from prohibitive behaviors such as whistle-blowing.
Voice, according to LePine and van Dyne is meant to promote positive change in some activity, whereas whistle-blowing is critical and meant to stop a negative activity.
21 Whistle-blowing connotes an ethical dimension relative to some serious transgression,
whereas employee voice is focused primarily on the expression of work-related ideas and
opinions.
Although not “employee voice” in the strict sense as defined by LePine and Van
Dyne (1998), whistle-blowing has recently become the focus much popular and academic attention. Enron employee Sharon Watkins became one of the most well-known examples of corporate whistle-blowing when she exposed former Enron chairman and
CEO Kenneth Lay's very questionable accounting practices in 2002. While examples such as these have gained prominence, corporate codes of ethics have long promoted this form of employee speech. According to Barry (2007), nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies contain explicit language asking employees to speak-up about known ethical lapses, rules violations, or other forms of wrongdoing they may be aware of. Whether or not companies really want employees blowing the whistle, however, is a matter of much debate. In a recent interview, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch states that two words that never seem to go together are “happy” and “whistle-blower,” suggesting that one of the benefits of happy employees is that they are less likely to blow the whistle
(MIT, 2007). Obviously if companies can correct problems before they become public knowledge, there is a potential benefit to the organization, but all too often organizations do not seem to really want to correct these issues, leaving disgruntled employees with no other option than to take the issue public.
22 Principle Organizational Dissent
Another perspective from which employee expressive behavior has been examined
is referred to as principled organizational dissent (POD; Graham, 1986). POD is
concerned with conscientious objection to violations of legal or social norms within an
organization. Graham proposes a typology of principled organizational dissent composed
of six unique forms. Two forms of POD are forms of silent dissent and are primarily
differentiated by whether the individual remains silent and stays with the organization, or
quietly leaves. The four voice-based forms of POD are also differentiated by whether the
individual chooses to stay with the organization or to leave, but are also differentiated by
whether the channel for the expression of voice is internal or external to the organization.
The four voice-based forms include: (a) protest or internal change effort using only
internal channels (internal-stay), (b) explain reasons for resignation in an exit interview
(internal-leave), (c) protest or internal change effort using external pressure (external- stay), and (d) exit with public protest (external-leave). According to Graham, these last
two forms represent types of whistle-blowing behavior.
Issue Selling to Top Management
Another perspective from which employee voice has been examined is the
concept of issue selling to top management. “Issue selling refers to individuals’
behaviors that are directed toward affecting others’ attention to and understanding of
issues” (Dutton & Ashford, 1993, p. 398). Drawing on social problem theory (e.g.,
Schnieder, 1985; M. Spector & Kitsuse, 1977), impression management (e.g., Schlenker,
1980; Tedeschi, 1981), and upward influence (e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980;
23 Mowday, 1978) the authors propose a framework for describing and comparing how issues become strategic in organizational contexts. They contend that middle managers may attempt to direct top management’s attention by providing or concealing important information about issues, by framing the issues in particular ways, and by mobilizing resources and routines that direct top managers’ attention to some issues and not others.
More recently, in an empirical study examining 82 accounts of issues selling,
Dutton, Ashford, O'Neill, and Lawrence (2001) found that successful issue sellers use a variety of techniques to achieve their issue selling objectives, including the use of incremental steps, characterizing their appeal as rational, and tying their issue to other important organizational goals and activities. They involve a wide range of other individuals early on in the issue selling process with particular focus on involving people at their level or above in the organization. Furthermore, they keep their bosses involved in the process and persist in their selling efforts.
Although research on issue selling per se has not generated a tremendous amount of research attention in recent years, the concept is no doubt relevant to the more recent research on employee silence and voice. Particularly interesting, relative to employee silence, will be future research investigating how various situational factors interact with particular issue types to influence employees’ willingness to engage in specific issue selling activities.
Complaining
Kowalski (1996) investigated another form of employee voice which had received surprisingly little research attention: employee complaining. Kowalski defined
24 complaining as “expressions of dissatisfaction, whether subjectively experienced or not,
for the purpose of venting emotions or achieving intrapsychic goals, or both” (1996, p.179). Kowalski presents a model of complaining that describes the theorized relationship between self-focus, perceived utility of complaining, and the actual behavior
of complaining. Kowalski concludes that complaining is a pervasive form of
interpersonal communication that occurs when individuals perceive that the costs
associated with complaining are low, or when dissatisfaction is high. According to
Kowalski, however, not all complaints are expressions of dissatisfaction, satisfied people
may complain to achieve intrapersonal goals such as receiving sympathy or attention.
More recently Kowalski (2002) examined other potential benefits of complaining.
She suggests that complaining enables people to vent, to get their frustrations off their
chest, and subsequently feel better. Furthermore, effort is required to restrain or inhibit
thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Releasing these inhibitions through complaining may
lead to improved physiological and psychological health. Additionally, she contends that
complaining may serve to mitigate other maladaptive outlets for expression which may
manifest when complaining is inhibited. In an empirical study, Kowalski and Cantrell
(2002) found that people who expressed their feelings of dissatisfaction to the individual
with whom they were dissatisfied indicated that they liked that person more, that the
person liked them more, and overall rated the relationship more favorably than did
individuals who expressed their dissatisfaction to a third party or wrote narratives about
it. And finally, she suggests that complaining may represent an important mechanism of
impression management or self-presentation (i.e., behavior used to create and maintain
25 desired images of the self; see Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi,
1981).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB - Voice Focus))
For organizations to function effectively, employees must frequently go beyond the often narrowly defined formal roles of their jobs. These types of extra-role work-related behaviors have been identified and defined in numerous ways, but in general they are prosocial work-related behaviors which are not specified in formal role prescriptions, not recognized by formal reward systems, and not a source of negative consequences when not performed by employees (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
Employee expressive behaviors have frequently been examined as a form of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and related concepts (e.g., extra-role behaviors, organizational spontaneity, prosocial organizational behaviors; Brief &
Motowidlo, 1986; George & Brief, 1992; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Smith, Organ, &
Near, 1983; Van Dyne et al., 2003; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). In fact, “makes innovative suggestions to improve department” was one of the original OCB items derived from the semi-structured interviews conducted by Smith et al. (1983). Smith and colleagues proposed two dimensions of OCB: altruism, which appears to assess behavior that is directly and intentionally meant to help a specific person in face-to-face situations, and generalized compliance, which refers to a more impersonal form of conscientiousness which is beneficial to general organizational systems. Their factor- analytic study found this voice-related item to have a .76 loading on the altruism dimension, and only a .08 loading on the generalized compliance dimension. Since this
26 earlier work by Smith and colleagues, OCB and related concepts have been the focus of
hundreds of research studies with numerous sub-dimensions of these behaviors being
identified (for one review see: Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). A
common theme from across these various studies is that employee expressive behaviors are integral to the conceptualization and operationalization of OCB and related constructs. Moreover, voice and related behaviors are specified in many OCB measurement items, for example:
“Makes innovative suggestions to improve department” (altruism dimension;
Smith et al., 1983).
“Passes along information to co-workers” (OCB-Individual dimension; L. J.
Williams & Anderson, 1991).
“Frequently communicates to co-workers suggestions on how the group can
improve” (individual initiative dimension; Moorman & Blakely, 1995).
“Encourages hesitant or quiet co-workers to voice their opinions when they
otherwise might not speak up” (loyal boosterism dimension; Moorman &
Blakely, 1995).
“Often motivates others to express their ideas and opinions” (individual initiative
dimension; Moorman & Blakely, 1995).
“Defends the organization when other employees criticize it” (loyal boosterism
dimension; Moorman & Blakely, 1995).
“Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization” (OCB-Other
dimension; Lee & Allen, 2002).
27 Although the domain of what one considers “voice” is debatable, a specific form of voice, defined as “promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize” (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, p.109), has been examined as a distinct form of prosocial behavior. Van Dyne and
LePine (1998) presented evidence for the distinctiveness of voice and found initial construct validity support for a 6-item measure of voice behavior. They found that supervisors, employees, and peers distinguished in-role from extra-role behavior and also differentiated between helping and voice. Employing multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, they demonstrated that their three-factor model of in-role, helping, and voice behavior was fairly stable over time and across raters.
In addition to forms of voice being conceptualized and measured as a form of
OCB, prosocial reasons have recently been suggested as one of the core-underlying motives for employee voice. Considering that so much of the previous OCB research has included voice related behaviors as a form of OCB behavior, this conclusion is a natural extension. In a more recent conceptual examination, Van Dyne et al. (2003) proposed three dimensions of employee voice and employee silence. Building on earlier work of
Pinder and Harlos (2001), Van Dyne and colleagues proposed prosocial motives for both silence and voice in addition to quiescence, and acquiescence motives previously proposed by Pinder and Harlos.
Employee Voice
From the preceding review it is evident that employee communicative behaviors have been examined from many perspectives, with various terminologies used depending
28 on the specific form of voice related activity. Accordingly, the term “employee voice”
has been used to describe a variety of forms of employee expression. Employee voice has been defined as employees’ response to job dissatisfaction (see Gorden, 1988;
Hirschman, 1970). More recently, Van Dyne and LePine (1998) defined employee voice as “promotive behavior that emphasizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize” (p. 109). According to LePine and Van Dyne
(1998) employee voice is distinguishable from affiliative behavior (e.g., helping) generally associated with organizational citizenship (Smith et al., 1983) or contextual performance (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) because affiliative behavior is intended to maintain or improve relationships, whereas voice is challenging and may upset interpersonal relationships. These authors also contend that voice is distinct from prohibitive behaviors such as whistle-blowing (e.g., Near & Miceli,
1985), because whistle-blowing is meant to stop some activity whereas voice is intended to improve a situation.
Others have employed broader conceptualizations of employee voice. For example, Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, and Ackers (2004) consider employee voice to include four distinct expressive activates: (a) the articulation of individual dissatisfaction (this is similar to Hirschman’s 1970 view of voice); (b) the expression of collective organization, where voice presents a countervailing basis of power to management, often through unionization and collective bargaining activities; (c) as a form of contribution to management decision-making, similar to the conceptualization offered by LePine and Van Dyne (1998) where the purpose is concerned with
29 improvements in work activities; and (d) as a demonstration of mutuality and cooperative
relations intended to achieve long-term viability for the organization and its employees.
Clearly, the precise meaning of the term employee voice remains open to debate.
In practice, it can take a variety of forms, and the extant literature has by and large
reflected this diversity. All of the forms of voice related behaviors discussed above may
be considered forms of employee voice, in that they are all forms of employee speaking-
up behavior and are primarily differentiated by the nature of the stimulus one is speaking- up in response to, or the underlying intent of the communication. As is the case in many scientific fields, various constructs sharing a high degree of conceptual overlap are often given distinct labels and hence studied by distinct groups of researchers who often take decidedly different theoretical approaches and/or employ different research methodologies.
Pluralistic Ignorance
Floyd Allport (1924; Katz & Allport, 1931) developed the term pluralistic
ignorance to describe the condition in which nearly all members of a group privately
reject group norms yet believe that most of the other group members accept them.
Allport introduced the concept of pluralistic ignorance to help explain situations of
widespread conformity to social norms in the absence of widespread private support.
Although pluralistic ignorance is not in and of itself employee silence or voice, it may
provide an explanation for why employees choose to remain silent in certain situations.
Pluralistic ignorance as described by Miller and McFarland (1987, 1991)
represents a situation in which people witness others behaving similarly to themselves,
30 but believe that the very same behaviors are a sign of different underlying attitudes or
feelings. Pluralistic ignorance occurs when people hide their true feelings and beliefs out
of a fear of embarrassment or social disapproval.
Diffusion of Responsibility
Latane and Darley (1968), in an investigation of bystander intervention in emergency situations, demonstrated that a primary reason for remaining silent was due to
“diffusion of responsibility.” According to Latane and Darley, if an individual is alone when he notices an emergency, he is solely accountable for coping with it. If he believes others are also present, he may feel that his own responsibility for taking action is
reduced, making him less likely to help. An infamous example of this phenomenon is the
case of the Kitty Genovese murder in New York City in 1964 when 38 people witnessed
a killing from their individual apartments without acting. Presumably, because the
witnesses could also see other people witnessing the crime, they all felt that someone else
would act, and therefore no one acted to help her. Although “diffusion of responsibility”
has not received much attention in the recent employee silence literature, it is certainly
feasible that it is a common cause of silence within organizations and therefore deserving
of further examination.
Loyalty and Neglect (exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect)
Hirschman (1970) introduced exit, voice and loyalty as behavioral responses to
organizational members’ dissatisfaction. Specifically, he proposed that high loyalty
would be associated with voice, and that low levels of loyalty associated with exit.
31 Although Hirschman proposed that loyal employees would speak-up concerning their
dissatisfactions, and disloyal employees would exit, he paradoxically framed silence
under loyalty, suggesting that loyal employees may also stay and suffer in silence,
confident that things will get better. By subsuming silence under loyalty, Hirschman inadvertently created confusion between these concepts (Pinder & Harlos, 2001).
Building on the earlier work of Hirschman and later work of Rusbult, Zembrodt, and
Gunn (1982), Farrell (1983) identified a fourth response to job dissatisfaction which he
labeled “neglect,” characterized as apathy and passive disengagement. Since then the
organizational sciences have by and large continued to equate silence with loyalty, neglect, inaction, or the maintenance of the status quo; with the idea that silence might be
meaningful beyond passive endorsement, with distinct cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements generally disregarded (see Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Rousseau, 1995a).
The MUM Effect
Another perspective from which silence has been examined was termed the MUM
effect (keeping Mum about Undesirable Messages) by Rosen and Tesser (1970, p. 254).
The MUM effect describes individuals’ general reluctance to convey negative information because of the discomfort associated with delivering bad news (Conlee &
Tesser, 1973), and has been identified as one possible explanation for why employees fail to speak-up about problems in the workplace (Milliken et al., 2003). Researchers have observed that this reluctance to communicate bad news may result from many factors, including fear of harming one’s relationship with recipients (Morran, Stockton, & Bond,
1991), and the guilt associated with not sharing recipients’ misfortune (Tesser & Rosen,
32 1972). In the workplace, differences in status and power appear to intensify the MUM
effect. Many studies have found that employees feel particularly uncomfortable reporting
concerns about potential problems or wrongdoing to their superiors as opposed to their
colleagues or subordinates, and withhold or distort information in order to reduce its
negative effects (e.g., Read, 1962; Roberts & O'Reilly, 1974). This effect is not entirely
limited to upward communication, however, as leaders also avoid or delay providing
feedback to poor performers (e.g., Benedict & Levine, 1988; Ilgen & Knowlton, 1980).
Groupthink
Groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ desires for unanimity override their motivation to pragmatically appraise alternative courses of action (Janis, 1972).
Groupthink has been attributed to notably infamous incidents in history such as the
failure to heed warnings resulting in the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S.
military disaster regarding the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and both the Challenger and
Columbia space shuttle disasters (among countless others; see Vaughan, 2006).
Groupthink, may itself not be a form of employee silence, but is certainly a significant
cause of silence in organizations and therefore warrants acknowledgement in this review.
How the symptoms of groupthink, and recommendations for preventing groupthink,
proposed by Janis and Mann (1977) relate to the various dimension of employee silence
promises to be an interesting topic of future research.
33 Spirals of Silence
The spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1974) provides insight into how silence may manifest and perpetuate in the conformance to public opinion. According to Noelle-
Neumann, individuals often remain silent in situations of weak public support, often due to fear of isolation or self-doubt. In these situations, people will frequently be reluctant to speak-up which further strengthens the perception of weak public support for their position. According to the theory, this cycle may progress into a spiral of increasing silence relative to a given issue. In situations where public support seems strong, however, people will disclose their views with greater confidence and less fear. The spiral of silence theory has been applied in many situations in an attempt to identify the effect of fear of isolation on people’s willingness to voice their opinions (e.g., Donsbach
& Stevenson, 1984, May; Glynn & McLeod, 1984; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Salmon &
Oshagan, 1990). The findings, however, have been largely inconsistent (Glynn, Hayes,
& Shanahan, 1997; Salmon & Glynn, 1996). Taylor (1982) attributed this inconsistency to the theory’s overestimation of the power of fear of isolation in influencing an individual’s willingness to express opinions, while not adequately accounting for other possible factors such as the benefit of opinion expression.
More recently, and quite interestingly, Neuwirth, Frederick, and Mayo (2007) attributed these previously weak or inconsistent results to the fact that speaking out and not speaking out have generally been treated as binary opposites. According to Neuwirth and colleagues, the spiral of silence theory predicts not speaking out, yet past research has measured speaking out. The results of their study suggest that it is not sufficient to conceptualize not speaking out as the opposite of speaking out. They contend that not
34 speaking out has distinct predictors and clearly is multidimensional, in the sense that people can be silent or they can engage in verbal behaviors (lying and neutral comments) that are designed to mislead. This suggests that previous research, which has used speaking out a main criterion variable, may be incomplete.
Conceptually, however, the idea that silence may be infectious has important implications for organizations. Bowen and Blackmon (2003) examined the idea of contagion relative to employee silence. In their research on vertical spirals of silence, they propose that silence may also spread across issues, whereby a decision to remain silent about one issue may result in an increased likelihood to remain silent concerning other issues. They contend that silence about issues of personal significance may spread because it will weaken the strength of the ties an individual has with other members of the organization. These weakened ties contribute to a deterioration of trust and a subsequent willingness to speak out on other issues.
Abilene Paradox
Harvey (1974) investigated a phenomenon wherein a group of people collectively choose a course of action that is in contrast to the preferences of any of the individuals in the group. He termed this phenomenon the “Abilene Paradox”. It entails a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are in contrast to the group’s and, therefore, does not raise objections.
This type of phenomenon has elements of both voice and silence: Voice in the sense that people are speaking up by falsely consenting to the perceived wishes of the group; silence in the sense that they are remaining silent concerning their true feelings. Furthermore,
35 the underlying psychological processes described in the Abilene Paradox are conceptually related to the previously discussed phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance
(Allport, 1924), and likewise a possible reason for employee silence.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB - Silence Focus)
Judging from much of the previous research on silence it is easy to reach the conclusion that it is principally a negative phenomenon. This especially seems to be the case concerning research focused on organizational contexts. Within the organizational sciences much has been written about the positive effects of voice and the negative effects of an absence of voice. There are, however, situations where remaining silent may have positive consequences for an organization or its members. To a limited extent, the positive effects of silence have been recognized in research focused on the broader phenomenon of OCB. For example, Organ (1988) developed a taxonomy of OCB that included altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue.
Measures commonly used to assess the sportsmanship dimension include the items, “Is the classic ‘squeaky wheel’ that always needs greasing” (item reverse scored), and
“Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters” (item reverse scored;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Considering that these items represent only a small portion of the broader overall measure of this particular OCB dimension, their overall impact on associated effect sizes is unclear.
More recently Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) expanded on the previous dimensions of employee silence developed by Pinder and Harlos (acquiescence and quiescence, 2001) by suggesting that employee silence may also arise due to underlying
36 prosocial motives. Van Dyne and colleagues define prosocial silence as withholding of
work related ideas, information, or opinions with the goal of benefiting other people or the organization - based on altruism or cooperative motives (p. 1368). They offer several examples of the possible manifestations of this form of silence such as protecting proprietary knowledge, withholding information because it is confidential and not meant
for general discussion or distribution – such as not revealing insider information to
outsiders, not communicating personal information about others inappropriately, and not
breaking confidences.
It is not hard to imagine a variety of situations where an employee may intentionally remain silent as a means of benefiting their organization or fellow employees. Considering that previously developed OCB measures have only included a
small subset of the possible forms of prosocial silence as specific measurement items, this phenomenon has largely eluded empirical investigation. Considerably more conceptual and empirical work is needed to begin to understand the potentially wide ranging implications of this phenomenon.
Deaf Ear Syndrome
Another organizational level factor that may lead to reluctance to speak-up on the part of employees is related to organizational failures to respond in a positive way to employees’ harassment complaints. Termed the deaf ear syndrome by Peirce, Smolinski
& Rosen (1998), this phenomenon functions as an organizational norm that discourages
employees’ open and direct expression of their dissatisfaction. Based on a review of the
literature, recent media examples, and interviews conducted with attorneys who
37 specialize in sexual harassment, Peirce and colleagues identified three themes associated
with the deaf ear syndrome: (1) inadequate organizational policies (e.g., cumbersome or
unclear reporting procedures); (2) managerial rationalizations and reactions (e.g., denying
the claims, blaming the victim, minimizing the seriousness of the offense, protecting a valued employee, ignoring a chronic harasser, retaliating against the victim); and (3) organizational characteristics (e.g., family owned businesses, small firms with minimal human resource functions, rural locations, male-dominated industries).
More recently, research conducted by Harlos (2001) further elaborated on the deaf
ear syndrome, expanding it beyond the domain of sexual harassment. She concluded that some voice systems (formalized systems for reporting complaints) may actually be contributing to the phenomenon they are intended to prevent, exacerbating employees’
perceptions of unfairness, discontent, and frustration. This appears to be due in part to
the presence of a voice system raising expectations that the organization is committed to
taking complaints seriously. When this does not happen in accord with expectations, a
perceived violation of the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995b) may occur. That is,
when implicit assurances to take complaints seriously appear violated, negative feelings
about the employment relationship may result. According to Harlos, her research
findings confirm the importance of safety, credibility, accessibility, and timeliness as key
attributes of effective voice systems.
Social Ostracism
Social ostracism, often referred to as "the silent treatment" is both a group and
interpersonal phenomenon. The “silent treatment” however, represents just one of many
38 potential forms of ostracism such as solitary confinement or banishment (K. D. Williams,
2001). It is possible to view social ostracism as either a form of employee silence (i.e.
giving someone the silent treatment at work), or as a distinct construct which has the
potential to lead to silence (i.e., an individual may remain silent due to the fear of being ostracized). Both social ostracism and silence have rich research histories, but only recently have they begun to receive significant attention within the organizational sciences. Outside of the organizational sciences, the study of ostracism has often drawn on the concept of silence (e.g. the silent treatment) as a component of ostracism. The silent treatment, however, is conceptually distinct from employee silence as frequently defined in the organizational sciences literature (e.g., the intentional withholding of concerns, information or opinions by employees concerning issues relating to their job or organization; see Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2005). Additionally, research focusing on employee silence within the organizational sciences has recognized that fear of ostracism may affect employees’ willingness to voice (see Bowen & Blackmon, 2003; Cortina &
Magley, 2003), but this research also views ostracism and employee silence as distinct, albeit related, concepts.
Regardless of how it is categorized, there is little doubt that social ostracism is an existent phenomenon, with wide ranging implications for employee behavior. As a group phenomenon, ostracism has been used to enhance group cohesiveness by motivating marginalized members to leave the group, or to correct their behavior to regain acceptance by the group (K. D. Williams, Shore, & Grahe, 1998). At an interpersonal level, ostracism may be considered a power tactic often used as a form of interpersonal manipulation or as a means of retaliation. In fact, in a series of studies designed to
39 investigate the use of ostracism as a retaliatory tactic against whistle-blowers, Williams
(2001) found that 100% of the sample reported that they experienced ostracism after
blowing the whistle, and that on average the ostracism lasted for nearly three years.
Therefore, considering the widespread prevalence of social ostracism in the workplace,
and its inherent relationship to employee silence, there is little doubt that future research
on employee silence can benefit significantly from a deeper understanding of social
ostracism.
Job Withdrawal
A variety of behaviors and behavioral intentions are frequently subsumed under the heading of “job withdrawal.” These various behavioral phenomena, for example,
include employee turnover, absenteeism, neglect, disengagement, and more recently,
employee silence (e.g., Conlon et al., 2005; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Hirschman, 1970;
Molseed, 1989; Mowday & Spencer, 1981; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; K. D. Scott & Taylor,
1985; Swindall, 2007; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Accordingly, employee silence is
becoming more widely recognized as a form of job withdrawal (see Conlon et al., 2005), but it is a form of withdrawal that has not typically been examined in job withdrawal studies. Additionally, based on other research (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 2003), withdrawal
is seemingly only one form of employee silence, as silence may occur for reasons not necessarily related to withdrawal intentions (e.g., fear of retaliation or prosocial motives).
Since Pinder and Harlos’ (2001) examination of different underlying motives for
employee silence and voice, the organizational sciences have begun to recognize that
silence may itself be a form of withdrawal (see Conlon et al., 2005), as well as being a
40 precursor to other forms of employee withdrawal, such as absenteeism or turnover (see
Morrison & Milliken, 2000). One aspect of the acquiescent silence described by Pinder
and Harlos is that an employee has given up hope for improving an unsatisfactory situation or circumstance. This feeling of hopelessness may lead to an employee
suffering in silence, feeling that speaking-up is futile, thus compelling the employee into
further states of disengagement and withdrawal.
Consistent with the idea that silence often implies more than simply acceptance of
the status quo, Parker and August (1997) proposed that some dissatisfied employees
combine silence with exit to quit quietly in what they termed “principled turnover.”
Other studies have also found a relationship between employee expressive behaviors, or lack there of, and intentions to quit, but the nature of this relationship seems to depend on
the form of expression. For example, Olson-Buchanan and Boswell (2002) found that
more loyal employees may prefer and use less formal methods to voice discontent and
that the use of less formal voice methods relates to less job search activity and lower
intent to quit. Consistent with previous research on grievance procedures, they also
found that the use of formal voice systems may actually positively predict withdrawal
behavior. This is seemingly based on a lack of satisfaction and/or possible reprisal associated with the use of formal grievance systems.
Although there is much left to learn about the role of silence in employee withdrawal and withdrawal related behaviors (e.g., disengagement), the previous research has revealed that people may remain silent as a means of disengaging from work.
Additionally, this previous work has also shown that when employees stop voicing concerns, it may only be a matter of time before they choose to leave the organization.
41
Organizational Silence
As previously discussed, employee speaking-up behavior has been examined from many different points of view. However, the recognition that silence may have meanings and implications beyond those associated with simply an absence of voice was generally not acknowledged within the organizational sciences until the influential work of
Morrison and Milliken (2000). Morrison and Milliken coined the term Organizational
Silence to describe the collective-level phenomenon of employees withholding information, opinions, or concerns regarding work-related problems or issues (pp. 706-
707). According to Morrison and Milliken, there are two important differentiating characteristics of organizational silence compared to previous investigations of silence and voice related phenomena. First, organizational silence, as they proposed, is focused on collective-level dynamics. Whereas most previous investigations of silence and voice- related phenomena generally focused on individual-level antecedents and outcomes, organizational silence is more concerned with factors contributing to organizational-wide silence norms. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the focus of Morrison and
Milliken’s organizational silence was on why employees intentionally choose to remain silent, rather than on why they do not choose to speak-up. Although subtle, this is an important distinction which has served as a catalyst for subsequent research (e.g., Pinder
& Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003) which has recognized that employee silence and voice should be treated as distinct constructs and not simply binary opposites.
42 Employee Silence
Shortly after Morrison and Milliken’s (2000) work on organizational silence, the related concept of employee silence began to appear in the organizational sciences’ vernacular. Pinder and Harlos (2001) define employee silence as “the withholding of any form of genuine expression about the individual’s behavioral, cognitive and/or affective evaluations of his or her organizational circumstance to persons who are perceived to be capable of effecting change or redress” (p. 334). Whereas organizational silence was viewed primarily as an organizational level phenomenon, the focus of employee silence was primarily at the individual level of analysis (see Pinder & Harlos, 2001). It is important to note, however, that employee silence can develop into team and organizational level phenomena, and that the terms employee silence and organizational silence have been used interchangeably at higher levels of analysis. Given the nascent stage of this research, many of these naming conventions have yet to be completely reconciled.
Pinder and Harlos (2001) also conceptualized silence as meaningful beyond simply the absence of voice, often being a form of communication in itself, involving a range of cognitions, emotions, or intentions such as objection or endorsement.
Additionally, they recognized that the phenomenon of employee silence may take on different meanings depending on its underlying motives. Building on this idea, they conceptualized employee silence as a multidimensional construct based on what they termed “quiescence” and “acquiescence” motives. An important boundary condition relative to the conceptualization offered by Pinder and Harlos was that the silence was taking place in response to a perceived injustice.
43 Since the work of Pinder and Harlos, there has been a significant increase in research focused on the construct of employee silence. The boundary constraint limiting its conceptualization to a response to an injustice has been broadened, with most researchers now recognizing that employee silence may manifest in response to a wide
variety of situational stimuli. The list of proposed underlying motives has also been
expanded. For example, Van Dyne et al. (2003) proposed that employee silence may
occur based on prosocial motives in addition to quiescent and acquiescent motives.
Similarly, Greenberg and colleagues (2007) added malicious intent to the list of possible
motives for employee silence.
In addition to this relatively recent conceptual work on employee silence, there
have been prior notable attempts to empirically investigate the phenomenon, but the
assessment instruments have either not been validated, or are actually assessing something other than employee silence as currently conceptualized. For example,
Burgoon (1976) developed the “unwillingness-to-communicate” scale which is conceptually related to employee silence. Items from Burgoon’s scale include, “I am afraid to express myself in a group,” “Talking to other people is just a waste of time,” and
“I feel nervous when I have to speak to others.” Interestingly, these items roughly align
with dimensions similar to those proposed in the recent literature, but this measure
combines them all together along with other items which are assessing a construct that is
conceptually distinct from employee silence (e.g., “I don’t think my friends are honest with me”). Van Dyne et al. (2003) proposed measures of employee silence based on the underlying motives of acquiescence, to self protect, and to be prosocial. Their measures, however, are based on motives that have not been empirically substantiated, rely on third
44 party interpretation, and have not been subject to reliability or validity analysis. Vakola and Bouradas (2005) developed a five item measure of employee silence behavior, but their measures are limited to expression of disagreements and perceptions of attitudes toward silence. These measures do not assess the extent to which employees are intentionally silent based on various underlying motives. Therefore, it is clear from the
shortcomings of these previous attempts to empirically examine silence in the workplace
that much more work is needed.
Literature Summary
As evidenced from the preceding review, one could easily write an entire
dissertation on the history of the study of silence and voice. Furthermore, in addition to
the study of silence and voice within the organizational sciences, the fields of sociology,
anthropology, psychology, communication, and linguistics offer a multitude of additional
definitional and conceptual perspectives which goes far beyond what is relevant for
enhancing our understanding of employee silence (see Basso, 1970; Bruneau, 1973;
Ganguly, 1968; Jensen, 1973; E. Kahn, 1958; Malisoff, 1944; Sontag, 1966).
However, a common theme from these disparate literatures is that silence is
meaningful beyond simply the absence of speaking-up. Moreover, since the influential work of Morrison and Milliken (2000) and subsequent work of Pinder and Harlos (2001), the organizational sciences have seen a marked increase in interest in employee silence.
This is evidenced by a special issue of the Journal of Management Studies published in
2003, and a forthcoming book Voice and Silence in Organizations edited by Jerald
Greenberg and Marissa Edwards (2009). And although most of the research published
45 since the work of Morrison and Milliken considers silence meaningful beyond the absence of voice, there has been little accomplished in the way of construct development, operationalization, or empirical research.
In the next two sections I discuss definitional and boundary issues pertaining to the construct of employee silence in order to effectively frame the qualitative and empirical studies that follow.
Definition
A clear definition is necessary for model development, understanding dimensionality, and developing valid measures. Within the organizational sciences, the terms employee silence and organizational silence have been used to describe the phenomenon in question (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Although definitions vary, there is a consensus that employee silence entails the intentional withholding of questions, ideas, concerns, information or opinions by employees concerning issues relating to their job and organization (Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2005). However, much is left unspecified in these general definitions.
Issues such as target of silence, communication channel or medium, and the nature of the stimulus one is silent in response to, are addressed in detail in the boundary conditions section.
The term organizational silence, although conceptually similar to employee silence, has generally been used to describe a collective level phenomenon of employees withholding information (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Employee silence, on the other hand, has generally focused on the individual level of analysis. It is important to note,
46 however, that employee silence can develop into team and organizational level phenomena, and that the terms employee silence and organizational silence have been used interchangeably at higher levels of analysis. It is employee silence (silence at the individual level of analysis) which is the focus of this research, although many of the findings will likely be informative for the study of silence at the organizational level as well.
Morrison and Milliken (2000) refer to organizational silence as a collective-level phenomenon consisting of powerful forces that cause widespread withholding of information by employees concerning potential problems and issues. Pinder and Harlos
(2001) define employee silence as “the withholding of any form of genuine expression about the individual’s behavioral, cognitive and/or affective evaluations of his or her organizational circumstance to persons who are perceived to be capable of effecting change or redress” (p. 334). They also recognized silence can be a form of communication in itself, involving a range of cognitions, emotions, or intentions such as objection or endorsement. Bowen & Blackmon (2003) refer to organizational silence as the opposite of voice, and occurs when people cannot contribute freely to organizational discourse. Much of the recent interest in silence within the organizational sciences has been directed at a particular kind of silence — namely silence that is a manifestation of a reluctance to speak-up about an issue that is important, but is perceived as too risky to speak about (Milliken & Morrison, 2003).
Although typically not the case with the general definitions of employee silence previously mentioned, definitions of specific forms of silence are frequently combined with their underlying motive. This becomes apparent when examining definitions of
47 silence based on the various forms or dimensions of silence as proposed by Pinder and
Harlos (2001) and Van Dyne et al. (2003). For example, Van Dyne’s et al. (2003)
definition of acquiescent silence, “the withholding relevant ideas, information, or
opinions, based on resignation” (p. 1366), clearly combines the behavior (being silent)
with the rationale or emotion.
Considering that a primary purpose of this research is to explore the various dimensions of employee silence, the adoption of a relatively broad and inclusive
definition of employee silence is most appropriate. The conceptualization offered by
Tangirala and Ramanujam (2005) meets this requirement. Consistent with Tangirala and
Ramanujam, I define employee silence as the intentional withholding of concerns,
information, or opinions by employees concerning important situations, issues, or events
relating to their job or organization. There are several noteworthy features of this
definition. The type of information withheld can be in the form of objective data, or
more subjective forms such as concerns or opinions. This definition is relatively non-
restrictive pertaining to what the employee is silent in response to, the target of the
silence, the direction of silence, or the communication medium. Moreover, for silence to
be considered employee silence, it must be intentional, with the presupposition of an
underlying silence-motive driving the formation of the intention. Also implicit in this
definition is a desire to speak-up about the important situation, issue, or event. It is only
when an employee encounters an important situation, issue, or event, which on some
level they would like to speak-up about, that employee silence becomes salient and
meaningful. Also integral to this definition is a behavioral element. That is, the person
must actually engage in the behavior of remaining silent in order for employee silence to
48 be manifest. A person who is motivated to avoid the risks associated with speaking-up, and who intends to be silent as a way of avoiding these risks, is not engaging in employee silence if they do not actually remain silent.
Boundary Conditions
“Among the few empirical studies explicitly examining employee silence, weak construct validity of relevant measures is often a problem because of failures to come to grips with the boundaries of the construct itself” (Pinder & Harlos, 2001, p. 338). As noted by Pinder and Harlos, “coming to grips” with what constitutes the boundaries of employee silence can be quite confusing. From the preceding review of the definitions and conceptualizations of employee silence, it is clear that for the behavior in question to be considered a form of employee silence, there must be an intention to remain silent in reaction to some event and toward some specific other (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, etc.). Beyond these factors, however, what does and does not constitute employee silence is largely a function of the situation or research question. For example, if the purpose of the study is to investigate silence in response to a perceived injustice, then a boundary condition is that silence is manifest in response to a perceived injustice.
Given the nascent stage of the research on employee silence and that a primary purpose of this research is to investigate the dimensionality and develop measures of this phenomenon, it is preferable to initially adopt a broad perspective relative to what constitutes employee silence. However, considering the potential for confusion relative to what does, and does not, constitute the domain of employee silence, a review of some of the more conspicuous boundary considerations is warranted.
49
Natural Pauses in Human Discourse
Pauses in interpersonal communication (termed “inter-turn” silence) have been discussed by a number of scholars. Jefferson (1973) provides evidence to suggest that
inter-turn silences of greater than 1.5 seconds may lead to a perception of conversational
dysfluency in North American verbal interaction. This type of “inter-turn” silence is
conceptually different than the employee silence under investigation in the present
research. Sobkowiak (1997) differentiated between acoustic silence (i.e., sound-based) and pragmatic silence (i.e., speech-related). Acoustic silence is indicative of the absence of sound waves, whereas pragmatic silence reflects an absence of speech for instrumental or strategic purposes. For the purposes of this research, silence of the pragmatic variety is of primary interest since its focus is on the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of silence from a human perspective, rather than the mere physical absence of sound waves, as is acoustic silence.
Silence in Response to What?
Previous research has looked at various motives for employee silence such as
fear, apathy, and desire to help, but silence is also generally associated with a discrete
stimuli (voice opportunity), or aspect of the organization’s culture or climate. For
example, Pinder and Harlos (2001) examine employee silence as a response to a perceived organizational injustice, however, they do acknowledge that silence may
manifest for other reasons, such as for strategic reasons intended to impact others.
Noelle-Neumann (1974, 1977, 1991) examined silence in response to the perceived level
50 of public support. Morrison and Milliken (2000) examine employee silence relative to organizational problems and climate factors. Employee silence has often been examined
in response to a serious organizational wrongdoing (see Miceli & Near, 1989).
As noted in the definition of employee silence, it is remaining silent concerning
important situations, issues, or events relating to their job or organization, which
constitutes the boundary of silence in response to what? That is, as long as the individual is remaining silent in response to an important situation, issue, or event relating to their job or organization, it can be considered a form of employee silence. Important situations, issues, or events may include ideas for improvement, the realization of a
potential threat to an employee or the organization, or any number of other stimuli.
Depending on the specific research question, future inquiries may specify the nature of
the incident a person is remaining silent in response to, but for the purpose of this
exploratory study, no such boundary constraint is imposed beyond those explicitly stated
in the definition.
Target of Employee Silence
Much of the recent attention on employee silence within the organizational
sciences has been focused on upward communication; that is, communication from a
subordinate upward to a supervisor or some other target at a higher level within the
organization (e.g., Milliken et al., 2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Pinder and Harlos
(2001) loosened this constraint by indicating a target of silence as “persons who are
perceived to be capable of effecting change or redress” (p. 334). Considering the
importance of information flow both vertically and horizontally within organizations,
51 especially in light of flattening hierarchical structures and the emergence of
“boundaryless” organizations (Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick, & Kerr, 1998), it is important to
conceptualize employee silence beyond the confines of upward communication. For the
present research, employee silence may be directed at a supervisor, upper management,
team member, co-worker, or even a subordinate if that person is perceived as important relative to the issue at hand. Employee silence may also be directed at broader targets such as a workgroup, team, department, or the entire organization. It can also be directed at targets outside the organization such as customers, suppliers, the press, or the general public. The only requirement is that the target is relevant to an important work related issue or event.
Communication Medium as a Boundary Condition of Employee Silence
Although most conceptualizations of employee silence infer a face-to-face (FTF)
interaction, this does not have to be the case. Employee silence can occur in as wide an
array of communication media as communication itself can occur. This is consistent with
Pinder and Harlos (2001), who note that that silence can be broken by any or all of a
range of communicative media or acts. Behaviorally, employee silence can be an
intentional withholding of information via e-mail, written letter, voice mail, or any other
form of communication, if one of those formats would be the typical or appropriate
medium for conveying information. It may be that there are factors that promote silence
with one type of communication medium that do not play a role in another. For example, apprehension about the use of technology may contribute to an individual remaining silent in a computer mediated communication (CMC) context, but this same individual
52 may be more than willing to speak-up in a FTF interaction (C. R. Scott & Rockwell,
1997). Individuals high in the ability to mange the impressions that others have of them may prefer to communicate FTF rather than by phone or CMC as the FTF context may give them a better opportunity to use their impression management skills (e.g., Chapman,
Uggerslev, & Webster, 2003). Conventional management wisdom, as well as CMC research, indicates that certain types of tasks are more appropriately handled with certain types of technology. Tasks that are of a highly personal or sensitive nature, such as terminating an employee or conflict resolution, are better done FTF than with an e-mail or over the phone (Maruping & Agarwal, 2004). The converse of this is also true.
Research on internet use and “flaming” has shown that under certain circumstances, individuals are more willing to express themselves in CMC rather than FTF contexts
(Kiesler & Sproull, 1992). In situations such as these an individual may remain silent with one type of communication medium, but will be willing to speak out when they have the opportunity to use their preferred communication method. The main point is that the form of communication (e.g., e-mail, phone, written letter, etc.) is not limiting relative to what can be considered a form of employee silence. That is, employee silence is the intentional withholding of concerns, information or opinions by employees concerning issues relating to their job or organization, regardless of the communication medium. If an individual could or should communicate via any of these methods, but intentionally does not, then it falls under the domain of employee silence.
53 Temporality as a Boundary Condition of Employee Silence
As previously discussed silence can take many forms from complete, everlasting silence, with any number of possible meanings, to pauses that are a normal part of everyday speech. For silence to be considered a form of employee silence, there is little guidance in the extant literature specifying that it must be maintained for a specific period of time. However, this is not to say that there is not a temporal aspect of employee silence. In this sense, the temporal factor of employee silence is a boundary condition in that silence must be maintained long enough to represent an intentional withholding of information, concerns, or opinions. In some contexts this may be as short as a few seconds, or in other contexts it may be days, weeks, or even longer. For example, an air traffic controller who remains silent for a few seconds because she doesn’t want to aggravate her supervisor, but whose reluctance to speak out nearly causes a tragic accident, is engaging in employee silence. On the other hand, employees who are working on longer term projects may wait days or weeks to respond to a coworker’s inquiry, but because this is not violating the norm for that context it would not be considered employee silence. From a temporal perspective, what constitutes employee silence is fundamentally context-dependent. Remaining silent for a few seconds in one context may represent employee silence, whereas in another context remaining silent for much longer periods of time may not constitute employee silence.
Formal vs. Informal Communication Channels
The type of communication channel also represents a potential boundary condition of employee silence. Within organizations communication can take place via
54 both formal and informal communication channels, therefore employee silence may also
take place via both formal and informal channels. Informal communication usually does
not follow the organizational chart and tends to be more personal, whereas formal
communication is considered to be of an official nature up and down the organizational chart (Johnson, Donohue, Atkin, & Johnson, 1994). Previous conceptualizations of employee silence have not directly differentiated between formal or informal communication channels, but a formal communication channel has been implicit in most definitions and examples of employee silence. It is important to expand the boundary of what is considered employee silence to include both formal and informal channels, because important information within organizations may flow through both channels.
Therefore silence via either formal or informal channels has potentially important implications.
Type of Information Withheld
Another important boundary consideration relative to employee silence is the type
of information withheld. According to the definition, this information can be in the form
of concerns, information, or opinions. Basically, the intentional withholding of any form
of information, as long as that information is relevant to the job, may constitute employee
silence. The type of information withheld is likely a function of both the underlying
motive(s) and contextual factors. The type of information withheld is seemingly
dependent on the underlying motive in that withholding certain types of information is
likely to fulfill the motive, whereas withholding other types of information would not.
The type of information withheld is also likely contextually dependent in that only in
55 certain situations would withholding a particular type of information fulfill the motive.
Based on these factors, employees may withhold ideas for improvement, concerns about
witnessed ethical breaches, information which might be harmful to a co-worker if it was
revealed, or something a co-worker needs to know to do their job effectively.
Summary of Boundary Conditions
As can be seen from the preceding discussion, exactly what constitutes employee
silence is more complex than is initially apparent. Depending on the purpose of a
particular study, the domain of employee silence may be constrained according to any of
the preceding factors. It is also likely that other boundary considerations will reveal
themselves as more research is conducted on this phenomenon. For example, it could be
that individuals are willing to speak-up concerning an issue when asked about it, but will choose to remain silent when not directly questioned about the issue. Although this
represents a potentially important distinction, and would be an interesting topic for future
investigation, for this research both are within the bounds of what constitutes employee
silence. Because the purpose of this research is to take a high-level view of the entire
domain of employee silence, the studies which follow are intentionally non-restrictive
relative to these boundary considerations. The only restrictions imposed in the following
studies are: (a) there must be an intention to withhold information; (b) the type of
information withheld must be related to their job or organization; (c) it must be in
response to some important situation, issue, or event relating to their job or organization;
(d) the target must be relevant to their job or organization; and (e) the individual must actually withhold information.
56 CHAPTER 3
GENERAL PROCESS MODEL OF EMPLOYEE SILENCE
Employee silence is conceptualized as an intentional behavior entailing the withholding of job-related information at work. Unquestionably, for an employee, the decision to engage in intentional silence is a complex and ongoing process. The purpose of this section is to develop a general process model of employee silence. The proposed model illustrates process, proximal and component factors of employee silence and their proposed relationships. This model adapts elements of cybernetic control theory (Carver
& Scheier, 1982) and Lewin’s psychological field theory (Lewin, 1936, 1943) to explain different phases of the manifestation of employee silence at different levels of abstraction. Elements of control theory and field theory are adapted to provide an overarching framework, which includes an input stimulus (control theory), feedback loop
(control theory), competing forces for silence and voice (field theory), comparator/discrepancy mechanism (control theory), and an output influencing a new iteration of the process (control theory). The integration of these two theoretical perspectives is useful for explaining the ongoing nature of employee silence and conflicting motives inherent in its manifestation.
Admittedly, trying to diagrammatically explain this dynamic and abstract phenomenon with a high degree of precision is a difficult endeavor. Therefore, the proposed model represents only a general schematic of the most likely types of factors
57 involved and their most basic relationships. A model dealing with a latent construct as
complex as employee silence necessarily involves a number of conceptual tradeoffs.
Throughout the development process, many different perspectives relative to what factors
actually compose this multi-faceted construct were considered. There is little doubt that
other factors could be added to this model, and many more relationships illustrated, but
considering the need for parsimony, and given the nascent stage of the research, this
model represents an appropriate level of complexity.
It is important to note that the general process model of employee silence evolved throughout the execution of the three proposed studies. Although the literature provided some conceptual guidance relative to nature of voice and silence as distinct
multidimensional constructs (see Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero,
2003), there was little theoretical guidance in the literature pertaining to the nature and
implications of the concurrently extant opposing motives for voice and silence. As such,
the initial incarnation of the model did not take into account the interdependent
origination of motives of voice and silence which is integral to the phenomenon of
employee silence. Rather, the initial model indicated separate motives for voice and
silence as possibly leading to a discrepant state (see Control Theory; Carver & Scheier,
1982), but it was not until the model was reconceptualized with psychological field
theory (see Lewin, 1936, 1943) incorporated as an organizing framework, that the
implications of the opposing motives for voice and silence became apparent. Through
this conceptual evolution of the model it became apparent that an important aspect of the
manifestation of employee silence is the conflicting motives for voice and silence, along
with the associated variants of strong-weak, voice and silence motives (the precise nature
58 of which are articulated in the later Voice-Silence Discrepant States section). As a result, the proposed studies do not neatly fit the revised model, but rather follow from the earlier version of the model which did not specify voice and silence motives as opposing forces.
Therefore the empirical studies do not actually test the extent to which voice and silence motives are simultaneously manifest. That will have to be a topic for future empirical investigation.
Before proceeding with the presentation of the model of employee silence, I first provide brief reviews of control theory and psychological field theory along with explanations of their usefulness as organizing frameworks for better understanding employee silence.
Control Theory
Control theory is a general cybernetic framework which has been useful for theoretical development in many areas of motivated human behavior (Carver & Scheier,
1981; Klein, 1989; Wiener, 1948). In its most basic form, control theory posits that the discrepancy reduction feedback loop is a fundamental building block of human action.
This feedback loop consists of six general elements: (a) input function, (b) reference value, (c) comparator, (d) output function, (e) impact on environment, and (f) disturbance
(see Figure 3.1; Carver & Scheier, 1982).
59 Reference Value (C)
Comparator (B)
Input Function Output Function (Perception) (Behavioral or (A) Psychological Process) (D)
Impact on Environment (E)
Disturbance (F)
Figure 3.1: General Schematic of Cybernetic Control Theory
In control theory, motivated human action is explained via a series of processes comprising this model. The process is initiated with an input to the system (see Box [A]
Figure 3.1). This input function is simply an initiating stimulus which prompts a comparison of a current state to a desired state via a process termed a comparator (see
Box [B] Figure 3.1). Within this comparator function, an individual makes a comparison of their perceived situation or circumstance to how they think things should or ought to be (i.e., their reference value; see Box [C] Figure 3.1). If the perceived situation or circumstance varies from their preferred reference value, a discrepant psychological state is produced. According to the theory, individuals are motivated to reduce this discrepancy (A vs. C), and in an attempt to do so engage in some form of behavioral or psychological process (see Box [D] Figure 3.1). As a result of actions intended to reduce
60 the discrepant state, the theory posits that the proximal environment may be impacted
(see Box [E] Figure 3.1). This subsequent impact on the environment, coupled with forces external to the system (i.e., disturbance; see Box [F] Figure 3.1), then serves as a feedback input to another iteration of this process.
Although the proposed model does not represent an exact adaptation of control theory to the process of silence, several elements of control theory are nevertheless useful for better understanding employee silence. A notable feature of control theory is the feedback loop, wherein the behavior’s impact on the environment, coupled with outside disturbance to the system, serve as input for an iterative and ongoing process of evaluation, and behavioral and/or psychological adjustment. This framework is especially suited for explaining the process of employee silence, as employee silence is conceptualized as an intentional behavior, and as such will only be maintained as long as it is perceived to be serving the motive(s) on which the intention is based. For example, an employee who would like to speak-up about an issue, but is intentionally remaining silent to protect himself from harm, will continue to remain silent as long as he perceives silence to be the best course of action to deal with the discrepancy created by these conflicting motives (see next section on psychological field theory for a more in-depth discussion of conflicting motives). Moreover, if he perceives that the situation has changed such that the potential harm of speaking-up has dissipated, then he may choose to break their silence. This continual assessment of the perceived effectiveness of his silence relative to his motive(s) is accounted for by the feedback and re-assessment processes of control theory, and is critical for understanding the unfolding nature of employee silence over time.
61
Psychological Field Theory
Psychological field theory is a conceptual framework for modeling the often conflicting psychological forces influencing individuals at any given instant (Lewin,
1936, 1943). Relative to employee silence, field theory helps explain the nature and implications of the conflicting forces that are fundamental to the phenomenon (i.e., employee silence is predicated on remaining silent in response to a situation which, absent the silence-motives, the individual would likely speak-up in response to).
A common technique for building an understanding of the forces that will drive
and resist human behavior consists of a two column form, with driving forces listed in the
first column, and restraining forces in the second. The force field diagram is derived
from the work of social psychologist Kurt Lewin. According to Lewin’s theories, human
behavior is caused by forces — beliefs, expectations, cultural norms, etc. — within the
“life space” of an individual. These forces can be positive, urging a person toward a
behavior, or negative, propelling an individual away from a behavior. A force field
diagram portrays these driving forces and restraining forces that affect a salient question
or problem. A force field diagram can be used to compare a variety of opposing forces, actions, and consequences (see Figure 3.2 for a general schematic of a psychological field theory). Some of these forces “drive” changes away from the current state toward other conditions, desired states, or behaviors and some “restrain” changes.
In fact, much of the value of field theory for better understanding employee silence is its recognition that a wide variety of goals can motivate behavior, but that all such forces are combined into a single summary utility. Field theory states that all
62 motivations are commensurate and different forces exist in the same psychological field
and influence behavior simultaneously. Field theory also maintains that only those forces active in the individual’s life space at a given moment influence behavior. This point recognizes the importance of salience in determining intentional behavior (Diamond,
1992). In this sense, field theory is more useful than control theory as an explanatory mechanism relative to the conflicting motives inherent in employee silence. In the next section, the model of employee silence is presented and relevant aspects of control theory and field theory are discussed in more detail.
Current Desired State State
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
Driving Force 1 Restraining Force 1
Driving Force 2 Restraining Force 2
Driving Force n Restraining Force n
Figure 3.2: General Schematic of Psychological Field Theory
63 Presentation of a General Process Model of Employee Silence
As previously discussed, researchers both within and beyond the organizational
sciences have proposed that employee silence is more than simply the absence of voice.
From a purely behavioral perspective, however, silence and an absence of voice are
indistinguishable. What differentiates employee silence from an absence of voice is that
the motives for employee silence are likely distinct from simply an absence of the
motives for voice. This can be confusing especially since researchers have previously
proposed similar motives for both silence and voice (see Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van
Dyne et al., 2003). Although similar motives have been proposed for both silence and voice, this does not mean that the motives for silence are the same as the absence of the
motives for voice. Therefore, although the absence of a voice-motive may lead to the
behavior of silence, this is not equivalent to intentional silence manifesting due to its own
particular motive(s). Put another way, the absence of a motive is not indicative of a
countervailing motive, rather an absence of a motive is simply a null psychological state.
Intentional silence is not the result of a null psychological state, but rather it is an
intentional behavior based on its own underlying motive(s).
The schematic of the general process model of employee silence is presented in
Figure 3.3. From the proposed model, it is clear that the manifestation employee silence
is composed of a complex combination of factors and processes. Relative to
measurement and hypotheses development, this general process model provides a useful
overarching framework, but is not intended to show precise measurement components or
specific hypotheses. Therefore, a multidimensional construct diagram, and hypotheses
schematics are provided in later sections to fulfill those purposes. Following the
64 presentation of this general process model of employee silence is a discussion of each of the individual elements of the model.
(See Figure 3.3: General Process Model of Employee Silence — Next Page)
65
Input Stimulus
Voice Forces Silence Forces
Target Individual Contextual Contextual Individual Target Factors Factors Factors Factors Factors Factors
Voice-Motives (Multidimensional) Silence-Motives (Multidimensional) Silence Employee Outcomes of (Typology) Comparator 66
3 4 Employee Silence Possible Employee Silence Unlikely High Discrepancy Low Discrepancy Ambivalence (Voice Likely) (Voice Possible)
Employee Silence Unlikely Low Discrepancy Employee Silence Likely Indifference Low Discrepancy (Voice Unlikely) (Voice Unlikely)
1 2 (Weak) Voice-Motives Voice-Motives (Weak) (Strong)
(Weak) Silence-Motives (Strong)
Figure 3.3: General Process Model of Employee Silence Input Stimulus
In control theory, the input function is simply the process by which information of some sort arrives to be used in a particular way (Carver & Scheier, 1998). According to the theory, this input represents a current situation which is compared to a reference value. In the model of employee silence proposed in Figure 3.3, the input stimulus is not so much a current situation which is compared to a reference value, but rather a situation, issue, or event which an individual believes on some level they should speak-up about.
This could be the witnessing of an ethical breach, an experienced injustice, a realization of a new idea, the acquisition of novel and/or relevant information, or any number of potential stimuli either external or internal to the individual. The important feature is that this input stimulus is something that leads to both the motive(s) to speak-up, and in the case of employee silence, the opposing motive(s) to remain silent. As previously discussed, the co-existence of these opposing motives is fundamental to the idea that employee silence entails an individual remaining silent in response to a stimulus which, absent motive(s) to remain silent, they would speak up about.
Voice-Motives
An important component of the proposed model of employee silence is voice- motives. Considering that silence and an absence of voice are conceptualized as distinct constructs, a reasonable question at this point is, what do voice-motives have to do with employee silence? Although silence is viewed as distinct from the absence of voice, this does not mean that silence exists independent of a desire to speak up about a particular issue or situation. Quite the contrary; silence and voice are inexorably linked. Trying to
67 explain silence without voice, is in many ways like trying to explain darkness without
light. It is only when a person experiences a desire to speak up about an issue or situation
(voice-motive) that the motives for silence become meaningful. It is the contrast between
the concepts of silence and voice give each their respective meanings. This is
particularly important considering the abstract nature of employee silence. For
intentional silence to be meaningful, the individual must on some level think, believe, or
feel that they should speak up (i.e. experience a voice-motive). Therefore, although
voice-motives are not part of the construct of employee silence, they are nevertheless
fundamental to its meaning and manifestation.
As previously discussed, when silence and voice are conceptualized as intentional
behaviors, and each is based on motives which are not simply the opposite of the other’s
— they are distinct constructs and not merely at opposite ends of a one-dimensional
continuum. However, because employee silence has both a motivational and a behavioral
component, its manifestation can be influenced by factors that affect either the silence- or
voice-motives. Considering that from a purely behavioral perspective, silence and voice
are polar opposites, then behaviorally speaking, factors which increase voice
subsequently reduce silence. That is, an individual may experience strong motives for
silence, but if the motives for voice are sufficiently strong, the individual will not remain silent. For example, an individual witnessing an ethical violation may have strong motives to remain silent because they want to avoid retaliation associated with speaking- up. They may also experience strong motives to exercise voice due to their desire to do
what they feel is morally right. In this case, intentional silence could be reduced by either
reducing the motive for silence (i.e., reducing the fear of retaliation), or increasing the
68 motive for voice (i.e., appealing to their sense of right and wrong). Therefore, although
employee silence is conceptualized as an intentional behavior based on specific silence-
motives, its behavioral manifestation may be influenced by the relative strengths of either
silence- or voice-motives.
Silence-Motives
Within the employee silence literature, the term motives has been used to describe the various forces compelling a person to remain silent when they would otherwise speak up. As previously mentioned, current conceptualizations of the dimensionality of employee silence found in the literature are based on the dimensionality of the motives
(see Pinder & Harlos, 2001; see Van Dyne et al., 2003). As previously discussed, researchers have proposed various motives for silence including apathy, self protective, prosocial, strategic, deviance (Greenberg et al., 2007; Latane & Darley, 1968; Pinder &
Harlos, 2001; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2003). These motives are likely formed from a cognitive/emotional process that is dependent on target, individual, and contextual factors as well as the nature of the input stimulus.
In control theory, a reference value (see Figure 3.1) represents a schema of a desired state relative to the current situation. Although silence-motives are not precisely analogous to a reference value, relative to the manifestation of employee silence they may serve a similar function. Just as a reference value may represent a discrepant state relative to an input, silence-motives may be a discrepant force relative to a desire to speak
up (voice-motive). That is, silence-motives represent a force compelling an individual to
69 remain silent in a situation where they may otherwise speak up, thus contributing to a
psychological discrepancy.
As previously discussed, the behavior of silence, absent an understanding of the
underlying motive(s), is ambiguous. Therefore, if the construct of employee silence is to
be meaningful, silence-motives are necessarily integral to the construct. It is ultimately the manifestation of the behavior of silence, when that behavior is intentionally based on a specific silence-motive, which is of interest, and which needs to be operationalized.
Target Factors
In the proposed model of employee silence, target factors are illustrated as influencing both silence- and voice-motives. Much of the previous research on employee silence has constrained the domain of employee silence to upward communication, typically from a subordinate to a supervisor (e.g., Milliken et al., 2003; e.g., Morrison &
Milliken, 2000). However, others have loosened this constraint to include communication (or lack thereof) toward anyone capable of effecting change (e.g., Pinder
& Harlos, 2001). And still others have not imposed a target-based constraint on the study of employee silence and consider that it can be manifest toward supervisors, peers, or
subordinates (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 2003, p. 1361).
For the overarching purpose of this research, this latter approach is adopted. In
the exploratory qualitative study which follows (see Study 1) the target is not
constrained; rather, subjects were asked to describe who they intentionally withheld
information from. In the model of employee silence depicted in Figure 3.3, the box
labeled “Target Factors” is included to account for the likely effect that various types of
70 targets (e.g., supervisor, peers, subordinates, external entities) or characteristics of a
particular target within a category (e.g., perceived trustworthiness of the target) may have on the formation of silence- and voice-motives, and subsequent discrepancy, behavior, and outcomes.
For example, Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, and Roth (1992) found that employees’ willingness to express work-related concerns and suggestions to their supervisors was dependent on how approachable and responsive they perceived their bosses to be.
Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) also demonstrated that employees are more likely to exercise voice as top management openness, and trust in supervisor increased.
Although the model depicts direct effects of target characteristics on silence- and voice-motives, the actual relationship is likely much more complex, with possible interaction effects occurring between the input stimulus, silence-and voice- motives, and the target, contextual, and individual factors. However, for the sake of parsimony, only primary direct effects are illustrated in the model.
Individual Factors
In the proposed model of employee silence, individual factors are illustrated as influencing both silence- and voice-motives. Previous research has examined individual factors which are related to silence and voice, but this research has not differentiated between various motives for employee silence, or between intentional silence and an
absence of voice. Although this previous research has not been motive specific, nor
made a distinction between intentional silence and an absence of voice, it nevertheless
71 indicates the potential impact of these factors. Therefore, a brief review of some of the
more important variables of interest is provided.
Pinder and Harlos (2001) propose potential effects of three enduring personality
traits on an individual’s predisposition toward silence. Specifically they examine the
potential effects of self-esteem, communication apprehension, and locus of control. They proposed that lower levels of self-esteem may lead to employee silence. This builds upon earlier work of LePine and Van Dyne (1998) which found a marginally significant relationship between global self-esteem and voice, such that group members with higher levels of global self-esteem engaged in more voice than group members with lower levels of global self-esteem. They also suggest that individuals high in the trait of communication apprehension often anticipate negative outcomes and may experience
anxiety from communication and will generally seek to avoid communicating with others
(see also McCroskey, 1970). Lastly, they suggest that an individual’s locus of control
may affect their willingness to exercise voice or remain silent. Locus of control is a
personality trait that reflects an individual’s varying beliefs that what happens to them in
life is a result of factors over which they have control or the result of circumstances
beyond their control (Rotter, 1966). Individuals who tend to believe that they have
control over what happens to them in life are generally said to have an internal locus of
control, whereas people who believe that events outside of their control have the
dominant influence in determining their life outcomes are said to have an external locus
of control. Pinder and Harlos suggest that people with an internal locus of control will be
more likely to exercise voice than those with an external locus of control. This is due to
the general belief on the part of internals that the ability to influence outcomes resides
72 within themselves rather than being primarily determined by factors outside of their
control.
At the individual level, other commonly examined predictor variables of silence
and voice include belief in the possibility of improvement (Kolarska & Aldrich, 1980;
Withey & Cooper, 1989), loyalty and commitment (Hirschman, 1970; Withey & Cooper,
1989), self-monitoring (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003) and big-five personality factors
(LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). For example, LePine and Van Dyne (2001) found
significant relationships between voice behavior and extroversion (r = .30),
conscientiousness (r = .26), neuroticism (r = -.12), and agreeableness (r = -.16). Pinder
and Harlos (2001) also examined the interaction effects of gender and power as an important individual difference factor relative to silence and voice. Tannen (1990) found
that females are more likely to be silent in the presence of males. According to Molseed
(1989), females were more likely to engage in supportive silences, indicated by smiling
and nodding heads to encourage collaboration, whereas males tended to use inexpressive
silences (i.e., not responding to information requests) in an attempt to compete with and
dominate others. Furthermore, LePine and Van Dyne (1998) found that whites engaged
in more voice than non-whites, and that participants with at least some college engaged in
more voice than those with no college.
As seen from the preceding review (which is by no means exhaustive), individual
factors may have a significant impact on the manifestation of employee silence. Based
on the proposed model, these factors may affect the manifestation of employee silence
through either their influence on silence- or voice-motives. Clearly, the role of various
73 individual factors in the manifestation of the different dimensions of employee silence represents an important and interesting topic for future research.
Contextual Factors
In addition to individual factors, contextual factors also play an important role in shaping the motives of silence and voice. Just as with individual factors, the majority of the research on contextual factors has not differentiated silence from an absence of voice, or distinguished between the various motives for either silence or voice. As with individual factors, however, this previous research is insightful for understanding the types of contextual factors which may impact the manifestation of employee silence and is worthy of review.
Pinder and Harlos (2001) suggest that organizational climate, and in particular a climate of injustice, may play a significant role in employees’ willingness to exercise voice or to remain silent. The climate of injustice identified by Harlos (1999) was characterized by unclear reporting structures, high centralization, low formalization, authoritarian management styles, poor communication, poorly-conducted performance reviews, and erratic decision making. Similarly, Morrison and Milliken (2000) conceptualized a climate of silence as an organizational context that is characterized by two shared beliefs: (a) the perception that it is not worth the effort to bother speaking-up; and (b) that speaking-up could be potentially dangerous. They identified several factors that may lead to a climate of silence: (a) patterns of organizational policies and structures,
(b) belief structures of top management teams, and (c) the process of collective sense- making and communication. They incorporated these factors into a model explaining
74 how employees at lower levels in an organization can become disillusioned and/or fearful about voicing their concerns. Although the effects of these climate-level factors on employee silence have yet to be empirically investigated, they nevertheless may contribute to an atmosphere where employees choose to remain silent regarding important work related issues.
In a related line of work, the deaf ear syndrome (Peirce et al., 1998) is a phenomenon that functions as an organizational norm that discourages employees’ open and direct expression of their dissatisfaction. Research on issue selling has also suggested that employees make decisions about whether to raise strategic issues with management by assessing the context for clues concerning context favorability (Ashford,
Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002).
Another contextual factor influencing employee silence may be an organization’s electronic monitoring policies. If employees know that their e-mail is being monitored or stored on a server, they may be reluctant to speak up about a sensitive issue via e-mail for fear that the record of what they said could be used against them at some time in the future (for additional support, see earlier section on communication medium as a boundary condition).
Social pressure to conform to the norms, ideals, or values of the group may also be related to employee silence. Due to pressures to conform, individuals may not act in accordance with their underlying attitudes or beliefs (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Turner,
1991). In organizational settings, group pressure and the resultant increase in social identity salience may be especially important for the development of employee silence.
According to Terry and Hogg (1996) when social identity becomes salient,
75 depersonalization occurs, such that a person’s feelings and actions are guided to a greater
extent by group norms and prototypes than by personal identity factors. In situations of
high social identity salience, pressures to conform to group norms will be even greater,
leading to increased fear associated with nonconformance. To the extent that
conformance to group norms requires not speaking out against those norms, even when
the individual may desire to, silence will be perpetuated.
As seen from this brief review, there has been a great deal of research relating to
contextual factors which may influence an individual to speak up or remain silent.
Again, this previous work has generally viewed silence and voice as existing at opposite
ends of a one-dimensional continuum, and not as distinct multi-dimensional constructs.
Employee silence however, as proposed here, is more than merely an absence of voice.
How various contextual factors relate to the different dimensions of employee silence represents an important aspect of the proposed research (see Study 3). It is also important to note that certain contextual factors may be operative at different, or even multiple points, within the silence manifestation process. For example, it may be that social pressure influences the development of either silence- and/or voice-motives. From the preceding discussion it is apparent that the influence of various contextual factors on the manifestation of employee represents an important, albeit complex, area for future research.
Comparator
According to control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982), a person’s perception of their current situation is compared against a reference value via a mechanism termed a
76 comparator. According to Carver and Scheier(1982), the “comparator” is simply a
cognitive-evaluative process with the potentiality of resulting in a discrepant state.
Hence, if a discrepancy is perceived between the current state and the reference value, the individual experiences psychological tension and a subsequent desire to relive this uncomfortable state. Moreover, according to Carver and Scheier, an act that diminishes discrepancies with respect to one goal can cause an increased discrepancy with respect to other goals. Conflicts of this nature can be a major source of dissatisfaction in life (see
Baumeister, Shapiro, & Tice, 1985; Emmons & King, 1988; Van Hook & Higgins, 1988)
and may be an explanation for the negative health-related consequences of silence found
in prior research (see Cortina & Magley, 2003). Similarly, in the model of employee
silence presented in Figure 3.3, voice motives and silence motives are “compared,” and
depending on the relative strengths of the voice- and silence-motives, one of four possible
states results (see next section).
Voice-Silence Discrepant States
Following the “comparator” process in the model of employee silence (see Figure
3.3) is a rectangle which is divided into four quadrants that represent four possible
“voice-silence discrepant states.” These four voice-silence discrepant states are
differentiated based on the relative strengths of the voice- and silence-motives, the
resultant voice or silence likelihood, and the associated psychological discrepancy.
Quadrant 1 is the result of simultaneous weak voice-motives and weak silence-
motives, and can be characterized as a state of indifference. Although an employee in
this state may be behaviorally silent, this is simply a result of not experiencing
77 sufficiently strong motives to speak up or remain silent, and hence, this is not intentional
silence based on particular underlying motives that characterizes “employee silence.”
Quadrant 2 is identified by strong silence-motives and weak-voice motives. In this situation, one’s experienced psychological discrepancy is relatively low as there are not competing motives for both voice and silence. In this situation, it is likely that
employee silence will manifest as the motives to remain silent are strong and are not
countervailed by sufficiently “strong” motives to speak up. As previously discussed,
however, for employee silence to be meaningful, the individual must, on some level, feel
there is an issue that they would like to speak up about. Hence, the voice-motives in this
situation may be “weak,” but they are not nonexistent.
Quadrant 3 is identified by coexisting strong voice-motives and weak silence-
motives. As with Quadrant 2, in this situation, one’s experienced psychological
discrepancy is relatively low as there are not strong competing motives for both voice and
silence. In this situation, it is likely that employee voice will manifest as the motives to
speak up are strong and are not countervailed by strong motives to remain silent.
Quadrant 4 is identified by simultaneous strong voice-motives and strong silence-
motives and can be characterized as a state of attitudinal ambivalence. Attitudinal
ambivalence has been defined in a variety of ways (for a review see Conner & Sparks,
2002; Priester & Petty, 1996). However, most definitions refer to simultaneously
evaluating the attitude object in both positive and negative terms. Relative to employee
silence, a person may hold both positive and negative evaluations toward the behavior
which are a cumulative function of the salient voice- and silence-motives. For example, due to their individual sense of right and wrong, an individual may be compelled to speak
78 up about an ethical violation they have become aware of at work. But, they may also be
compelled toward silence due to fear of reprisal associated with speaking up. In this
situation, depending on the relative strengths of the voice- and silence-motives, an
employee may speak up or remain silent. In either case, however, it is likely the
employee will experience a psychological discrepancy as a result of the conflicting
motives for voice and silence. If silence-motives win the battle of “competing motives”
and intentional silence ensues, this situation is indicative of “employee silence” as it has been typified in the emerging employee silence literature. However, even when voice- motives prevail, and an individual does speak up about a particular issue, it may be that they are not only experiencing voice-motives, but could simultaneously be experiencing silence-motives, and therefore also experiencing feelings of ambivalence.
In summary, per the model presented in Figure 3.3, employee silence may manifest as indicated in Quadrants 2 or 4. Quadrant 2 is characterized by strong silence- motives and weak voice-motives, hence, a relatively high likelihood of silence, along with relatively weak psychological discrepancy. Quadrant 4 is characterized by the ambivalent state of simultaneous strong silence-motives and strong voice-motives, hence, depending on the relative strengths of the silence- and voice-motives, either silence or voice may manifest. Also as indicated in the model of employee silence, Quadrants 1 and 3 are not consistent with the manifestation of employee silence, as silence-motives are weak in both of these situations.
79 Outcomes of Employee Silence
In this section, an explanation of the illustration of outcomes of employee silence
(see Figure 3.3) is provided, followed by a brief review of outcomes previously
associated with voice and silence in the literature. This section then concludes with the
presentation of a proposed typology of outcomes of employee silence.
In the model of employee silence (see Figure 3.3), outcomes of employee silence are indicated as emanating from the two quadrants of potential employee silence manifestation (see Quadrants 2 and 4; Figure 3.3). In control theory, an impact on the environment (see Box E; Figure 3.1) is illustrated feeding back into a new iteration of the process and a re-comparison of the resultant and desired states. Similarly, in the model of employee silence, the outcomes of employee silence “feedback” into a continuation of
the process. This is important for understanding that employee-silence is not a “one
time” event, but rather an ongoing process. As long as silence-motives remain stronger
than voice-motives, silence will perpetuate. However, if target, individual, or contextual
factors change such that voice-motives strengthen, and/or silence-motives weaken, then
an employee may choose to break their silence.
Within the organizational science literature there has been a great deal of research
linking facets of communication with a wide range of individual and organizational
outcomes. However, the vast majority of this previous conceptual and empirical work
has generally looked at silence as simply a one-dimensional construct that is equivalent to
an absence of voice. Outcomes associated with intentional employee silence based on
different motives have yet to be empirically examined. Although research examining
outcomes associated with specific motive-based dimensions of silence is lacking,
80 previous research on outcomes of one-dimensional voice and silence is potentially informative for understanding the possible outcomes of multi-dimensional employee silence.
Voice Outcomes
Although not specifically illustrated in the proposed model of employee silence
(see Figure 3.3), a brief review of outcomes previously associated with employee voice is provided first. This is important considering that previous conceptualizations of voice did not differentiate between intentional silence and an absence of voice. Therefore, various outcomes previously associated with an absence of voice may substantially overlap with expected outcomes of employee silence, and hence, be informative for understanding outcomes of employee silence.
Voice is particularly important in modern-day organizations considering the increased emphasis on innovation, continuous improvement, and flexibility (Howard,
1995). The granting of voice to employees has been shown to be fundamental to perceptions of fairness in organizations (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Research has shown that formal systems designed to facilitate speaking-up behavior can have a range of positive effects for the organization. In the field of organizational justice these systems are known as voice systems and include open door policies, grievance procedures, and organizational ombudspersons (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Research suggests that voice systems can decrease unionization activity, decrease turnover, reduce lawsuits against the organization, and increase employee commitment and satisfaction (Lind & Tyler, 1988;
Sheppard, Lewicki, & Minton, 1992). Voice is also critical in workgroups and teams
81 which are increasingly being used as a way of confronting the need for increased
flexibility brought on by more intense levels of competition (Ilgen, 1994). In such
situations it is imperative that group members share ideas, knowledge, and insights so
that the team can make maximum use of the collective contribution of all its members
(Hollenbeck et al., 1996). Moreover, a great deal of research has been conducted describing the problems that occur when team members do not speak out and effectively share their ideas with each other (Janis, 1972; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989). Similarly, researchers also have highlighted the importance of multiple and divergent perspectives for effective organizational decision making (Nemeth, 1997). Furthermore, according to
Hirschman (1970), voice also has the function of alerting an organization to its failings.
Voice, however, is not always positive. According to Withey & Cooper (1989), the indirect costs of voice may include loss of reputation, possibility of retaliation, and the emotional costs of confronting people with power. Clearly, voice is a fundamental concept which affects nearly all organizational processes. As previously mentioned, however, most of this earlier research on employee voice has assumed that silence is simply the absence of voice.
Silence Outcomes
Silence as meaningful beyond simply the absence of voice has been linked to a wide variety of outcomes and proposed to serve a multitude of functions. Jensen (1973) proposed five functions served by silence: (1) it both brings people together and pushes them apart, (2) it can both heal and wound people, (3) it both hides and provides information, (4) it can signal deep thought and/or the absence of thought, and (5) it can
82 indicate either assent or dissent. According to Bruneau (1973) silence can be used by an
authority to get subordinates to think for themselves, or to create independence in those
who hang onto dependency relationships. This type of positive use of silence is quite
familiar to persons expert at directing independent study or thought. It can also be a tool
for planned ambiguity in an attempt to enhance creativity. Silence can also fulfill a
strategic role as a form of communication intended to affect others (Pinder & Harlos,
2001).
Silence may also be a means of coping with a new environment or new group.
Silence as a lack of response, or absence of recognition of subordinates, may very well be
a primary source of protection of power in socio-political orders where overt actions are
not possible or appropriate. Silence can also help define the character of the authority-
subordinate relationship. The use of silencing strategies by an authority or perceived
silencing strategies by the subordinate appears to assert or reassert interpersonal and
group power. Silence can be indicative of the most intense interpersonal conflict –
stronger than the simplicity of swearing. The silent lack of acknowledgement during an encounter between persons who know each other can be a strong form of attack. Some of the most hurtful insults a subordinate can experience from persons in authority come in the form of silence. Silence can also be used to show respect (or disrespect) toward a
person in a particular social or political position. For example when judges enter the courtroom, a characteristic hush usually falls upon the persons in the room. At other times deep emotional states are expressed through silence. Intense sorrow, grief, and
great disappointment are often dealt with through silence. Silence can also function as
means by which persons acquire attention from one another. For example, a person who
83 usually is talkative, upon maintaining silence can draw inquiry (Bruneau, 1973; Ganguly,
1968; Sontag, 1966). Silence also provides the option of choosing what to do next and is empowering in that it offers the option to reveal or conceal oneself (E. Kahn, 1958).
Employee silence may also have deleterious psychological and physiological consequences for the individual who is silent (Cortina & Magley, 2003). In contexts of injustice, silence can be an indication of feelings of fear, depression, anger, attitudes of low self-esteem, even thoughts of suicide (O'Hara, 1998). Previous research findings on self-silencing, emotional suppression, and repressive personality and coping styles, points toward silence-related psychological labor that creates stress on an individual’s physiology, interfering with emotional regulation, and worsening psychosomatic processes. This may result in an increase in depression, memory impairment, depletion of the immune response, increased reactivity to stress, and general disease progression.
In contrast, expressing thought and emotions associated with a stressful event may have various benefits for the individual such as less effortful processing, greater sense of control, the ability to form meaning and to see logic and structure in formerly overwhelming or chaotic events, enhanced coping skills, diminish excessive rumination, and facilitate closure resulting in improved immune function, enhanced well-being, and fewer medical visits or reduced absenteeism (Brewin, Dalgleish, & Joseph, 1996;
Esterling, L'Abate, Murray, & Pennebaker, 1999; Gross & Levenson, 1997; Milligan &
Waller, 2000; Richards & Gross, 1999).
84 Typology of Employee Silence Outcomes
Building on this previous research, it appears that outcomes of employee silence
can be logically arranged into a typology according to the target of silence (self/other),
valence of outcomes (positive/negative), and type of outcome
(psychological/physiological/instrumental). Each of these typological outcome
categories are discussed in detail in the sections which follow.
Self/Other Outcomes
It appears that silence can be related to outcomes that impact the individual being
silent, as well as others who are the direct target of the silence, or others indirectly who
are not the specific target of the silence. For example, the tragedy of the Columbia Space
Shuttle, has in part been attributed to silence on the part of some NASA engineers
(Vaughan, 2006). Obviously, silence on the part of the engineers who knew about
problems with the space shuttle had wide ranging implications. People who were not direct targets of silence died as a result, society mourned, NASA’s image was severely damaged, and the engineers themselves reported feeling deep remorse and guilt for not speaking-up (Vaughan, 2006).
Positive/Negative Outcomes
Outcomes may be either positive or negative. They may even be simultaneously positive and negative for the same individual, or positive for one person and negative for another. Whether an outcome of silence is positive or negative is for the most part a
function of perspective. For example, an employee who witnesses an unethical behavior
85 on the part of her supervisor may experience simultaneous positive and negative
outcomes as a result of remaining silent. By remaining silent she may avoid the
undesirable consequences of retaliation from her supervisor (a positive outcome). At the
same time she may also experience feelings of guilt or shame due to not speaking-up
about something that she feels is ethically wrong (a negative outcome). Furthermore,
from her supervisor’s perspective, the outcome of the silence is likely perceived as
positive as it enabled the supervisor to avoid the consequences of their unethical behavior. From the perspective of the victim of the unethical behavior, the silence is
most likely perceived as negative.
Psychological/Instrumental Outcomes
Silence may affect individuals psychologically, and/or instrumentally.
Psychological outcomes relative to the individual being silent are likely dependent on the
underlying motives. For example an individual who is silent due to the motive to protect
oneself from potential harm is likely to develop a more negative attitude, or experience
more negative affect, than an individual who is motivated by the desire to help others.
Psychological outcomes relative to individuals who are the target of silence are likely
influenced by their attributions of the motives of the person who is being silent. For
example, the emotional experience of an employee who experiences silence from a
coworker is going to be dependent on the attribution they make for that person’s silence.
If they attribute the silence to disapproving or harmful motives then their emotional
reaction is likely to be much more negative than if they attribute silence to benign or
positive motives.
86 Silence may also have instrumental outcomes for either the perpetrator, the target, or related others. For example, an individual who engages in insider trading is likely to remain silent about the act because they do not want to experience the economic or criminal consequences. In this case, remaining silent instrumentally benefits the perpetrator of the silence. Similarly, an individual who upset with a co-worker may elect to withhold important information the co-worker needs to perform their job. Not having this information could prove costly to the co-worker in the way of reducing their perceived level of competence, and ultimately their compensation (negative instrumental impact).
From the preceding discussion it is clear that the outcomes associated with employee silence are potentially very complex, not always readily apparent, and can impact a wide range of entities in a variety of ways. As previously discussed, the outcomes of silence likely vary as a function of the underlying silence-motive(s).
Examining the relationships between the various silence-motives and the various types of outcomes represents a potentially important and fruitful area for future research.
Input to a New Iteration of the Process
According to control theory, intentional human behavior is an ongoing process which entails monitoring the environment for discrepancies, pursuing means to reduce the discrepancies, assessing the effectiveness of said behavior, and adjusting behavior or perception accordingly. As previously mentioned, control theory provides an effective framework for understanding employee silence, as this phenomenon is not simply a linear process beginning with an input stimulus and terminating with intentional silence.
87 Rather, employee silence is an ongoing process entailing the continual monitoring of the
environment and assessing the effectiveness of the intentional silence relative to the
salience and intensity of the various forces operative in the process. For example, an
individual witnessing an ethical violation at work may initially decide to remain silent
due to fear of reprisal associated with speaking-up. After remaining silent, however, they
may experience cognitive dissonance, and subsequently decide to break their silence in spite of the risk. Obviously there are any number of internal or external factors that could influence whether or not a person continues to remain silent. The main point is that employee silence is not a linear process with a definitive end point, but rather an ongoing
process impacted by perceptions of outcomes related to the silence as well as by any
number of factors external to the system.
The Construct of Employee Silence
The general process model of employee silence illustrates component and
proximal factors relative to the manifestation of employee silence. The next logical question then is, what composes the actual construct of employee silence? The answer to this question is fundamental to both measurement and research coherence. As previously mentioned, employee silence is defined as the intentional withholding of concerns, information or opinions by employees concerning important situations, issues, or events relating to their job or organization (see Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2005).
Although not explicit in the definition, researchers have proposed that the intentional behavior of employee silence is based on a variety of underlying motives and occurs in
88 response to some type of issue, event, or situation (see Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne
et al., 2003).
One could conceptualize the construct of employee silence as just the intentional
behavior, and not include the motive(s) as part of the construct, but when operationalized
this would be nearly impossible to interpret. Imagine for a moment the assessment of this
motiveless construct. What would be gained by assessing the extent to which employees
are intentionally silent without knowing the motive on which this silence is based? There
would be no way of knowing what factors might be contributing to the silence, or what
the likely consequences might be. Essentially there would be no way of assigning any
type of meaning to this construct. Therefore, the inclusion of silence-motives as part of the construct is essential because it is the silence-motives that give this otherwise ambiguous phenomenon its meaning. Absent of the associated silence-motives we are left with an intentional behavior that is impossible to make sense of.
Also included in the general process model of employee silence (Figure 3.3) are voice-motives. As previously discussed, voice-motives play an important role in the manifestation of employee silence. However, voice-motives are not considered to be a
component of the construct of employee silence, but rather a separate influential factor.
That is, motives that compel someone to speak up are fundamentally distinct from
motives which compel a person to remain silent. Moreover, an absence of voice-motives
is not indicative of the intentional, motive-driven, silence that characterizes employee
silence as it is conceptualized in this research and in the bourgeoning employee silence
literature.
89 Furthermore, one could conceptualize and measure the intentional behavior of
employee silence, and the motives on which it is based, separately. However, when
thinking about how a separate measure of motives, and a separate measure of behavior, would perform in the field, it is unlikely that the essence and meaning of the construct could be adequately captured by these separate measures. This is due to the difficulty of
attributing the intentional behavior of silence to a specific motive from correlations of
these two separate measures. Outside of a laboratory, the only way to substantiate this
causal link of behavior based on a specific motive is by directly asking subjects the extent
to which they have engaged in the behavior of intentional silence due to a specific
motive. This entails combining the motive and the intentional behavior into the same
measurement item. Therefore, the construct of employee silence is best conceived of,
and operationalized as, the intentional behavior of silence when that behavior is based on
a specific underlying motive(s) (see Figure 3.4 Multidimensional Construct of Employee
Silence). As indicated in Figure 3.4, at its broadest level, the construct of employee
silence subsumes all the silence-motive dimensions, and resultant motive-based silence
behavior. However, as previously discussed, there is likely value in conceptualizing and measuring silence behavior based on each silence-motive dimension separately, as it is likely that antecedents and outcomes of employee silence vary as a function of the silence-motive.
90
Silence-Motive (Dimension 1)
Silence-Motive (Dimension 2) Motive-Based Silence Behavior
Silence-Motive (Dimension 3)
Silence-Motive (Dimension N)
Figure 3.4: The Multidimensional Construct of Employee Silence
Model Summary and Logic for Empirical Studies
Based on the general process model of employee silence presented in Figure 3.3,
it is apparent that many factors may influence the manifestation of employee silence at
various points in the process. Some of these factors are integral to the construct itself
(i.e., multidimensional silence-motives and motive-based silence behavior; see Figure
3.4), others are not part of the construct per se (i.e., input stimulus, voice-motives, target
factors, individual factors, contextual factors), but do play an important role in its
development.
In the following sections three studies are presented. The overarching objective
of these three studies is to empirically “fill in (some of) the blanks” relative to the general categories of factors indicated in the general process model of employee silence. First,
building on previous conceptual work (see Greenberg et al., 2007; Pinder & Harlos,
2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003), Study 1 seeks to develop an empirically derived and 91 comprehensive, typology of silence-motives dimensions. This is important considering that measures need to assess the extent of intentional silence behavior when that behavior is based on a specific motive. Therefore, the measures need to include the motive as part of the measurement item. Without first scientifically substantiating the motives on which silence may be based, the development of measures is haphazard at best. Next, Study 2 entails the development of survey items designed to assess the frequency of the various motive-based dimensions of silence behavior. Lastly, Study 3 further investigates the dimensionality and refines the measures developed in Study 2, and examines specific contextual and individual factors (viz., organizational justice, trust, job withdrawal, job satisfaction, commitment, and subject demographics) theorized to be related to specific motive-based dimensions of silence behavior.
92 CHAPTER 4
STUDY 1 - INVESTIGATION OF DIMENSIONALITY
As illustrated in the proposed general process model of employee silence (see
Figure 3.3), employee silence is a multi-faceted construct consisting of an underlying silence-motive and a manifest intentional behavior based on the motive. Building on the proposed model, and the extant literature (as limited as it may be), the focus of this study is on developing a comprehensive typology of employee silence dimensions based on different underlying motives.
The development of a comprehensive typology of employee silence dimensions based on underlying motives is important considering that: (a) The intentional behavior of silence by itself is ambiguous and one-dimensional — it is the motives that give meaning to, and differentiate various dimensions of employee silence; (b) Researchers have suggested that employee silence may occur due to a variety different underlying motives (e.g. to be prosocial, cause harm, self-protect, apathy, impression management;
Greenberg et al., 2007; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2003). However, with the exception of one small study (40 subjects, silence limited to upward communication; see Milliken et al., 2003) there has yet to be any substantial empirical corroboration of the validity or comprehensiveness of these proposed silence- motive dimensions; (c) It is likely that factors (contextual, individual, target; see Figure
3.3) associated with employee silence vary as a function of the underlying motive(s); and
93 (d) The development of valid measures is necessarily contingent upon empirical
corroboration of the silence-motive dimensions.
In addition to advancing the study of employee silence, this research is also
informative for the study of other OB related phenomena associated with the identified
motives for silence. For example, Greenberg et al. (2007) proposed that employee
silence may be a form of workplace deviance. Similarly, Van Dyne et al. (2003)
proposed that silence may be a form of prosocial behavior. However, previous research and widely used measures of deviance and prosocial behaviors have largely ignored the manifestation and implications of the silent forms of these phenomena. This research may well serve as a catalyst for the reexamination of these related phenomena through the recognition that they may be manifest through intentional silence.
Plan for Study 1
To investigate the dimensionality of the motives of employee silence a survey will be administered to a diverse group of undergraduate and graduate students with work experience. Subjects will be asked to think of four different times when they were intentionally silent at work in response to an important situation, issue, or event. Subjects will then be asked to write out: (a) a brief description of the situation, issue, or event they were silent in response to; (b) a description of the target of their silence; and (c) the reason(s) why they remained silent. From these qualitative responses a list of silence- motive exemplars will be developed. It is expected that these exemplars will group into an interpretable and parsimonious set of meaningful categories or dimensions. To examine the underlying relationships of the exemplars, and their categorization into
94 meaningful dimensions of silence-motives, a multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis
will be performed.
MDS is an analytical technique that provides a graphical representation of the
similarity or dissimilarity among pairs of objects. This graphical display of correlations
enables analysts to literally look at the data and visually examine its underlying structure.
This visual representation of the data is often easier to understand than the corresponding
array of numbers (Borg & Groenen, 2005). Hence, MDS is an ideal technique for the
investigation of the underlying structure of a latent construct. Furthermore, researchers studying related concepts (e.g., workplace deviance, exit, voice, and loyalty, perception of interpersonal communication) have successfully used qualitative survey responses and
MDS to assess underlying dimensions of these constructs (Farrell, 1983; Robinson &
Bennett, 1995; Wang & Chang, 1999).
Considering that an important assumption on which this research is based is that intentional silence is not simply equivalent to an absence of voice, this study also examines motives for voice. To accomplish this, a second survey will be administered to the same group of subjects asking them to describe incidents, targets, and reasons for times they spoke up at work, rather than remained silent. Demonstrating that the motives for intentional silence are not equivalent to the absence of, or opposite of, voice-motives will provide further evidence of the value of conceptualizing, and measuring, employee silence as a distinct construct. These findings will also be informative for future research focused on employee voice.
95 Methodology of Study 1
The following section describes the methodology in detail of the qualitative survey study and MDS study for employee silence (see Silence Surveys Appendices A.1,
A.2, C.1, C.2). The qualitative survey study and MDS study for employee voice are
identical to the silence studies except that surveys tailored for voice, instead of silence,
were administered (see Voice Surveys Appendices B.1, B.2, D.1, D.2). The same group
of subjects took both surveys on two different days to reduce response fatigue. The time
allowed to elapse between taking the two surveys was constrained to a minimum of one
day, and maximum of one week. Note: Appendices A.1 and A.2 are identical except that
A.1 is designed for student subjects who were offered extra credit for participation, A.2 is
designed for subjects who were not offered an incentive to participate. Similarly,
appendices B.1 & B.2 are identical, C.1 & C.2 are identical, and D.1 & D.2 are identical,
except to account for whether or not an incentive to participate was offered to subjects.
Terminology
To provide clarity relative to the following methods and results sections, a brief
explanation of the terminology used to indicate various concepts is warranted. At the
pre-aggregation level, is the term responses. Responses refer to the actual text provided
by the respondents. At the first level of aggregation is what is referred to as exemplars.
Exemplars refer to the short standardized statements which encapsulate the meaning of the various responses. At the level of aggregation above exemplars are categories.
Categories are groupings of conceptually similar exemplars. At the next higher level of aggregation are clusters. Clusters consist of groupings of conceptually related silence-
96 and voice-categories. And finally, clusters may themselves, or in combination, compose
dimensions.
In addition to the various terms used to distinguish different levels of data
aggregation, different terms are also used to describe the various focal elements of this
study. First, the terms voice- and silence-incidents are used to describe the event or situation a respondent is speaking up or remaining silent in response to. Second, the terms voice- and silence-targets are used are used to describe the entity a respondent is
speaking up or remaining silent to. And third, the terms voice and silence-motives are
used to describe the various reasons respondents have for speaking up or remaining
silent.
Subjects
Subjects consisted of undergraduate business, and MBA students from a large
Midwestern university, and executive MBA students from a medium-size local
university. Subject demographic information is presented in Table 4.1. Subjects were
offered class extra credit (up to 2.5% of their total class points) as an incentive to
participate. As for sample size, there is little theoretical guidance or “rules of thumb” to
determine what an adequate sample size would be. Considering that this phase of the
study is exploratory in nature and the objective is to derive a comprehensive typology of
employee silence-motives, the sample size needs to be large enough to include subjects
from a diverse sampling of industries and jobs. In a related study, Robinson and Bennett
(1995) in their MDS study of deviant workplace behaviors utilized a sample of 70
respondents in the exemplar development phase. In an examination of sample size and
97 exploratory factor analysis, Hogarty, Hines, Kromrey, Ferron, and Mumford (2005)
concluded that there should be less emphasis on sample size “rules of thumb” and greater
emphasis on sound research design. This certainly seems to be the case for MDS as well.
Based on this previous work, and the expected demographic composition of the target
sample, I anticipated that 100 respondents would be sufficient for this phase of the research. In addition, each respondent was asked to provide up to four different silence-
and voice-incidents, and if applicable, multiple reasons per incident, therefore the actual number of silence- and voice-incidents and associated motives had the potential to be much greater than the number of respondents.
One hundred and forty subjects were initially solicited to take part in the study,
121 subjects completed the survey for silence and 130 completed the survey for voice.
Given the diverse background of the MBA students the sample was quite varied with
respect to years of work experience, job category, industry, and gender. However,
because subjects consisted of university students (graduate and undergraduate), there is a moderate bias toward youth in this sample; unskilled and less educated employees were
also under represented (see Table 4.1). However, considering that the primary purpose of
this study was to determine the various motives employees may have for remaining silent
or speaking up, and not to determine the relative frequency of occurrence of each of those motives across all employee classifications, I believe that the level of diversity of this
sample is sufficient. Although older, unskilled, or less educated employees may have
different proclivities toward, and motives for, remaining silent and/or speaking-up, I feel
that the diversity of this sample across age and job classification is sufficient to capture a
comprehensive range of primary motives employees may have for remaining silent
98 and/or speaking-up. This especially appears to be the case considering that new exemplar development diminished substantially toward the end of the response analysis.
Table 4.1: Study 1 - Subject Demographics Silence Voice Survey Survey Total Solicited 140 140 Total 121 130 Completed (86.4%) (92.9%) MBA Students 91 89 Undergraduate Students 30 (24.8%) 30 41 Work Less than 6 months 3 4 Experience 6 months - 2 years 11 12 3 - 5 years 32 41 6 - 10 years 38 37 10 - 15 years 13 12 16 years or longer 21 21 Not Applicable 3 3 Job Categories Executive/Management 36 38 Technical/Professional 29 30 Sales/Marketing 17 19 Administrative/Clerical 10 11 Customer Service 15 18 Skilled Crafts 1 1 Laborer 4 4 Student 8 8 Other 1 1 Industry Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, or Fishing 1 1 Communication 4 4 Construction 2 2 Education 1 1 Finance, Insurance, or Real Estate 17 17 Manufacturing 19 19 Public Administration 5 5 Public Utilities 1 1 Retail or Wholesale Trade 18 21 Services 29 32 Transportation 2 3 Other 22 24 Continued
99 Table 4.1 continued
Silence Voice Survey Survey Age 18-24 44 51 25-34 48 53 35-44 18 16 45-54 9 8 55-64 2 2 65 or older 0 0 Gender Female 50 54 Male 70 76 Ethnic Asian 18 21 Background Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 0 Black / African-American 6 6 Hispanic / Latino 1 1 American Indian / Alaskan Native 0 0 White (Not of Hispanic origin) 91 97 Two or more races (please specify) 5 5 Education Some high school 0 0 High school diploma or GED 3 4 Some college 33 42 College degree 14 15 Some graduate work 50 49 Masters degree 17 16 Doctoral degree 1 1 Other professional degree (e.g., J.D.) 2 3
Pilot Study
To ensure that the phrasing of the questions in the qualitative portion of this
research were worded in a way which was not confusing, and elicited the expected types
of responses, a pilot study was conducted before the actual survey was administered. The
procedure for the pilot study was consistent with the steps outlined for the main study
(see below) with the exception that sample size was significantly smaller (N = 48) and
consisted of undergraduate (junior and senior level with work experience) business
100 school students. Results from the pilot study indicated that the wording of the surveys was clear, and the responses were generally indicative of appropriate incidents and underlying motives for remaining silent and speaking-up. Considering that there were no response patterns indicating that the questions were not interpreted as intended, no changes to the survey were required.
Surveys to Obtain Incidents, Targets, and Motives
Surveys were administered asking subjects to think of four incidents when they
intentionally remained silent in response to an important issue or event at work (see
Appendices A.1, A.2). Subjects were asked to describe the nature of each issue, concern,
or event they were intentionally silent in response to. Next they were asked to provide a brief description of the person(s) to whom they were intentionally silent. Next, they were
asked to provide a description of the reason(s) why they intentionally remained silent in
response to each issue or event. The reason subjects are asked to provide a description of
the nature of the issue or event they were silent in response to, and the person(s) they
were silent to, is to make sure that the responses are consistent with the previously
provided definition of employee silence (i.e., the intentional withholding of concerns,
information, or opinions by employees concerning important situations, issues, or events
relating to their job or organization). Furthermore, it may be that the reasons for silence
vary according to they type of issue and/or situation an employee is remaining silent in
response to, as well as the type of target their silence is directed toward. Collecting issue-
type, target information, and reason(s) will enable exploratory analysis of these
potentially differential relationships.
101 The reason subjects were asked to think of four silence-incidents, and corresponding targets and reasons, is that it is likely that certain reasons for silence are much more common (e.g., fear) than others. If they were only asked to think of one incident then the more common incidents and reasons would likely dominate the responses because subjects would likely report the first incident and reason to come to mind. By asking for four incidents, it is likely that subjects’ responses will encompass a broader array of reasons for silence thus leading to a more comprehensive typology. We see a similar phenomenon with the workplace deviance exemplars provided by subjects in Robinson and Bennett’s (1995) deviant-typology research. Robinson and Bennett asked subjects to describe just two incidents of workplace deviance behavior. Using this methodology they did not find intentional silence to be a form of workplace deviance — possibly because of the covert nature of silence it was not one of the first two types of deviant behavior to come to mind. However, in other investigations of forms of workplace deviance, where respondents were not limited to just two examples, intentional silence was found to be a form of workplace deviance (Aquino, Lewis, &
Bradfield, 1999; Gruys & Sackett, 2003; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).
Verification and Editing of Survey Responses
In this phase all responses of silence-incidents, associated targets, and reasons were carefully reviewed by me and those not consistent with the previously provided definitions of employee silence were removed. This primarily consisted of the removal of incomplete, unintelligible, or overly vague responses, but as with the pilot test, no
102 response patterns indicative of systematic misinterpretation of the questions was
apparent.
Creation of Employee Silence Exemplars and Coding of Responses
This phase consisted of the creation of exemplar statements and the coding of
each response with the appropriate exemplar identification number. The development of
exemplar statements and subsequent application of exemplar codes enabled uniform
descriptions of similar themes across responses to be applied, and therefore reduced the
number of unique responses which would otherwise consist of only minor syntactical or
other non-substantive differences. This was a progressive process beginning with
analysis of the first response and the creation of an exemplar which was a short generic
description of the response. For example, the actual response “My boss told me not to discuss the subject- that people talking negatively or bringing up constructive criticism about the project were being fired,” was assigned the silence-reason exemplar “instructed
by supervisor to remain silent.” The exemplar was assigned an identification number and
the ID number was applied to the response. The next response was then analyzed, and if
the previously created exemplar also described the second response then the first
exemplar’s identification number was applied to the second response. If the first exemplar did not adequately describe the second response then a new exemplar was created and its identification number applied to the second response. All responses were analyzed via this method and new exemplars were created as needed to account for
responses which were not adequately described by any of the previously created
exemplars. Additionally, based on analysis of new responses, preexisting exemplars
103 were occasionally modified to better represent the culmination of silence-incident, -
targets, or -motives represented by the exemplar. Furthermore, considering the
exploratory nature of this research, the initial strategy for the creation of exemplars was to err on the side of creating new exemplars when a new response did not appear to be a very good fit with a previously created exemplar. Throughout this phase the evolving exemplar list and application of exemplar codes to responses was checked by a senior management professor with prior coding experience along with another colleague to ensure objectivity, clarity, and consistency of the exemplar statements and their application.
Exemplar Categorization
Considering that the initial strategy for the creation of silence-motive exemplars
was to err on the side of creating new exemplars when a new response did not appear to
be a near perfect fit with a previously created exemplar, the exemplar list became quite
large and appeared to contain many exemplars that were substantively similar, differing
primarily in syntax or context. Therefore the next step entailed carefully reviewing the
incident, target, and motive exemplar lists and grouping substantively similar exemplars into like categories. This stage entailed a delicate balance between the need to not
collapse unique responses that contain important nuanced differences into a single
category with the need to constrain the proliferation of substantively similar responses,
which would make the subsequent MDS analysis unmanageable. To accomplish this, the
initial list of exemplars was distributed to four independent colleagues. These colleagues
were asked to group the various exemplars into like categories based on the conceptual
104 similarity of the exemplars. The instructions stated that there were no expectations regarding the number of categories to be created. These categories were then reviewed by me and a senior management professor and served as a guide in the creation of general categories of employee silence. These categories provided the input for the MDS analysis which followed.
To assess the reliability of the silence-motive categories relative to the original silence-motive exemplars, three independent judges were asked to assign one of the silence- categories to each of the original exemplars. Fleiss’ Kappa (Κ) was calculated to
determine agreement among three independent judges. Fleiss’ Kappa has been found to
be a suitable measure of agreement among multiple raters working with nominal data
(Fleiss, 1971).
Development of Ratings of Psychological Proximity
The visual representation of the data provided by MDS — from which the various silence-motive dimensions will be derived — is a direct function of ratings of the psychological proximity of the different pairs of silence-motive categories derived in the previous silence-motives exemplars categorization phase. Robinson and Bennett (1995) in their MDS study of deviant workplace behaviors utilized a sample of 180 respondents in the similarity rating phase. Similarly, Farrell, (1983) in an MDS study of exit, voice, and loyalty concluded that 180 subjects was a sufficient sample size. Other studies, however, have used a considerably smaller sample size for this purpose. For example,
Wish (1971) utilized only 18 students for this purpose, and Thompson (1983) concluded that 33 students was sufficient for the development of proximity ratings. Based on the 105 similarity of these previous studies to the current research I anticipated that 100 respondents would be sufficient for this phase of the research. University students in a large undergraduate organizational behavior class were solicited to take part in the study.
They were provided extra credit in the class for their participation. One hundred and
twenty four students were solicited, 118 completed the survey.
There are several methods by which ratings of psychological proximity can be derived (e.g., Q-sort, pairwise comparison, free sorting, anchor-stimulus method; for
review see Borg & Groenen, 2005), but most of these methods involve subjects rating or
ranking the similarity of pairs of objects (silence-motive categories in this case). In a
systematic evaluation of alternative methods for determining proximities, Bijmolt and
Wedel (1995) found that pairwise comparisons yielded the highest quality MDS solution.
Using pairwise methodology subjects in this study were asked to rate the similarity of the
pairs of silence-motive categories on a similarity scale. The similarity scale was a 10-
point scale with lower numbers representing more dissimilar pairs of silence-motive
exemplars, and higher numbers representing more similar pairs (see Borg & Groenen,
2005; Kruskal & Wish, 1978). The order of presentation of the pairs of silence-motive
categories was randomized to control for order-of-presentation effects (Borg & Groenen,
2005).
Because of the relatively large number of different silence-motive categories
derived in the previous phase, participants were asked to make only a subset of
comparisons to reduce the cognitive strain associated with making such a large number of
comparisons. For example, if there are 10 categories identified, then respondents would
have to make (10*9/2) = 45 comparisons. However, if 20 categories are identified then
106 respondents would have to make (20*19/2) = 190 comparisons. As illustrated, when the
number of categories identified increases, the number of necessary comparisons increases
exponentially. Fortunately, the results of MDS analysis are quite robust against randomly
distributed missing data (see Borg & Groenen, 2005), and such subset comparisons have
been used successfully in previous MDS analysis (e.g., Robinson & Bennett, 1995). In
this study the full set of silence-motive category comparisons was split into two subsets
with each subject being randomly assigned to complete only one of the two subsets of
similarity comparisons.
Creation of a Silence-Motive Categories Similarity Matrix
In this phase, a matrix of perceived similarity between all the possible pairs of
silence-motive categories was created. Participants’ ratings of similarity (see previous
section) for each pair of silence-motive categories were averaged and used to create a similarity matrix of every possible pair of silence-motive categories (see Table 4.10; see also Borg & Groenen, 2005; Kruskal & Wish, 1978; Wish, 1971). The resulting matrix served as the input for the MDS analysis (see next section).
Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Silence-Motive Categories
The matrix developed in the previous section was analyzed using the MDS
module in SPSS version 14.0. This software derives spatial configurations based on the
perceived similarities of all the different silence-motive categories derived from subject’s
responses provided in the previous phase. SPSS uses the ALSCAL algorithm which is
robust relative to missing data, can be used with similarity or dissimilarity proximity
107 ratings, and is appropriate for use with ordinal data (Young, n.d.). MDS is useful for generating inductive, but empirically derived, typologies. Furthermore, MDS techniques enable a researcher to develop a typology using the perceptions of a diverse set of subjects. Therefore, MDS-derived typologies are less subject to researchers' biases than typologies generated through other methods (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).
Results of Study 1
As previously discussed, subjects were asked to describe up to four incidents when they intentionally remained silent and four incidents when they spoke up. In addition to describing the nature of the incidents they spoke up and remained silent in response to, subjects were also asked to describe the corresponding target(s) of their silence and voice, and the corresponding reason(s) for silence and voice. The next section provides the descriptive statistics and analysis of the silence-incidents, -targets, and -reasons. Following this analysis, a similar analysis is provided for voice-incidents, - targets, and -reasons.
Results of Employee Silence Study
Employee Silence: Incidents
Although the primary interest of this study is to ascertain and categorize the various motives employees have for intentionally remaining silent, it is also important to examine the types of issues or situations they are remaining silent in response to. This is because the type of issue or situation likely impacts the motives for silence as well as the subsequent outcomes of silence. For example, it may be that fear of retaliation is a more
108 dominant reason for silence in response to witnessing an ethical infraction than it is for
withholding information concerning an idea for improvement. Furthermore, it may also be that the types of outcomes related to remaining silent in response to witnessing an ethical violation are quite different than those associated with silence in response to an idea for improvement. Therefore, employees were first asked to think of, and describe, incidents at work to which they had intentionally remained silent.
From the 121 subjects who completed the qualitative study, 313 silence-incidents were provided. There were more reported silence-incidents than subjects because each subject was asked to provide up to four incidents. From the 313 incidents provided, 80 unique silence-incident exemplars were initially identified (see Table 4.2).
109 Table 4.2: Silence-Incidents Exemplars - Sorted by Frequency ID Silence-Incidents/Stimulus FREQ 9 meeting 26 48 co-worker violating company policy 14 1 unclear 13 8 Q&A opportunity in a meeting 13 21 co-worker not doing their fair share 13 19 operational/process/system problem 12 77 co-worker behaving unethically 10 17 perceived management incompetence 8 38 I perceived that a manager was behaving unethically 8 2 pay inequity 7 11 witnessed co-worker error 7 16 witnessing manager mistake 7 81 I was asked for my opinion/recommendation 7 67 incorrect analysis 6 70 disagreement with business decision 6 4 misplaced recognition 5 12 feedback about co-worker 5 25 work overload 5 27 scheduling conflict/error 5 51 I was unsure how to do a required task 5 78 treated unfairly by management 5 10 decision to reduce workforce 4 15 witnessing co-worker violating safety policy 4 23 treated unfairly by co-workers 4 29 witnessed management treating co-workers unfairly 4 30 questioned about co-worker violating policy 4 31 concern about employee theft 4 32 I was treated rudely by co-worker 4 40 perceived employee favoritism 4 59 I disagreed with a company policy 4 64 co-worker complaining to me 4 5 IT system change 3 7 training problem 3 33 co-worker personal problems 3 42 perceived manager being disrespectful to other employees 3 43 witnessed sexual harassment 3 44 disagreed with group recommendations 3 56 change in process/operation 3 73 I was asked to do something unethical by management 3 75 feedback request from management 3 84 discussion with co-workers 3 Continued 110 Table 4.2 continued ID Silence-Incidents/Stimulus FREQ 3 suspect employee substance abuse 2 6 unnecessary meetings 2 26 perceived co-worker incompetence 2 36 underutilized in current position/assignment/job 2 37 hearing gossip about co-worker 2 46 customer complaint 2 47 my error or mistake 2 50 I was treated disrespectfully by management 2 52 I received conflicting instructions from different managers 2 54 I felt I was unjustly reprimanded 2 60 group I was in was asked question 2 60 I was sexually harassed 2 63 pay incorrect/payroll mistake 2 79 I was wrongly accused of making a mistake 2 80 poor employee morale/attitude 2 82 co-worker violated agreement with me 2 13 supervisor insensitivity 1 14 employee monitoring 1 18 legal issue 1 20 personal request not honored 1 22 witnessing conflict between other co-workers 1 24 staying late to finish work without additional pay 1 34 treated rudely by customer 1 35 understaffed at work 1 39 manager siding with customer over disagreement 1 41 witnessed co-worker getting in trouble 1 43 another employee asked my opinion about their work quality 1 49 treated rudely by supervisor 1 53 co-worker unjustly accused of wrongdoing 1 55 lack of support from subordinates 1 58 lack of resources to do the job effectively 1 62 missed organizational goals 1 65 unfair assignment of duties 1 66 perceived discrimination 1 68 I had additional info that was needed 1 71 personnel change with no explanation 1 72 co-worker resignation 1 74 asked to volunteer 1 76 disagreement with co-worker 1 83 lack of opportunity 1
111 Employee Silence: Categorization of Silence-Incident Exemplars
As illustrated in Table 4.2, eighty different silence-incident exemplars resulted from the initial analysis and coding of the silence-incident responses. However, a review of the final exemplar list indicated that many of the exemplars appeared to be conceptually similar and could be combined into a fewer number of silence-incident categories without a significant loss of meaning. The methodology for categorizing the silence-incident exemplars was previously described in the methods section. Table 4.3 below shows the resultant silence-incident categories in CAPITALIZED ITALICS
BOLD font. The exemplars which compose each category are directly below each category label. The numbers in the left most column are the newly established category
ID numbers in ITALICS BOLD, and the previously established exemplar ID numbers from Table 4.2 in normal font. The right most column is the reported frequency of occurrence of each category in ITALICS BOLD (frequency is equal to the sum of the frequencies of the exemplars which compose a given category) along with the frequency of each exemplar in normal font below the category total. As indicated in Table 4.3, eleven distinct categories of silence-incidents were initially identified. Upon further evaluation of these 11 incident-categories by four independent raters, a consensus was reached that these 11 categories could be grouped into five broader silence-incident categories (see Table 4.4).
112 Table 4.3: Silence-Incidents Categories - Initial Categorization ID SILENCE-INCIDENT INITIAL CATEGORIES FREQ silence-incident exemplars 1 EXPLICIT VOICE OPPORTUNITY (E.G., ASKED QUESTION, MEETING) 56 9 meeting 26 8 Q&A opportunity in a meeting 13 81 I was asked for my opinion/recommendation 7 75 feedback request from management 3 84 discussion with co-workers 3 60 group I was in was asked question 2 45 another employee asked my opinion about their work quality 1 74 asked to volunteer 1
2 EXPERIENCED UNFAIR TREATMENT 51 2 pay inequity 7 4 misplaced recognition 5 27 scheduling conflict/error 5 78 treated unfairly by management 5 23 treated unfairly by co-workers 4 32 I was treated rudely by co-worker 4 40 perceived employee favoritism 4 50 I was treated disrespectfully by management 2 54 I felt I was unjustly reprimanded 2 61 I was sexually harassed 2 79 I was wrongly accused of making a mistake 2 82 co-worker violated agreement with me 2 13 supervisor insensitivity 1 14 employee monitoring 1 20 personal request not honored 1 34 treated rudely by customer 1 39 manager siding with customer over disagreement 1 49 treated rudely by supervisor 1 65 unfair assignment of duties 1
3 SOMEONE ELSE BEHAVING UNETHICALLY 49 48 co-worker violating company policy 14 77 co-worker behaving unethically 10 38 I perceived that a manager was behaving unethically 8 31 concern about employee theft 4 43 witnessed sexual harassment 3 73 I was asked to do something unethical by management 3 3 suspect employee substance abuse 2 37 hearing gossip about co-worker 2 Continued
113 Table 4.3 continued
ID SILENCE-INCIDENT INITIAL CATEGORIES FREQ silence-incident exemplars 18 legal issue 1 41 witnessed co-worker getting in trouble 1 66 perceived discrimination 1
4 CONCERNS ABOUT A CO-WORKER’S COMPETENCE OR PERFORMANCE 48 21 co-worker not doing their fair share 13 11 witnessed co-worker error 7 12 feedback about co-worker 5 15 witnessing co-worker violating safety policy 4 30 questioned about co-worker violating policy 4 64 co-worker complaining to me 4 33 co-worker personal problems 3 26 perceived co-worker incompetence 2 80 poor employee morale/attitude 2 22 witnessing conflict between other co-workers 1 55 lack of support from subordinates 1 72 co-worker resignation 1 76 disagreement with co-worker 1
5 PROBLEMS WITH ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES OR PERFORMANCE 37 AND/OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 19 operational/process/system problem 12 67 incorrect analysis 6 5 IT system change 3 7 training problem 3 56 change in process/operation 3 6 unnecessary meetings 2 46 customer complaint 2 52 I received conflicting instructions from different managers 2 63 pay incorrect/payroll mistake 2 62 missed organizational goals 1 68 I had additional info that was needed 1
6 DISAGREEMENT WITH COMPANY POLICIES OR DECISIONS 18 70 disagreement with business decision 6 10 decision to reduce workforce 4 59 I disagreed with a company policy 4 44 disagreed with group recommendations 3 71 personnel change with no explanation 1
7 CONCERNS ABOUT A SUPERVISOR/MANAGEMENT'S 15 COMPETENCE OR PERFORMANCE Continued 114 Table 4.3 continued ID SILENCE-INCIDENT INITIAL CATEGORIES FREQ silence-incident exemplars 17 perceived management incompetence 8 16 witnessing manager mistake 7
8 WORK OVERLOAD 8 25 work overload 5 35 understaffed at work 1 24 staying late to finish work without additional pay 1 58 lack of resources to do the job effectively 1
9 SOMEONE ELSE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY 8 29 witnessed management treating co-workers unfairly 4 42 perceived manager being disrespectful to other employees 3 53 co-worker unjustly accused of wrongdoing 1
10 PERSONAL PERFORMANCE ISSUE 7 51 I was unsure how to do a required task 5 47 my error or mistake 2
11 PERSONAL CAREER ISSUES OR CONCERNS 3 36 underutilized in current position/assignment/job 2 83 lack of opportunity 1
115 Table 4.4: Silence-Incidents Categories - Final Categorization ID SILENCE-INCIDENT FINAL CATEGORIES FREQ SILENCE-INCIDENT INITIAL CATEGORIES 1 VOICE OPPORTUNITY 56 1 EXPLICIT VOICE OPPORTUNITY (E.G., ASKED QUESTION, MEETING) 56
2 FARINESS ISSUE 59 2 EXPERIENCED UNFAIR TREATMENT 51 9 SOMEONE ELSE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY 8
3 ETHICAL ISSUE 49 3 SOMEONE ELSE BEHAVING UNETHICALLY 49
4 BUSINESS ISSUE 126 4 CONCERNS ABOUT A CO-WORKER’S COMPETENCE OR PERFORMANCE 48 5 37 PROBLEMS WITH ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES OR PERFORMANCE AND/OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 6 DISAGREEMENT WITH COMPANY POLICIES OR DECISIONS 18 7 15 CONCERNS ABOUT A SUPERVISOR/MANAGEMENT'S COMPETENCE OR PERFORMANCE 8 WORK OVERLOAD 8
5 PERSONAL CAREER-PERFORMANCE ISSUES 10 10 PERSONAL PERFORMANCE ISSUE 7 11 PERSONAL CAREER ISSUES OR CONCERNS 3
0 UNCLEAR 18
Employee Silence: Targets
As previously discussed, silence and related phenomena have been studied from a variety of perspectives which have usually either implicitly or explicitly designated a target, focus, or direction of silence (for review see Table 2.1). Exemplars of 12 different types of targets were developed and applied during the initial coding. These 12 different
116 exemplars of types of targets were then grouped into five target-categories. This
grouping was performed by three colleagues and reviewed by me. The target-exemplars
and subsequent target-categories, along with their reported frequencies of occurrence are
presented in Table 4.5. The resultant silence-target categories are indicated in
CAPITALIZED ITALICS BOLD font. The exemplars which compose each category are listed directly below each category label in normal font. The numbers in the left most column are the newly established category ID numbers in ITALICS BOLD, and the previously established exemplar ID numbers listed below in normal font. The right most column is the reported frequency of occurrence of each category in ITALICS BOLD
(frequency is equal to the sum of the frequencies of the exemplars which compose a given category) along with the frequency of each exemplar in normal font below the category total. As indicated in Table 4.5, the majority of the respondents indicated that silence was directed upward in the organization (233 or 74% of the 314 incidents).
Silence directed laterally (toward a co-worker) was reported in 55 (or 17%) of the 314 cases. Silence directed toward everyone, downward, or externally was reported relatively infrequently (8, 4, and 4) times respectively.
117 Table 4.5: Silence-Target Categories ID SILENCE-TARGETS CATEGORIES FREQ silence-target exemplars 1 UPWARD 233 4 direct supervisor 90 2 upper management 78 6 management 47 7 team members 10 9 business owner 6 5 meeting leader 1 8 peripheral superior 1
2 LATERAL 55 3 co-worker 55
3 EVERYONE 8 10 everyone 6 12 all parties involved 2
4 DOWNWARD 4 13 subordinate 4
5 EXTERNAL 4 11 customer 2 14 outside consultant 2
0 UNCLEAR 14
Employee Silence: Motives
From the 121 subjects completing the qualitative survey for employee silence,
313 different silence-incidents were reported. From the 313 different silence-incidents that were reported, 574 reasons for remaining silent were provided. The reason that more reasons were provided than incidents is that subjects frequently provided more than one
reason for each incident. From the 574 reasons that were reported, 15 were classified as
unclear. From the remaining 559 reasons for remaining silent, 84 unique silence-motive
118 exemplars were created. As described in the previous methods section, each exemplar is a short generic statement representing the primary essence of the reason provided for remaining silent (see Table 4.6 for the list of silence-motive exemplars along with their frequency of occurrence).
(see Table 4.6 next page)
119 Table 4.6: Silence-Motive Exemplars - Sorted by Frequency ID Silence-Motive Exemplars FREQ 20 belief that speaking-up wouldn't do any good 59 13 avoid confrontation/conflict 36 62 fear of retaliation 25 08 supervisor not open to other's views or ideas 22 15 I was a new/young/temporary/inexperienced employee 19 28 didn't want to get involved 19 54 belief that speaking-up may negatively impact my career 19 18 it is not my responsibility 17 24 didn't want to be thought of as incompetent 16 57 didn't want to harm relationship 16 29 protect a co-worker 15 25 didn't want to seem like a tattle tale 14 31 unsure what to do or say 14 14 didn't want to be viewed as causing problems 12 58 belief that speaking-up not worth the effort 12 11 didn't want to embarrass myself 11 43 didn't want to cause problems 11 34 intimidated by my supervisor 9 47 I felt it would out of line for me to speak up 9 09 didn't want to be the bearer of bad news 8 30 didn't feel comfortable 8 32 belief that other co-workers should handle the situation 8 52 didn't want to cause problems with supervisor/manager 7 65 to avoid having to do additional work 7 01 belief that supervisor would handle the situation 6 05 perceived management incompetence 6 44 didn't want to create tension with co-worker 6 53 belief that other co-workers would handle the situation 6 59 to avoid loss of political capital 6 60 wanted to remain neutral 6 68 I did not have the authority to speak up 6 72 I didn't care enough about the issue 6 73 belief that management doesn't care 6 04 instructed by supervisor to remain silent 5 12 presence of others 5 26 didn't want to be viewed as a complainer 5 27 fear of being seen as disrespectful 5 37 did not want to lose my job 5 77 didn't want to betray trust 5 07 previously reprimanded about speaking-up 4 45 incident not important enough to speak up about 4 03 expected the person impacted would speak up 3 Continued 120 Table 4.6 continued ID Silence-Motive Exemplars FREQ 17 had previously spoken up about same/similar incident 3 21 belief that time would handle the situation 3 33 too busy at the time to speak up 3 23 avoid being reprimanded 3 38 did not want to draw attention to myself 3 39 didn't want to go against group ideas 3 51 didn't want to get on my manager's bad side 3 61 management did not appreciate employees, so why bother 3 69 to avoid getting in trouble 3 76 remaining silent gave me a performance advantage 3 82 I was planning on leaving the organization soon 3 83 I believed my manager had emotional problems 3 10 didn't want to hurt someone's feelings 2 16 avoid potential loss of an employee 2 19 I was not involved 2 35 incident didn't materially affect me 2 41 didn't want manager to find out 2 48 didn't want to bother my supervisor/manager 2 70 believed that supervisor didn't like me 2 74 I was unsure who to speak up to 2 75 to avoid stress 2 81 supervisor demeaning to employees 2 02 perceived employee favoritism 1 06 previous speaking-up viewed by supervisor as causing problems 1 22 was taught not to complain 1 36 didn't want others to know I was bothered by incident 1 40 didn't want to upset customer 1 42 I wanted to handle the situation myself 1 46 didn't want to be viewed as immature 1 49 I was too embarrassed by other's behavior to speak 1 50 I was too proud to speak up about the incident 1 55 only recently became aware of the situation/incident 1 56 I tried not to let the incident bother me 1 63 to retaliate against my supervisor 1 64 didn't want to go beyond minimum required of me 1 66 target defensive in group setting 1 67 belief that someone else would speak up 1 71 to protect supervisor 1 78 wanted co-worker to learn from their mistake 1 79 didn't want to be too demanding 1 80 witnessed co-worker getting reprimanded for speaking-up about similar issue 1 84 had nothing new to add to discussion 1
121 Employee Silence: Categorization of Silence-Motive Exemplars
As illustrated in Table 4.6, eighty-four different silence-motive exemplars resulted from the initial analysis and coding of the reasons provided for remaining silent.
As previously discussed, this was not surprising considering the decision to employ a strategy of erring on the side of creating a new exemplar when a previously developed exemplar did not represent a near perfect fit with the response being analyzed. However, a review of the final exemplar list indicated that many of the exemplars appeared to be conceptually similar and could be combined into a fewer number of silence-motive categories without a significant loss of meaning. Furthermore, considering that MDS analysis requires developing similarity ratings of all possible pairs of motives, the current number of 84 exemplars would require (84 * 83)/2 = 3486 pairs of silence-motives to be rated according to their similarity. The methodology for categorizing the silence-motive exemplars was previously described in the methods section. Table 4.7 below shows the resultant silence-motive categories in CAPITALIZED ITALICS BOLD font. The exemplars which compose each category are directly below each category label. The numbers in the left most column are the newly established category ID numbers in
ITALICS BOLD, and the previously established exemplar ID numbers from Table 4.6 listed below in normal font. The right most column is the reported frequency of occurrence of each category in ITALICS BOLD (frequency is equal to the sum of the frequencies of the exemplars which compose a given category) along with the frequency of each exemplar listed in normal font below the category total. Note that three exemplars were unclassified, but that each of these had only one occurrence reported.
122 Table 4.7: Silence-Motive Categories - Sorted by Frequency
ID SILENCE-MOTIVE EXEMPLAR CATEGORIES FREQ silence-motive exemplars 12 I DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD DO ANY GOOD 86 20 belief that speaking-up wouldn't do any good 59 58 belief that speaking-up not worth the effort 12 05 perceived management incompetence 6 73 belief that management doesn't care 6 61 management did not appreciate employees, so why bother 3
10 I DIDN'T WANT OTHERS TO THINK NEGATIVELY OF ME 70 24 didn't want to be thought of as incompetent 16 25 didn't want to seem like a tattle tale 14 14 didn't want to be viewed as causing problems 12 09 didn't want to be the bearer of bad news 8 12 presence of others 5 26 didn't want to be viewed as a complainer 5 27 fear of being seen as disrespectful 5 39 didn't want to go against group ideas 3 46 didn't want to be viewed as immature 1 79 didn't want to be too demanding 1
04 TO PROTECT SELF FROM MATERIAL HARM 70 62 fear of retaliation 25 54 belief that speaking-up may negatively impact my career 19 65 to avoid having to do additional work 7 59 to avoid loss of political capital 6 37 did not want to lose my job 5 69 to avoid getting in trouble 3 23 avoid being reprimanded 3 41 didn't want manager to find out 2
01 I WANTED TO AVOID CONFLICT 66 13 avoid confrontation/conflict 36 43 didn't want to cause problems 11 52 didn't want to cause problems with supervisor/manager 7 44 didn't want to create tension with co-worker 6 60 wanted to remain neutral 6
Continued
123 Table 4.7 continued
ID SILENCE-MOTIVE EXEMPLAR CATEGORIES FREQ silence-motive exemplars 17 I DIDN'T CARE ENOUGH 60 28 didn't want to get involved 19 18 it is not my responsibility 17 72 I didn't care enough about the issue 6 45 incident not important enough to speak up about 4 33 too busy at the time to speak up 3 82 I was planning on leaving the org soon 3 19 was not involved 2 35 incident didn't materially affect me 2 48 didn't want to bother my supervisor/manager 2 56 I tried not to let the incident bother me 1 64 didn't want to go beyond minimum required of me 1
15 NEGATIVE MANAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 40 08 supervisor not open to other's views or ideas 22 34 intimidated by my supervisor 9 83 manager had emotional problems 3 70 believed that supervisor didn't like me 2 81 supervisor demeaning to employees 2 02 perceived employee favoritism 1 66 target defensive in group setting 1
09 I WAS UNSURE WHAT TO SAY 36 15 I was a new/young/temporary/inexperienced employee 19 31 unsure what to do or say 14 74 I was unsure who to speak up to 2 84 had nothing new to add to discussion 1
05 TO AVOID NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 27 11 didn't want to embarrass myself 11 30 didn't feel comfortable 8 38 did not want to draw attention to myself 3 75 to avoid stress 2 36 didn't want others to know I was bothered by incident 1 49 I was too embarrassed by other's behavior to speak 1 50 I was too proud to speak up about the incident 1
08 PROTECT RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER 24 57 didn't want to harm relationship 16 77 didn't want to betray trust 5 51 didn't want to get on my manager's bad side 3
Continued 124 Table 4.7 continued
ID SILENCE-MOTIVE EXEMPLAR CATEGORIES FREQ silence-motive exemplars 13 I THOUGHT SOMEONE ELSE WOULD SPEAK UP 21 32 belief that other co-workers should handle the situation 8 01 belief that supervisor would handle the situation 6 03 expected the person impacted would speak up 3 21 belief that time would handle the situation 3 67 belief that someone else would speak up 1
06 TO PROTECT ANOTHER PERSON 19 29 protect a co-worker 15 10 didn't want to hurt someone's feelings 2 71 to protect supervisor 1 78 wanted co-worker to learn from their mistake 1
11 I DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY 15 47 I felt it would out of line for me to speak up 9 68 I did not have the authority to speak up 6
02 I'VE HAD PREVIOUS NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES WITH SPEAKING-UP 9 07 previously reprimanded about speaking-up 4 17 had previously spoken up about same/similar incident 3 06 previous speaking-up viewed by supervisor as causing problems 1 80 witnessed co-worker getting reprimanded for speaking-up about similar issue 1
03 INSTRUCTED TO REMAIN SILENT 6 04 instructed by supervisor to remain silent 5 22 was taught not to complain 1
07 TO PROTECT THE ORGANIZATION 3 16 avoid potential loss of an employee 2 40 didn't want to upset customer 1
16 REMAINING SILENT GAVE ME AN ADVANTAGE 3 76 remaining silent gave me a performance advantage 3
14 TO HARM ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL 1 63 to retaliate against my supervisor 1
UNCLASSIFIED 3 41 didn't want manager to find out 1 42 I wanted to handle the situation myself 1 55 only recently became aware of the situation/incident 1
125 To assess the reliability of the 17 silence-motive categories relative to the original
84 silence-motive exemplars, three independent judges (personal associates) were asked to assign one of the 17 categories to each of the original 84 exemplars. Table 4.8 below shows the application by the three independent judges of the silence-motive categories to
each of the original 84 silence-motive exemplars. The analysis revealed a Kappa (K) =
.7438. Kappa’s of .70 or greater are generally thought to be sufficient for psychological
measurement (Fleiss, Levin, & Paik, 2004). Furthermore, in situations where all three
raters did not agree, no further changes to the category names were deemed necessary.
This is because the overall level of rater agreement was acceptable, and it is the
categories, and not the individual exemplars comprising each category, which are used in
the analysis of dimensionality.
(see Table 4.8 next page)
126 Table 4.8: Silence-Motive Exemplar Categories IRR
Silence-Motive Exemplars Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Category Category Category Exemplar ID 01 belief that supervisor would handle the situation 13 13 13 02 perceived employee favoritism 15 15 15 03 expected the person impacted would speak up 13 13 13 04 instructed by supervisor to remain silent 3 3 3 05 perceived management incompetence 15 15 15 06 previous speaking-up viewed by supervisor as causing problems 2 2 2 07 previously reprimanded about speaking-up 3 2 2 08 supervisor not open to other's views or ideas 15 15 15 09 didn't want to be the bearer of bad news 10 1 10 10 didn't want to hurt someone's feelings 6 6 8 11 didn't want to embarrass myself 10 10 10 12 presence of others 13 10 10 13 avoid confrontation/conflict 1 1 1 14 didn't want to be viewed as causing problems 10 10 10 15 I was a new/young/temporary/inexperienced employee 9 11 11 16 avoid potential loss of an employee 7 6 6 17 had previously spoken up about same/similar incident 12 12 12 18 it is not my responsibility 17 11 11 19 was not involved 17 17 17 20 belief that speaking-up wouldn't do any good 12 12 12 21 belief that time would handle the situation 17 17 17 22 was taught not to complain 3 10 5 23 avoid being reprimanded 4 4 1 24 didn't want to be thought of as incompetent 10 10 10 25 didn't want to seem like a tattle tale 10 10 10 26 didn't want to be viewed as a complainer 10 10 10 27 fear of being seen as disrespectful 10 11 11 28 didn't want to get involved 17 1 1 29 protect a co-worker 6 6 6 30 didn't feel comfortable 9 5 11 31 unsure what to do or say 9 9 9 32 belief that other co-workers should handle the situation 13 13 13 33 too busy at the time to speak up 17 13 17 34 intimidated by my supervisor 15 15 15 35 incident didn't materially affect me 17 17 17 36 didn't want others to know I was bothered by incident 10 10 10 37 did not want to lose my job 4 4 4 38 did not want to draw attention to myself 10 10 10 Continued 127 Table 4.8 continued
Silence-Motive Exemplars Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Category Category Category Exemplar ID 39 didn't want to go against group ideas 10 10 5 40 didn't want to upset customer 7 7 7 41 didn't want manager to find out 1 15 4 42 I wanted to handle the situation myself 11 9 1 43 didn't want to cause problems 1 1 1 44 didn't want to create tension with co-worker 1 8 8 45 incident not important enough to speak up about 17 17 17 46 didn't want to be viewed as immature 10 10 10 47 I felt it would out of line for me to speak up 11 11 11 48 didn't want to bother my supervisor/manager 17 1 1 49 I was too embarrassed by other's behavior to speak 10 5 5 50 I was too proud to speak up about the incident 10 5 5 51 didn't want to get on my manager's bad side 8 4 4 52 didn't want to cause problems with supervisor/manager 1 4 4 53 belief that other co-workers would handle the situation 13 13 13 54 belief that speaking-up may negatively impact my career 4 16 4 55 only recently became aware of situation/incident 11 9 9 56 I tried not to let the incident bother me 5 5 5 57 didn't want to harm relationship 8 8 8 58 belief that speaking-up not worth the effort 12 17 17 59 to avoid loss of political capital 4 16 16 60 wanted to remain neutral 1 1 1 61 management did not appreciate employees, so why bother 15 15 15 62 fear of retaliation 4 4 4 63 to retaliate against my supervisor 14 14 14 64 didn't want to go beyond minimum required of me 17 17 17 65 to avoid having to do additional work 17 16 16 66 target defensive in group setting 1 1 1 67 belief that someone else would speak up 13 13 13 68 I did not have the authority to speak up 11 11 11 69 to avoid getting in trouble 4 4 4 70 believed that supervisor didn't like me 15 15 15 71 to protect supervisor 6 6 6 72 I didn't care enough about the issue 17 17 17 73 belief that management doesn't care 15 15 15 74 I was unsure who to speak up to 9 17 9 75 to avoid stress 5 5 5 76 remaining silent gave me a performance advantage 16 16 16 77 didn't want to betray trust 8 8 8 Continued 128 Table 4.8 continued
Silence-Motive Exemplars Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Category Category Category Exemplar ID 78 wanted co-worker to learn from their mistake 6 6 6 79 didn't want to be too demanding 10 10 10 witnessed co-worker getting reprimanded for speaking-up about 80 similar issue 2 2 12 81 supervisor demeaning to employees 15 15 15 82 I was planning on leaving the org soon 17 17 17 83 manager had emotional problems 15 15 15 84 had nothing new to add to discussion 9 9 9
Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Silence-Motive Categories
To keep the visual configurations in this phase from getting overly messy due to
the length of some of the silence-motive category label names, category abbreviations
were created and used in the resultant MDS visual configurations. The silence-motive
category label abbreviations are provided in Table 4.9 below. The numbers suffixed to
the abbreviations are the reported frequency of occurrence of the given category.
129 Table 4.9: Silence-Motive Category Label Abbreviations and Frequencies ID Silence Categories Abbreviated Descriptions_Freq. 1 I wanted to avoid conflict Avoid_Conflict_66 2 I've had previous negative experiences with speaking-up Prior_Neg_Exp_9 3 Instructed to remain silent Instructed_6 4 To protect self from material harm Protect_Self_70 5 To avoid negative emotions Avoid_Neg_Emot_27 6 To protect another person Protect_Another_19 7 To protect the organization Protect_Org_3 8 To protect relationship with another Protect_Relationship_24 9 I was unsure what to say Unsure_what_to_say_36 10 I didn't want others to think negatively of me Avoid_Neg_Impress_70 11 I did not have authority Lacking_Authority_21 12 I didn't think it would do any good Useless_86 13 I thought someone else would speak up Someone_Else_15 14 To harm another individual Harm_Another_1 15 Negative management characteristics Bad_Management_40 16 Remaining silent gave me an advantage Gain_Advantage_3 17 I didn't care enough Didnt_Care_60
The next phase of the analysis entailed subjecting the 17 employee silence-motive categories to the MDS analysis as previously described. The input for the MDS study consisted of a matrix of average similarity ratings of all possible pairs of silence-motive categories as described in the earlier section — Methodology of Study 1: Development of
Ratings of Psychological Proximity. See Table 4.10 for the silence-motive categories similarity matrix that was used as the input for the MDS analysis.
130 Table 4.10: Silence-Motive Categories Similarity Matrix
Avoid_Conflict_66 Prior_Neg_Exp_9 Instructed_6 Protect_Self_70 Avoid_Neg_Emot_27 Protect_Another_19 Protect_Org_3 Protect_Relationship_24 Unsure_what_to_say_36 Avoid_Neg_Impress_70 Lacking_Authority_21 Useless_86 Someone_Else_15 Harm_Another_1 Bad_Management_40 Gain_Advantage_3 Didnt_Care_60
Avoid_Conflict_66 0 Prior_Neg_Exp_9 6.4 0 Instructed_6 4 5.0 0 Protect_Self_70 5.3 5.4 4.8 0.0 Avoid_Neg_Emot_27 7.0 6.2 5.3 6.0 0.0 Protect_Another_19 5.6 5.2 5.9 5.2 5.4 0.0 Protect_Org_3 5.0 4.4 6.0 5.0 4.5 6.5 0.0 Protect_Relationship_24 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.6 4.8 7.4 6.2 0.0 Unsure_what_to_say_36 5.0 5.8 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.7 5.4 5.2 0.0 Avoid_Neg_Impress_70 6.9 6.5 4.8 6.2 7.2 5.9 5.9 6.5 6.8 0.0 Lacking_Authority_21 5.6 5.0 6.3 4.7 4.8 4.2 5.3 4.4 6.1 5.3 0.0 Useless_86 6.0 5.8 4.3 4.6 5.6 5.3 5.2 5.7 6.3 6.0 6.1 0.0 Someone_Else_15 5.7 5.8 4.6 4.6 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.4 6.4 6.3 6.5 6.4 0.0 Harm_Another_1 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3 3.9 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.2 0.0 Bad_Management_40 5.0 5.3 5.4 4.8 5.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 5.2 6.0 5.5 5.3 5.7 4.9 0.0 Gain_Advantage_3 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.9 6.2 5.4 5.7 6.5 5.3 5.4 0.0 Didnt_Care_60 5.5 4.8 4.2 4.1 4.6 4.4 4.1 4.8 6.0 4.8 5.8 6.6 6.9 4.4 5.2 5.5 0.0
As illustrated in Table 4.7 the silence-motive categories differ considerably with regard to their reported total frequency of occurrence. Due to some of the categories having relatively small frequencies of occurrence, five different MDS analyses were conducted ranging from all categories included, to all categories with less than ten occurrences excluded. This was done to determine if the omission of relatively less- occurring categories substantively affected the interpretability of the grouping of
131 categories. Next, the visual configurations of the five MDS analyses of the silence- motive categories are provided.
All 17 Categories Included
Figure 4.1: Visual Representation of All 17 Silence-Motive Categories
132 16 Categories Included • Harm_Another_1 Excluded
Figure 4.2: Visual Representation of 16 Most Frequent Silence-Motive Categories (Excluded
Categories: Harm_Another_1)
133 14 Categories Included • Harm_Another_1 Excluded • Protect_Org_3 Excluded • Gain_Advantage_3 Excluded (All categories with 3 or less occurrences excluded)
Figure 4.3: Visual Representation of 14 Most Frequent Silence-Motive Categories (Excluded
Categories: Harm_Another_1, Protect_Org_3, Gain_Advantage_3)
134 13 Categories Included • Harm_Another_1 Excluded • Protect_Org_3 Excluded • Gain_Advantage_3 Excluded • Instructed_6 Excluded (All categories with 6 or less occurrences excluded)
Figure 4.4: Visual Representation of 13 Most Frequent Silence-Motive Categories (Excluded
Categories: Harm_Another_1, Protect_Org_3, Gain_Advantage_3, Instructed_6)
135 12 Categories Included • Harm_Another_1 Excluded • Protect_Org_3 Excluded • Gain_Advantage_3 Excluded • Instructed_6 Excluded • Prior_Neg_Exp_9 (All categories with 9 or less occurrences excluded)
Figure 4.5: Visual Representation of 12 Most Frequent Silence-Motive Categories (Excluded
Categories: Harm_Another_1, Protect_Org_3, Gain_Advantage_3, Instructed_6,
Prior_Neg_Exp_9)
136 Analysis of the MDS Silence-Motive Category Configurations
Based on a review of the MDS analyses several interesting themes appear to
emerge. First, there is a notable variation in the graphical representation depending on
whether all silence-exemplar categories are included, or selected low-occurrence
categories are omitted from the analysis. In the MDS analysis, the categories represented
in the visual configuration are not in any way weighted according to frequency of
occurrence. Therefore, removing even a low-occurrence category has the potential to notably impact the visual representation. This is apparent when examining the five visual
representations (see Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5). Of particular interest is that although
the visual configurations shifted considerably, the comparative clustering of the
categories appeared relatively stable. That is, across the five different visual
configurations, seemingly related clusters held together in a fairly consistent manner.
This is because in MDS, it is not the absolute position of the categories on the MDS map
which is indicative of conceptual similarity, but rather their relative proximity to each
other. Therefore, considering the nascent stage of the study of employee silence, in
conjunction with no apparent meaningful gains in interpretability when low-occurrence
categories are omitted, along with the anecdotal, conceptual, and theoretical guidance for
the inclusion of all categories, I decided to base the interpretation of category groupings
on the visual configuration derived from the inclusion of all 17 categories (see Figure
4.6). This figure is identical to the previously provided Figure 4.1 except that ovals have been inserted indicating one possible way of grouping the categories into meaningful category-clusters.
137 All 17 Categories Included Cluster 3: Prosocial Cluster 4: Deviant
Cluster 1: Self-Protect
Cluster 2: Acquiescent
Figure 4.6: Visual Representation of All 17 Silence-Motive Categories with Indicated Clusters
As illustrated in Figure 4.6, four silence-motive category clusters appear to
emerge, although, and not surprisingly, this is not so precise as to be beyond alternative interpretations. Next, the descriptive statistics of the silence-motive categories contained within each cluster are presented (see Table 4.11). Then, a preliminary discussion of the composition of each proposed cluster is provided along with an initial label which seems to represent the essence of the cluster.
138 Table 4.11: Silence-Motive Cluster Descriptive Statistics
SILENCE-MOTIVE CLUSTER % of % of Cluster # Silence-Motive Category FREQ Category Total
1 SELF PROTECTIVE SILENCE To protect self from material harm 70 22.88% 12.59% I didn't want others to think negatively of me 70 22.88% 12.59% I wanted to avoid conflict 66 21.57% 11.87% Negative management characteristics 40 13.07% 7.19% To avoid negative emotions 27 8.82% 4.86% To protect relationship with another 24 7.84% 4.32% Instructed to remain silent 6 1.96% 1.08% Remaining silent gave me an advantage 3 0.98% 0.54% Cluster 1 Total: 306 100.00% 55.04%
2 ACQUIESCENT SILENCE I didn't think it would do any good 86 39.45% 15.47% I didn't care enough 60 27.52% 10.79% I was unsure what to say 36 16.51% 6.47% I thought someone else would speak up 21 9.63% 3.78% I did not have authority 15 6.88% 2.70% Cluster 2 Total: 218 100.00% 39.21%
3 PROSOCIAL SILENCE To protect another person 19 86.36% 3.42% To protect the organization 3 13.64% 0.54% Cluster 3 Total: 22 100.00% 3.96%
4 DEVIANT SILENCE To harm another individual 1 100.00% 0.18% Cluster 4 Total: 1 100.00% 0.18%
CATEGORIES NOT INCLUDED IN ANY CLUSTER NA I've had previous negative experiences with speaking- up 9 100.00% 1.62%
Total: 556 100% 100.00%
139 Silence-Motive Cluster 1: Self Protective Silence
Cluster 1 is composed of eight silence-motive categories. This is the largest cluster in the analysis in terms of number of different categories included in the cluster
(8), the collective frequency of the motives composing the categories included (306), and the conceptual space occupied in the MDS visual representation. The interpretation of
the clustering of these categories is somewhat less clear than the other clusters illustrated
in the visual analysis. This is evidenced by the relatively large area of the oval which
contains the categories, indicating that some of the categories included in this cluster may
not be as conceptually similar to one another as are categories in the more tightly
configured clusters.
Based on previous conceptual work on employee silence (see Milliken et al.,
2003; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003) it was expected that self-protection related motives for silence would be frequently reported.
Anecdotally this is also the case, as most real-world accounts of employee silence have at their core a belief that speaking-up may in some way result in harm to the individual doing so (e.g., NASA, 2003; Oppel, 2002; Vaughan, 2006). As evidenced from the reported frequency of the categories included in this cluster, this expectation was indeed warranted. The eight silence-motive categories included in this cluster collectively subsume 306 (55%) of the 556 reasons for silence reported in the open-ended responses.
Next, a brief overview of the rationale for the inclusion of each silence-motive category in Cluster 1 is provided.
Cluster 1 Silence-Motive Category: To Protect Self from Material Harm
(abbreviated as “Protect_Self_70” in Figure 4.6). Tied for the most frequently reported
140 silence-motive category in Cluster 1, this category is also perhaps the most representative
category portrayed in the employee silence literature. The individual responses that compose this category are responses where the individual states that they are remaining silent to protect themselves from some form of material harm (as opposed to psychological or relational harm), or that they fear some form of material reprisal if they
would speak up. Types of material harm cited in the exemplars composing this category
include loss of employment, career damage, and having to do more work, among others
(see Table 4.7).
Cluster 1 Silence-Motive Category: I Didn't Want Others to Think Negatively of
Me (abbreviated as “Avoid_Neg_Impress_70” in Figure 4.6). This next category
included in Cluster 1 also received 70 responses. This category also has at its core a
desire to avoid a potential negative outcome associated with speaking-up. In this
category, however, the responses were focused on the respondents desire to avoid others
forming a negative impression of them, rather than on the primarily material concerns of
the previous category. A desire to avoid others forming a negative impression may have
material implications, but this was not primary focus of the responses composing this
category. The inclusion of this category in Cluster 1 makes sense in that the overarching
theme of Cluster 1 appears to be the desire to avoid some form of negative outcome the
respondent believes may result if they break their silence.
Cluster 1 Silence-Motive Category: I Wanted to Avoid Conflict (abbreviated as
“Avoid_Conflict_66” in Figure 4.6). This category was the third most frequently
reported category in Cluster 1. Conceptually, this category is also focused on a desire to
avoid an ostensibly negative outcome (conflict) and therefore belongs in Cluster 1. It is
141 interesting to note, however, that the spatial location of this category on the MDS map
places it nearer to Cluster 2 than any of the other categories included in Cluster 1. The
composition of Cluster 2 is discussed in detail in the next section, but appears to be
related to acquiescence or disengagement. The desire to avoid conflict seemingly may be
based on a desire to avoid harm (Cluster 1), or could be based on a feeling of resignation,
hence its proximity to Cluster 2. However, examining the content of the responses composing this category enables no such causal inference to be made; therefore this category is most appropriately included in Cluster 1.
Cluster 1 Silence-Motive Category: Negative Management Characteristics
(abbreviated as “Bad_Management_40” in Figure 4.6). This next category included in
Cluster 1 was indicated as a reason for silence in 40 responses. The spatial location of this category on the MDS map shows it positioned on the far right edge of the oval
demarcating Cluster 1. Horizontally this silence-motive category is proximally aligned
with categories included in Cluster 2. However, vertically this category is more
proximally aligned with most of the categories included in Cluster 1. Conceptually one
can make an argument for the inclusion of this category in either Cluster 1 or Cluster 2 as
Negative Management Characteristics may be antecedently related to either fear of
reprisal (Cluster 1) or acquiescence (Cluster 2). However, based on a review of the
individual responses which compose this category it appears that it is conceptually more
aligned with the underlying nature of Cluster 1. However, this is largely a matter of
interpretation as negative management characteristics are likely more of a distal cause for
remaining silent, with either fear of reprisal or disengagement potentially mediating the
relationship.
142 Cluster 1 Silence-Motive Category: Avoid Negative Emotions (abbreviated as
“Avoid_Neg_Emot_27” in Figure 4.6). This category is the next most frequent category included in Cluster 1 with 27 responses. Of the emotional responses sought to be avoided, a desire to avoid embarrassment accounted for 12 of the 27 responses. The next most frequent emotional response was a general feeling of discomfort associated with speaking-up. A desire to avoid stress associated with speaking-up, to not draw attention to oneself, and to not let others know the respondent was bothered by the situation are included in this category, but their reported frequency is relatively low (see Table 4.7).
Cluster 1 Silence-Motive Category: Protect Relationship with Another. This next most frequently reported category included in Cluster 1 was reported 24 times. The position of this category on the MDS map is proximal to several of the other categories included in Cluster 1, but also relatively close to silence-motive categories included in
Cluster 3. The composition of Cluster 3 is discussed in detail in a following section, but it appears to be related to prosocial intentions. This silence-category can reasonably be
viewed in terms of prosocial intentions as a number of individual responses are
seemingly related to facets of organizational citizenship behavior focused on other
individuals (OCB-I) proposed by Williams and Anderson (1991). However, the primary
essence of the responses which make up this category appear to have at their core a desire
to avoid harm which may result from damaging a relationship. Therefore, inclusion of
this category within Cluster 1 is seemingly more appropriate than including it in Cluster
3.
Cluster 1 Silence-Motive Category: Instructed to Remain Silent (abbreviated as
“Instructed_6” in Figure 4.6). This category was reported six times. Presumably,
143 subjects making the similarity comparisons in the MDS analysis felt that violating instructions to remain silent may result in negative consequences, hence its proximal
location to the category Protect Self from Material Harm.
Cluster 1 Silence-Motive Category: Remaining Silent Gave Me an Advantage
(abbreviated as “Gain_Advantage_3” in Figure 4.6). This category was reported only
three times and is possibly related to protecting oneself, although not necessarily.
However, based on a review of the individual responses there does not appear to be
enough of a conceptual distinction to warrant a separate cluster for this category,
especially considering that it was only reported three times as a reason for remaining
silent, hence, its inclusion in Cluster 1.
Silence-Motive Cluster 2: Acquiescent Silence
Cluster 2 is composed of five silence-motive categories, all of which are
conceptually related to the Acquiescent Silence proposed by Pinder and Harlos (2001)
and elaborated upon by Van Dyne et al. (2003). Van Dyne et al. define Acquiescent
Silence as “withholding relevant ideas, information, or opinions, based on resignation.
Thus, Acquiescent Silence suggests disengaged behavior (W. A. Kahn, 1990) that is more passive than active” (p. 1366). Next, a brief overview of the rationale for the inclusion of each silence-motive category in Cluster 2 is provided.
Cluster 2 Silence-Motive Category: I Didn’t Think It Would Do Any Good
(abbreviated as “Useless_86” in Figure 4.6). This is the most frequently occurring silence-motive category included in Cluster 2. This was also the most frequently reported category in the entire study with 86 reported occurrences. The most common exemplar
144 in this category is “belief that speaking-up wouldn’t do any good,” which accounted for
58 of the 86 occurrences in this category. This exemplar was the primary guide in the creation of the label for this category. The next most frequently occurring exemplar in this category “belief that speaking-up is not worth the effort” (13 occurrences) is clearly related to the previous exemplar.
Cluster 2 Silence-Motive Category: I Didn’t Care Enough (abbreviated as
“Didnt_Care_60” in Figure 4.6). This category was reported 60 times and is seemingly related to acquiescence. Although distinct from the previous silence-motive category, this category may reasonably be inferential of the “acceptance without protest” which typifies acquiescence, hence its inclusion within Cluster 2.
Cluster 2 Silence-Motive Category: I Was Unsure What to Say (abbreviated as
“Unsure_what_to_say_36” in Figure 4.6). This category was reported 60 times.
Although its spatial location on the MDS map is proximal to the other silence-motive categories included in Cluster 2, its conceptual relatedness to acquiescence is open to interpretation. It may be that feelings of acquiescence lead someone to silence when they are relatively “unsure what to say,” but this certainly does not have to be the case.
Someone who is “unsure what to say” may be silent for reasons unrelated to acquiescence, such as not wanting to embarrass themselves.
Cluster 2 Silence-Motive Category: I Thought Someone Else Would Speak Up
(abbreviated as “Someone_Else_21” in Figure 4.6). This category was reported 21 times.
As with the previous category, this category is seemingly open to multiple interpretations.
Although an abdication of the need to speak up may be indicative of feelings of acquiescence, this is not the only reason a person may remain silent when they feel
145 someone else would speak up (i.e., a desire to avoid conflict). However, considering the
spatial proximity of this category on the MDS map to the other acquiescence-related
categories, the inclusion of this category within the acquiescence cluster is seemingly
reasonable.
Cluster 2 Silence-Motive Category: I Did Not Have Authority (abbreviated as
“Lacking_Authority_15” in Figure 4.6). This category was reported 15 times and is the
final category comprising Cluster 2. As with several of the previously examined
categories, there is potential ambiguity relative to its interpretation, however, there
appears to be enough conceptual overlap with the overarching theme of this cluster to
warrant its inclusion.
Silence-Motive Cluster 3: Prosocial Silence
The next cluster of silence-motive categories identified (see Figure 4.6, Cluster 3) is composed of silence intended to protect the organization, and silence intended to
protect another individual. As previously discussed, based on prior conceptual research
by Van Dyne et al. (2003) it was expected that subjects would report remaining silent for
prosocial related motives. Drawing on the Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) literature which describes prosocial forms of employee behavior (Organ, 1988), Van
Dyne and colleagues defined Prosocial Silence as the “withholding work-related ideas,
information, or opinions with the goal of benefiting other people or the organization –
based on altruism or cooperative motives.” (p. 1368). According to Van Dyne et al.,
expected examples of prosocial silence likely include such behaviors as “withholding
confidential information based on cooperation” and “protecting proprietary knowledge to
146 benefit the organization” (p. 1363). Next, a brief overview of the rationale for the
inclusion of each silence-motive category in Cluster 3 is provided.
Cluster 3 Silence-Motive Category: To Protect Another Person (abbreviated as
“Protect_Another_19” in Figure 4.6). In the analysis of the exemplars which compose
this category, the exemplar “protect a co-worker” was by far the most frequent response
accounting for 15 of the 19 responses in this category. Although “protecting another
person” may occur for many reasons, not all of which may be considered prosocial (i.e.,
protecting a co-worker who did something unethical due to fear of retaliation), the least inferential interpretation is seemingly one of prosocial intent.
Cluster 3 Silence-Motive Category: To Protect the Organization (abbreviated as
“Protect_Org_3” in Figure 4.6). This category was only reported as a reason for silence three times. The individual exemplars composing this category included “avoid potential loss of an employee” (2 responses), and “didn’t want to upset customer” (1 response).
Again, the most “straightforward” interpretation is seemingly inferential of prosocial motives for this type of silence, although these reasons certainly could be self-serving as well.
Silence-Motive Cluster 4: Deviant Silence
The oval in the upper right of Figure4.6 (Cluster 4) is the cluster consisting of the
single silence-motive category of Harm_Another_1 which is clearly separated from the
other silence-motive categories. In all of the open-ended responses that were analyzed,
only one respondent indicated that they had intentionally used silence as a means of
purposefully trying to cause harm to another individual. Although it is tempting to
147 simply remove this category from the analysis because of its low frequency of occurrence, there are important theoretical and methodological reasons not to exclude it at this early stage in this investigative research. First, previous research and subsequent typologies and measures of employee deviance related behaviors are inconsistent in their recognition of intentional silence as a form of workplace deviance. Following is a brief discussion of some of this previous research along with likely reasons for the inconsistency in the treatment of intentional silence as a form of deviance.
The most widely used measures and most frequently cited typology of employee deviance related behaviors appears to be that of Robinson & Bennett (1995); Bennett and
Robinson (2000). In their typology of workplace deviance behaviors and subsequent measures, they do not identify intentional withholding of information as a form of deviance. Similarly, Robinson and O’Leary-Kelly’s (1998) investigation of anti-social behavior at work used measures based on the earlier work of Robinson and Bennett and hence do not consider intentional silence as a form of anti-social workplace behavior.
However, Aquino et al. (1999) developed measures of workplace deviance for use in studying the relationship of organizational justice, negative affectivity, and employee deviance. One item in their 15-item employee deviance scale “Refused to talk to a co- worker” is related to employee silence. Furthermore, Gruys and Sackett (2003) investigated the dimensionality of counter-productive work behavior (CWB) and found intentionally failing to give one’s supervisor or co-worker necessary information to be a frequently reported form of CWB. They integrated this specific behavior into the broader dimension of “Misuse of Information.” They actually found response rates for intentionally failing to give information to supervisor or co-worker to be greater than
148 taking petty cash from the company, missing work without calling in, intentionally doing slow or poor quality work, verbally abusing a co-worker or supervisor, physical attack, or unwanted sexual advances. In addition, Vardi and Wiener (1996) in their investigation of organizational misbehavior (OMB) acknowledged that withholding pertinent information may be a form of OMB, but it is not specified in the theorizing that led to their proposed model of OMB. And finally, Skarlicki and Folger (1997) in their investigation of organizational retaliatory behaviors (ORB), found that failing to give coworker required information was a reported form of ORB and subsequently included it as an item in their
ORB survey measures.
From this brief review of the relevant employee deviance literature, it is clear that there is a great deal of inconsistency in the treatment of intentional silence as a form of deviant related behavior. Some research acknowledges it and includes it as an item in broader measures of deviance, other research completely neglects it. The reasons for this inconsistency are not exactly clear but it may be related to the way the various lists of deviant behavioral exemplars were created. For example, Gruys and Sackett (2003) derived their list of deviant behavior exemplars from an in-depth literature review identifying over 250 different deviant behaviors which were eventually pared down to 66 distinct behaviors. Aquino et al. (1999) also wrote items based on a review of the previous literature. Subsequently, both Gruys and Sackett, and Aquino et al., included a form of intentional silence as a form of the deviant behavior. In contrast, Robinson and
Bennett (1995) asked respondents to describe two incidents of "someone at work engaging in something considered to be deviant at their workplace” (p. 558). Because the
Robinson and Bennett items are derived from direct observation, and considering the
149 difficulty in observing silence, it would likely not be one of the first two forms of
observed deviance reported. Therefore it is not hard to understand why silence as a form
of deviance did not make their list. However, Bennett and Robinson (2000) also included
deviant behaviors identified in a literature review in addition to the items identified in
their 1995 study, but after editing for clarity and redundancy no items remained that
described intentional withholding of information. It is not clear if there were any “pre-
edit” items that were related to withholding information, but if there were they did not
survive the editing process. Skarlicki and Folger (1997), however, also relied on observation to create their behavioral exemplars, and intentional silence was included in
their measures, but this may be due to the fact that they did not limit reported observation
of deviant behavior to two items per respondent. However, as previously discussed,
subjects in Study 1 of this research project were asked to provide up to four different
silence-incidents and associated reasons. Most subjects, however, reported only two
different silence-incidents, with an average of 2.6 silence-incidents reported per subject.
Based on the responses, it is not clear if the subjects reporting less than four silence-
incidents could not recall any more incidents, or simply elected to report a fewer number
of incidents to avoid the effort of thinking about additional silence-incidents, writing
fatigue, etc.
At this point it is not clear if the reported low occurrence of a desire to cause harm
as a reason for silence is due to it actually being a very rare occurrence, or is simply an
unintended artifact of the methodology (i.e., not a primary reason to come to mind, social
desirability response bias, etc.). Considering the nascent stage of the research on employee silence, it is best to include a category when its relevance or pervasiveness is
150 uncertain, and later remove it from measurement if it is consistently found to be relatively non-occurring. This especially seems to be the appropriate strategy with the category of silence intended to cause harm considering that notable research on employee deviance has identified silence-related behaviors as a form of deviance. Therefore, to cause harm will be included in the development of the measures of silence developed in Study 2 of this research project. Furthermore, based on the dimensionality of deviant behavior identified by Robinson and Bennett (1995), it also seems prudent to distinguish between silence behavior intended to harm another individual, and silence behavior intended to
harm the organization.
Silence-Motive Category Not Included in Dimensional Cluster
As indicated in Figure 4.6, the silence-motive category indicated as
“Prior_Neg_Exp_9” is not included in any of the four proposed silence-motive clusters.
As previously discussed, there is conceptual support for each of the four identified
clusters in the extant employee silence literature (see Greenberg et al., 2007; Van Dyne et
al., 2003), which along with the supporting MDS results, substantiate the clustering
indicated in Figure 4.6. However, considering the equivocal MDS results relative to the
silence-motive category “Prior_Neg_Exp_9,” along with the potential to infer multiple
motives to this category (i.e., prior negative experience based on: retaliation, or lack of
response on the part of management, etc.), and considering that this category does not
have conceptual support in the extant literature to warrant its classification as a distinct
dimension, it is appropriately not considered a dimensional cluster at this stage in the
research. However, considering that this research is primarily exploratory, and not
151 designed to simply confirm or disconfirm the silence-dimensions conceptualized in the literature, this category is retained for item development and factor analysis in the studies which follow.
Discussion of the Employee Silence-Motive MDS Analysis
As previously discussed, prior conceptualizations of employee silence proposed various dimensions of the construct. Also, as previously discussed, these proposed dimensions were based, not on different behavioral manifestations, but rather on different underlying motives for remaining silent. Pinder and Harlos (2001) proposed the acquiescent and quiescent dimensions of employee silence. Van Dyne et al. (2003) added prosocial silence to this list. Greenberg et al. (2007) proposed that employees may also remain silent as a means of causing harm to individuals or organizations.
The results of this study indicate that there are indeed many different motives employees may have for remaining silent. In fact, the first round of response analyses yielded 84 different silence-motive exemplars. As indicated, many of these exemplars were conceptually similar enough to warrant their combining into broader silence-motive categories. Consequently, upon review by four independent judges, these 84 different silence-motive exemplars were collapsed into 17 distinct silence-motive categories.
Next, the 17 silence-motive categories were subjected to an MDS analysis, the results of which can be seen in Figure 4.6. The ovals indicating distinct clusters of silence-motive categories were inserted after a review of the MDS map with three senior management professors. Whether or not the spatial location of the various categories warrants their grouping into the four clusters indicated by the ovals is a matter of
152 interpretation. It may be that this researcher’s prior knowledge of the dimensionality
proposed in the literature biased the interpretation and contributed to the outlining of four
clusters which are equivalent to the dimensionality proposed in the literature. However,
there is little contention that the spatial location of the various categories on the MDS map does indicate varying degrees of conceptual similarity among the assorted silence-
motive categories with certain categories grouping more or less together.
Not unexpectedly, and consistent with the defensive and acquiescent silence
dimensions previously proposed (see Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003),
people frequently remain silent to protect themselves and due to feelings of acquiescence.
In this study, people also reported remaining silent for prosocial motives (as proposed by
Van Dyne et al.), albeit the frequency of this type of silence was considerably less than
defensive or acquiescent silence. And lastly, the deviant silence dimension proposed by
Greenberg et al. (2007) was only reported by one respondent, but as previously discussed, there may be methodological reasons for the absence of this motive being reported.
How thin to slice the “cluster pie” is an important question. For example, within
Cluster 1 (self-protective silence) there are seemingly categories with perhaps distinctions which warrant their own cluster or dimension. This issue is of primary importance when it comes to measurement of the construct. If we proceed with the four dimensional model indicated by Figure 4.6, then we may miss important opportunities to better understand the possible causes and consequences of silence based on a specific motive. As seen in
Cluster 1, it may be that the desire to protect a relationship with another is in practice quite different than silence designed to protect oneself from material harm. Considering the exploratory nature of this research and the inherent subjectivity of qualitative inquiry,
153 and MDS analysis, I believe it is premature to definitively say that employee silence is
best conceptualized as a four dimensional construct as indicated in Figure 4.6. However,
even though the best way to combine these categories into clusters or dimension is still
debatable, some fairly strong indicators did appear to emerge in this research. First,
considering that new exemplar development diminished substantially toward the end of
the response analysis it is likely that the majority of potential motives for remaining silent
had been captured. Therefore, it does appear that the silence categories which were
identified in this study do adequately cover the landscape of potential motives for why an employee may remain silent at work. Second, it seems pretty clear that these different categories of silence-motives group into conceptually distinct clusters, although some clusters are more easily interpretable than others. Therefore, the findings of this study do appear to be an adequate starting point for development of measures of employee silence.
In addition to silence-motives, the types of incidents employees reported remaining silent in response to (see Table 4.4), and the targets of silence (see Table 4.5), were also examined. Although not the primary purpose of this research, examination of how the reasons for silence vary across different types of incidents and targets may be informative to the applicability of the typology of silence-motive dimensions across issue types and/or targets. At this point there is little theoretical or empirical guidance relative to the implications of these boundary constraint issues. Considering that the data to examine these relationships was contained within the original qualitative responses, I decided to dummy code the responses according to incident-, target-, and reason- categories, and examine the co-occurrences and correlations. Based on this analysis it appears that no definitive relationships exist. Therefore, it appears that the phenomenon
154 of silence readily manifests across these various boundary factors, albeit to varying degrees, for a variety of different motives. Therefore, although certain research questions may necessitate the constraining of incident type or target, the typology of silence-motive dimensions appears to be relevant across a variety of incident types and targets.
As previously discussed, an important presupposition on which this research is based is that silence is more complex than can be understood by simply assuming it is equivalent to an absence of voice. Therefore, although the primary focus of this research is on employee silence, finding that the underlying reasons for voice are not merely equivalent to the opposite of those for silence demonstrates the value in conceptualizing and studying silence as a distinct construct. For that reason, before developing measures of employee silence, an investigation of employee voice is conducted to examine the validity of this important presupposition. Next I discuss the results of the qualitative and
MDS study of employee voice. These studies methodologically mirror the qualitative and
MDS study of employee silence, with the exception that speaking-up (voice), rather than remaining silent, is the phenomenon of interest.
155 Results of Employee Voice Study
In this section the open-ended responses pertaining to the incidents, targets, and motives for speaking-up are examined. As previously discussed, the same group of subjects was utilized for both the employee silence and employee voice surveys. At least one day, and no more than one week elapsed between taking the two surveys.
Furthermore, as with silence, it is the underlying motives which are of primary interest, and hence they are the focus of the MDS analysis. However, the incidents subjects reported speaking-up in response to, as well as the reported targets of speaking-up, are also coded, categorized, and compared to silence-incidents and -targets, but are not subjected to the more in-depth MDS analysis.
Employee Voice: Incidents
In the model of employee silence (see Figure 3.3), the Input Stimulus is described as a situation, issue, or event which an individual believes on some level they should speak-up about. Therefore, although the primary interest of this voice study is to examine and categorize the various motives employees have for speaking-up, it is also important to examine the types of issues or situations they are speaking-up in response to. This is because the type of issue or situation an employee is speaking-up in response to may provide important insights into the value of examining silence and voice as separate constructs. Therefore, employees were asked to think of, and describe, incidents at work to which they had spoken-up rather than intentionally remained silent.
From the 130 subjects completing the qualitative survey for employee voice, 361 different voice-incidents were reported. As with the silence-incidents, the reason that the
156 number of voice-incidents reported is greater than the number of subjects is because each subject was asked to report up to four different voice-incidents.
Employee Voice: Categorization of Voice-Incident Exemplars
As illustrated in Table 4.12 (see below), 56 different voice-incident exemplars resulted from the initial analysis and coding of the voice-incident responses. However, a review of the final exemplar list indicated that many of the exemplars appeared to be conceptually similar and could be combined into a fewer number of voice-incident categories without a significant loss of meaning. The methodology for categorizing the voice-incident exemplars was previously described in the methods section. Table 4.12 shows the resultant voice-incident categories in CAPITALIZED ITALICS BOLD font.
The exemplars which compose each category are directly below each category label in normal font. The numbers in the left most column are the newly established category ID numbers in ITALICS BOLD, and the previously established exemplar ID numbers in normal font. The right most column is the reported frequency of occurrence of each category in ITALICS BOLD (frequency is equal to the sum of the frequencies of the exemplars which compose a given category) along with the frequency of each exemplar below the category total in normal font. As indicated in Table 4.12, twelve distinct categories of voice-incidents were identified.
157 Table 4.12: Voice-Incidents Categories - Sorted by Frequency VOICE-INCIDENT CATEGORIES ID voice-incident exemplars FREQ
1 EXPERIENCED UNFAIR / UNETHICAL TREATMENT 59 2 I experienced unfair treatment 22 18 compensation problem 16 49 experienced disrespectful treatment by supervisor 5 19 experienced sexual harassment 4 44 pay inequity 3 34 I was falsely accused of wrongdoing 3 5 unfair hiring practices 3 28 experienced disrespectful treatment by supervisor 2 4 forced to fill in for absent co-worker 1
2 EXPLICIT VOICE OPPORTUNITY (E.G., ASKED QUESTION, MEETING) 55 16 meeting 45 10 conversation/issue with customer 5 9 meeting with supervisor 4 24 public speaking requirement 1
3 CONCERNS ABOUT A CO-WORKER’S COMPETENCE OR PERFORMANCE 55 3 co-worker not doing their fair share 21 42 co-worker error/mistake 18 31 perceived co-worker incompetence 9 41 concern about lack of teamwork 4 43 witnessed/suspected customer theft 3
4 SOMEONE ELSE BEHAVING UNETHICALLY 40 27 co-worker violating company policy 16 15 witnessed/suspected employee theft 7 56 witnessed co-worker harassment 5 22 witnessing disrespectful behavior between other co-workers 5 57 unethical management policies 4 45 witnessed racist behavior 2 14 witnessed others leaking confidential information 1
5 CONCERN/DISAGREEMENT WITH COMPANY POLICIES OR DECISIONS 32 46 important decision 12 33 disagreed with new initiative 7 39 disagreement with strategic decision 6 50 disagreed with company policy 4 11 upper management causing labor relations problems 3
Continued
158 Table 4.12 continued VOICE-INCIDENT CATEGORIES ID voice-incident exemplars FREQ 6 PROBLEMS WITH ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES OR PERFORMANCE AND/OR 26 SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 21 scheduling problem 11 13 operational/process/system problem 10 51 I had a good idea for improvement 3 6 ineffective training practice 2
7 DISAGREEMENT WITH SUPERVISOR/MANAGEMENT 20 25 disagreement with boss 14 36 I disagreed with my group/team's ideas 6
8 PERSONAL PERFORMANCE ISSUE 15 20 work overload 9 52 a mistake I made 2 26 asked to do work not in my job description 2 53 I didn't have enough work to keep me busy 1 23 when I have questions 1
9 PERSONAL CAREER ISSUES OR CONCERNS 14 17 performance review/evaluation 10 30 desired new opportunity 3 55 passed over for advancement 1
CONCERNS ABOUT A SUPERVISOR/MANAGEMENT'S COMPETENCE OR 10 12 PERFORMANCE 29 perceived management incompetence 6 38 supervisor not doing their fair share 3 40 mistake made by my professor 1 37 mistake made by my supervisor 1 12 discipline of supervisor 1
11 SAFETY OR LEGAL CONCERN 10 7 unsafe working conditions 3 32 asked to perform unsafe act 2 48 safety emergency 2 54 potential legal liability 1 8 unsafe management practices 1 47 witnessed non-employee violating company policy 1
12 DISAGREEMENT WITH COWORKER/TEAM 3 35 I disagreed with co-worker's ideas 3
NA UNCLEAR 20
159 Employee Voice: Targets
As previously discussed, voice and related phenomena have been studied from a
variety of perspectives which have usually either implicitly or explicitly designated a
target, focus, or direction of the voice (for review see Table 2.1). Exemplars of 21 different types of targets were developed and applied during the initial coding. Just as
with targets of silence, these 21 different exemplars of types of voice-targets were then
grouped into five target-categories. This grouping was performed by three colleagues
and reviewed by me. The voice-target exemplars and subsequent voice-target categories,
along with their reported frequencies of occurrence are presented in Table 4.13. The
resultant categories are indicated in CAPITALIZED ITALICS BOLD font. The
exemplars which compose each category are listed directly below each category label in
normal font. The numbers in the left most column are the newly established category ID
numbers in ITALICS BOLD, and the previously established exemplar ID numbers listed
below in normal font. The right most column is the reported frequency of occurrence of
each category in ITALICS BOLD (frequency is equal to the sum of the frequencies of the
exemplars which compose a given category) along with the frequency of each exemplar
in normal font below the category total. As indicated in Table 4.13, in the majority of the
reported incidents, voice was directed upward in the organization (233 or 64.5% of the
361 incidents). Voice directed laterally (toward a co-worker) was reported in 68 (or
19%) of the 361 incidents. Voice directed toward everyone, downward, or externally was
reported relatively infrequently (31, 15, and 6) times respectively.
160 Table 4.13: Voice -Target Categories ID VOICE-TARGETS CATEGORIES FREQ voice-target exemplars
1 UPWARD 233 4 upper management 95 2 direct supervisor 88 8 manager 28 5 human resources dept. 8 9 teacher 5 13 superior co-worker 4 12 team leader 2 15 business owner 1 16 assistant manager 1 20 department manager 1
2 LATERAL 68 3 co-worker 54 7 team members 14
3 EVERYONE 31 21 everyone involved 27 11 all people present 4
4 DOWNWARD 15 6 subordinate 15
5 EXTERNAL 6 14 customer 3 17 friends 1 19 emergency response 1 22 outside consultant 1
Unclear 8 1 unclear 6 10 people with answers 1 18 department responsible 1
Employee Voice-Motive Exemplars
From the 361 different voice-incidents that were reported, 751 (non-unique)
reasons for speaking up were provided. The reason that more reasons for speaking up
161 were provided than voice-incidents is that subjects frequently provided more than one
reason for each incident. From the 751 reasons for speaking up that were reported, 59
(unique) voice-motive exemplars were created. As described in the previous methods
section, each exemplar is a short generic statement typically representing multiple
reasons for speaking up that have only non-substantive differences (see Table 4.14 for the
list of voice-motive exemplars along with their frequency of occurrence).
(see Table 4.14 next page)
162 Table 4.14: Voice-Motive Exemplars - Sorted by Frequency ID Voice-Motive Exemplar FREQ 15 believed speaking-up was the right thing to do 86 9 to improve the situation 64 16 bring issue to attention of management 50 1 attempt to correct being treated unfairly 38 20 belief that speaking-up would correct the issue 37 3 thought situation was unfair 34 17 because I believed in cause 33 14 incident negatively impacted the organization 32 43 to help the organization 29 49 I had a strong desire to be heard 24 25 to help others avoid mistakes 16 2 attempt to correct co-worker not doing their fair share 15 12 correct inaccurate reporting 15 50 desire to make a contribution 15 52 it was part of the job responsibility 15 0 unclear 14 23 to counter others' untrue statement 13 27 to vent about an issue 13 26 attempt to correct boss's bad decision 12 11 incident violated company policy 11 19 because I was angry 10 21 because I was frustrated 10 30 belief I have good ideas 10 6 incident may affect career advancement 9 45 felt comfortable expressing my feelings 9 48 to improve operational/process/system issue 9 57 belief my idea would benefit the organization 9 40 to correct boss's mistake 8 35 to correct other's misperception of me 7 55 to avoid being punished for other's mistake 7 7 to explain my decision 6 29 because the incident negatively impacted my performance/career 6 38 to correct safety hazard 6 13 incident negatively impacted the customer 5 24 to facilitate my learning 5 37 to correct operational/process problem 5 51 to ask for help 5 28 attempt to correct being treated disrespectfully 4 36 to correct other's false accusation of me 4 39 to correct work overload 4 5 management disregard for safety 3 8 previously regretted not speaking-up about similar issue 3 Continued 163 Table 4.14 continued ID Voice-Motive Exemplar FREQ 18 to make myself look good 3 33 to generate new ideas 3 41 attempt to correct supervisor not doing their fair share 3 46 to correct scheduling problem 3 47 to hold customer accountable for theft 3 54 I had a good relationship with manager 3 56 to get credit for work I had done 3 58 to take responsibility for my own mistake 3 4 attempt to correct ineffective training 2 10 because customer was unhappy 2 31 perception that the manager is open to other's opinions 2 34 to harm co-worker 2 42 to help a customer 2 53 manager/supervisor easy to talk to 2 59 to protect organization from legal liability 2 22 I had previously been told to speak up about such issues 1 32 to protect my safety 1 44 to correct teacher's mistake 1
Employee Voice: Categorization of Voice-Motive Exemplars
Fifty-nine different voice-motive exemplars resulted from the initial analysis and coding of the voice-reason responses. As previously discussed, this was not surprising considering the decision to employ a strategy of erring on the side of creating a new exemplar when a previously developed exemplar did not represent a near perfect fit with the response being analyzed. However, a review of the final exemplar list indicated that many of the exemplars appeared to be conceptually similar and could be combined into a fewer number of voice-motive categories without a significant loss of meaning.
Furthermore, considering that MDS analysis requires developing similarity ratings of all possible pairs of motives, the current number of 59 exemplars would require (59 * 58)/2
164 = 1711 pairs of voice-motives to be rated according to their similarity. The methodology
for categorizing the voice-motive exemplars was previously described in the methods
section. Table 4.15 shows the resultant voice-motive categories in CAPITALIZED
ITALICS BOLD font. The exemplars which compose each category are listed in normal
font directly below each category label. The numbers in the left most column are the
newly established category ID numbers in ITALICS BOLD, and the previously
established exemplar ID numbers listed in normal font below the category ID. The right
most column is the reported frequency of occurrence of each category in ITALICS
BOLD (frequency is equal to the sum of the frequencies of the exemplars which compose a given category) along with the frequency of each exemplar below the category total in normal font.
(see Table 4.15 next page)
165 Table 4.15: Voice-Motive Exemplar Categories - Sorted by Frequency VOICE-MOTIVE EXEMPLAR CATEGORIES ID FREQ voice-motive exemplars 01 TO CORRECT/IMPROVE A NEGATIVE SITUATION 365 10 to improve the situation 64 17 bring issue to attention of management 50 02 attempt to correct being treated unfairly 38 21 belief that speaking-up would correct the issue 37 04 thought situation was unfair 34 15 incident negatively impacted the organization 32 03 attempt to correct co-worker not doing their fair share 15 13 correct inaccurate reporting 15 24 to counter others' untrue statement 13 27 attempt to correct boss's bad decision 12 49 to improve operational/process/system issue 9 41 to correct boss's mistake 8 39 to correct safety hazard 6 14 incident negatively impacted the customer 5 38 to correct operational/process problem 5 29 attempt to correct being treated disrespectfully 4 40 to correct work overload 4 06 management disregard for safety 3 42 attempt to correct supervisor not doing their fair share 3 47 to correct scheduling problem 3 05 attempt to correct ineffective training 2 11 customer unhappy 2 45 to correct teacher's mistake 1
09 FELT OBLIGATION/RESPONSIBILITY 152 16 believed speaking-up was the right thing to do 86 18 believed in cause 33 53 it was part of the job responsibility 15 12 incident violated company policy 11 48 to hold customer accountable for theft 3 59 to take responsibility for my own mistake 3 23 had previously been told to speak up about such issues 1
Continued
166 Table 4.15 continued VOICE-MOTIVE EXEMPLAR CATEGORIES ID FREQ voice-motive exemplars 05 TO HELP THE ORGANIZATION 70 44 to help the organization 29 51 desire to make a contribution 15 31 belief I have good ideas 10 58 belief my idea would benefit the organization 9 34 to generate new ideas 3 43 to help a customer 2 60 to protect organization from legal liability 2
06 DESIRE TO BE HEARD 66 50 I had a strong desire to be heard 24 28 to vent about issue 13 20 I was angry 10 22 I was frustrated 10 08 explain my decision 6 09 previously regretted not speaking-up about similar issue 3
04 TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM HARM 34 07 incident may affect career advancement 9 36 to correct other's misperception of me 7 56 to avoid being punished for other's mistake 7 30 incident negatively impacted my performance/career 6 37 to correct other's false accusation of me 4 33 to protect my safety 1
03 TO BENEFIT MYSELF 16 25 to facilitate my learning 5 52 to ask for help 5 19 to make myself look good 3 57 to get credit for work I had done 3
07 POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPERVISOR/MANAGEMENT 16 55 I had a good relationship with manager 3 46 felt comfortable expressing my feelings to management 9 54 manager/supervisor easy to talk to 2 32 perceive manager open to other's opinions 2
08 TO HELP ANOTHER PERSON 16 26 to help others avoid mistakes 16
02 TO HARM ANOTHER PERSON 2 35 to harm co-worker 2
167 To assess the reliability of the 9 voice-exemplar categories relative to the original
59 voice-motive exemplars three independent judges (personal associates) were asked to
assign one of the 9 categories to each of the original 59 exemplars. Table 4.16 shows the
application by the three independent judges of the voice-exemplar categories to each of the original 59 voice-motive exemplars. The analysis revealed a Kappa (K) = .8584.
Kappa’s of .70 or greater are generally thought to be sufficient for psychological measurement (Fleiss et al., 2004). In situations where all three raters did not agree, no further changes to the category names were deemed necessary. This is because the overall level of rater agreement was acceptable, and it is the categories, and not the individual exemplars comprising each category, which are used in the analysis of dimensionality.
(see Table 4.16 next page)
168 Table 4.16: Voice-Motive Exemplar Categories IRR
Voice-Motive Exemplars
Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Category Category Category
Exemplar ID
1 attempt to correct being treated unfairly 1 4 1 2 attempt to correct co-worker not doing their fair share 1 1 1 3 thought situation was unfair 1 1 1 4 attempt to correct ineffective training 1 1 1 5 management disregard for safety 4 4 4 6 incident may affect career advancement 4 4 4 7 to explain my decision 6 6 6 8 previously regretted not speaking-up about similar issue 6 6 6 9 to improve the situation 1 1 1 10 because customer was unhappy 5 5 5 11 incident violated company policy 1 1 1 12 correct inaccurate reporting 1 1 1 13 incident negatively impacted the customer 5 5 5 14 incident negatively impacted the organization 5 5 5 15 believed speaking-up was the right thing to do 9 9 9 16 bring issue to attention of management 1 5 1 17 because I believed in cause 9 9 9 18 to make myself look good 3 3 3 19 because I was angry 1 1 6 20 belief that speaking-up would correct the issue 1 1 1 21 because I was frustrated 6 6 6 22 I had previously been told to speak up about such issues 9 9 5 23 to counter others' untrue statement 4 4 4 24 to facilitate my learning 3 3 3 25 to help others avoid mistakes 8 8 8 26 attempt to correct boss's bad decision 1 1 1 27 to vent about an issue 6 6 6 28 attempt to correct being treated disrespectfully 1 1 1 29 because the incident negatively impacted my performance/career 4 4 4 30 belief I have good ideas 6 6 1 31 perception that the manager is open to other's opinions 7 7 7 32 to protect my safety 4 4 4 33 to generate new ideas 1 5 5 34 to harm co-worker 2 2 2 35 to correct other's misperception of me 4 4 3 36 to correct other's false accusation of me 4 4 4 37 to correct operational/process problem 1 1 1 Continued 169 Table 4.16 continued
Voice-Motive Exemplars
Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Category Category Category
Exemplar ID
38 to correct safety hazard 1 1 1 39 to correct work overload 3 1 1 40 to correct boss's mistake 1 1 1 41 attempt to correct supervisor not doing their fair share 1 1 1 42 to help a customer 5 5 5 43 to help the organization 5 5 5 44 to correct teacher's mistake 1 1 1 45 felt comfortable expressing my feelings 6 7 7 46 to correct scheduling problem 1 1 1 47 to hold customer accountable for theft 5 5 5 48 to improve operational/process/system issue 1 1 1 49 I had a strong desire to be heard 6 6 6 50 desire to make a contribution 5 5 5 51 to ask for help 3 3 3 52 it was part of the job responsibility 9 9 9 53 manager/supervisor easy to talk to 7 7 7 54 I had a good relationship with manager 7 7 7 55 to avoid being punished for other's mistake 4 4 4 56 to get credit for work I had done 3 3 3 57 belief my idea would benefit the organization 5 5 5 58 to take responsibility for my own mistake 9 9 9 59 to protect organization from legal liability 5 5 5
Employee Voice: Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Voice Categories
To keep the visual configurations in this phase from getting overly messy due to the length of some of the voice-category label names, category abbreviations were created and used in the resultant MDS visual configurations. The voice-category label abbreviations are provided in Table 4.17 below. The numbers suffixed to the abbreviations are the reported frequency of occurrence of the given category.
170
Table 4.17: Voice-Motive Category Label Abbreviations and Frequencies
ID Voice-Motive Categories Categories Labels 1 To correct/improve a negative situation improve_situation_365 2 To harm another person harm_another_2 3 To benefit myself benefit_myself_16 4 To protect myself from harm protect_self_34 5 To help the organization help_organization_70 6 Desire to be heard desire_to_be_heard_66 7 Positive relationship with supervisor/management pos_mgt_relations_16 8 To help another person help_another_16 9 Felt obligation/responsibility obligation_responsibility_152 Note: Underscores in category labels required by MDS software. Frequency of occurrence indicated following underscore in category label.
The next phase of the analysis entailed subjecting the nine employee voice
categories to the MDS analysis. The input for the MDS study consisted of a matrix of
average similarity ratings of all possible pairs of voice-motive categories (see Table 4.18
Voice-Categories Similarity Matrix). The methodology for the creation of this matrix
was identical to the development of the silence-motives category similarity matrix
previously described, with one notable exception. Because of the fewer number of voice- motive categories than silence-motive categories (9 vs. 17), all subjects completed the full set of voice-motive category similarity ratings (as opposed to subjects completing
one of two subsets of similarity ratings, as was the case with the 17 silence categories;
see Appendix D1).
171 Table 4.18: Voice-Motives Categories Similarity Matrix
improve_situation_365 benefit_myself_16 protect_self_34 help_organization_70 desire_to_be_heard_66 pos_mgt_relations_16 help_another_16 obligation_responsibility_152 improve_situation_365 0 benefit_myself_16 6.58 0 protect_self_34 7.33 7.85 0 help_organization_70 8.19 7 5.59 0 desire_to_be_heard_66 6 6.7 5.62 5.52 0 pos_mgt_relations_16 6.08 6.68 5.38 7.32 6.23 0 help_another_16 7.48 6.37 5.55 7.7 5.92 6.12 0 obligation_responsibility_152 7.13 5.78 5.78 7.8 5.78 6.28 7.15 0
Next, the visual configuration of the MDS analyses of the voice-categories is provided. Unlike employee silence, where several silence-motive categories had relatively low occurrences, all of the voice-motive categories had at least 16 occurrences.
Therefore, for voice, it was deemed unnecessary to evaluate visual configurations with low-occurrence voice-motive categories omitted. Subsequently there is just one visual configuration of voice-motive categories (see Figure 4.7).
172 Cluster 2: Desire Cluster 4:Pos Mgt Relations
Cluster 3: Self-Interested Cluster 1: Constructive
Figure 4.7: Visual Representation of Voice-Motive Categories with Indicated Clusters
173 Analysis of the MDS Voice-Motive Category Configurations
Based on the graphical representation of the employee voice categories in Figure
4.7, four groupings of voice-categories appear to emerge. The four clusters are indicated
by the ovals inserted in Figure 4.7. The clusters are ordered 1 to 4 based on their reported
frequency of occurrence in the open-ended responses.
Voice-Motive Cluster 1: Constructive Voice
Cluster 1 contains the largest number of voice categories, and by far the most
reported occurrences. The underlying theme of the voice-categories in Cluster 1 appears
to be constructive motivation. Whether the underlying reason is to help the organization,
improve the situation, help another, or a felt obligation or responsibility, all of these
categories have at their core seemingly virtuous intentions. Of the 735 interpretable
reasons provided in the open-ended responses, 603 (82%) fall into this cluster of voice
categories.
Voice-Motive Cluster 2: Desire to be Heard
Cluster 2 is composed of just one voice-motive category (the desire to be heard) which was reported 66 (9%) times. Based on the spatial location of this category on the
MDS map, initial thoughts were to combine this category with the positive management
relations category. However, examination of the exemplars which compose these two
categories did not reveal enough conceptual similarity to warrant their grouping together
into a single voice-motive cluster. Therefore, this category is most appropriately
representative of a unique categorical cluster.
174
Voice-Motive Cluster 3: Self-Interested Voice
Cluster 3 is composed of two voice-motive categories with a total of 50 (6.9%)
reported occurrences. The common theme of these two categories appears to be material
self-interest. The two categories composing this cluster differ in that one is focused on
what can be gained, and the other is focused on protecting oneself from loss, but in both
cases the focus is on instrumental self-interest.
Voice-Motive Cluster 4: Positive Management Relations
Cluster 4 (like Cluster 2) is composed of just one voice-motive category (positive
management relations). As previously discussed, based on the spatial proximity of this category to the desire to be heard category, my initial thoughts were to combine these two categories. However, the exemplars which compose this category are less about an
inner desire to be heard and more a function of perceived management characteristics.
Therefore this category is most appropriately left as a singular category unto itself.
Discussion of the Employee Voice-Motive MDS Analysis
Relative to the extant literature, this study found marginal support for the
prosocial dimension of voice proposed by Van Dyne et al. (2003) with voice-motive
exemplars desire to improve a situation, felt obligation or responsibility, and to help the
organization combined accounting for 78% of the 751 reasons provided for speaking-up.
However, as previously discussed, Constructive Voice is a more accurate descriptor of
this dimension than is Van Dyne’s et al. Prosocial Voice. Subjects also reported
175 speaking-up to protect themselves, thus providing support for the defensive voice dimension proposed by Van Dyne et al., albeit the reported frequency of this type of voice was relatively low with only 6.6% of the reported reasons falling into this dimension. As indicated in Figure 4.7, the protect_self voice category was combined
with the benefit_myself voice category to form the broader self-interested voice
dimension. Relative to the acquiescent dimension of voice proposed by Van Dyne et al.
the findings are less clear. Van dyne et al. characterizes acquiescent voice as
“expressions of agreement and support based on low self-efficacy to affect any
meaningful change” (p. 1373). This type of voice is conceptually similar to expressions
of agreement characterized in the “Abilene Paradox” (see Harvey, 1974), which describes
situations where people communicate agreement because they want to conform to the
perceived wishes or desires of the group. Similarly, Allport (1924) described the concept
of “Pluralistic Ignorance” where each person in a group assumes that their own
perspective is the only one that differs from the group’s and therefore they express
agreement with the group. Interestingly, however, none of the respondents reported
speaking-up for these types of reasons. However, this may be due to the nature of the
survey, and not necessarily due to the non-existence of this reason for voice. Although most people probably could think of times when they have spoken up for acquiescent reasons, but since they were not directly asked if they ever spoke up for this reason it apparently was not considered a relevant reason for voice by any of the respondents.
Speaking-up for acquiescent reasons (to some extent) implies not saying what is really on your mind, which is conceptually closer to silence than to the more explicit nature of voice.
176 Study 1 also revealed dimensions for voice which are not subsumed by the voice- dimensions discussed in the recent literature (see Van Dyne et al., 2003). A commonly reported motive for voice which does not appear to align with any of the previously proposed voice dimensions is a desire to be heard (see Figure 4.20). The voice-motive exemplars included in this category accounted for 66 (8.7%) of the 751 reasons reported.
These reasons are not so much related to speaking-up to achieve a specific objective (e.g.,
improve situation or self-protect), but rather from an innate desire to be heard and
possibly stemming from the desire to alleviate uncomfortable dissonance associated with
self-suppression (Adelmann, 1995; Cortina & Magley, 2003; Festinger, 1957). Similarly,
the voice-motive dimension of positive management relations (see Figure 4.20), does not
correspond to any of the voice dimensions proposed by Van Dyne et al. There is,
however, a large body of work which indicates that certain favorable management
practices facilitate employee voice (e.g., trust, fairness, participative leadership; see
Dirks, 1999; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Saunders et al., 1992), so the emergence of this
dimension is not surprising.
Overall Discussion of Study 1
As previously discussed the primary objectives of Study 1 were to: (a) investigate
the nature and pervasiveness of employee silence across various types of issues, targets,
and motives; (b) examine the notion that there is value in conceptualizing employee
silence and voice as distinct constructs; and (c) investigate the underlying dimensionality
of employee silence-motives. Although definitive evidence relative to all these
objectives may not have been obtained, this research undoubtedly advanced our
177 understanding of employee silence, and provided valuable insights regarding these stated
objectives.
Objective (a): Investigate the nature and pervasiveness of employee silence
across various types of issues, targets, and motives. As indicated in Table 4.2,
employees were able to provide numerous incidents when they intentionally withheld
information at work. Furthermore, these silence-incidents spanned a variety of issues,
situations, and events that respondents were remaining silent in response to, as well as a
variety of different types of targets of silence, and a wide range of different motives for
remaining silent. The phenomenon of employee silence does indeed appear to be quite
pervasive and complex. Study 1 builds upon the previous work of Milliken et al.(2003)
who found that 85% of the 40 MBA students they interviewed reported intentionally
withholding information at work. Similarly, in this study 119 (98.3%) of the 121 subjects responding to the survey reported at least one incident where they had intentionally remained silence at work. Furthermore, there were 313 total silence-incidents reported
(M = 2.6 incidents per subject [space was provided on the survey for the reporting of up
to four incidents per subject]). A possible reason for the higher reported rate of silence in
this study, compared to that of Milliken’s et al. study, may be that in this study
respondents were asked to complete an on-line survey in relative anonymity, in contrast
to the face-to-face interviews conducted by Milliken and colleagues. It may also be that since this study did not constrain the target of silence to “boss or management,” as did
Milliken’s et al. study, subjects were able to more easily recall incidents of remaining silent. Nevertheless, in this study, as well as in Milliken’s et al., intentionally remaining silent at work is a behavior that most employees report having engaged in.
178 Objective (b): Examine the notion that there is value in conceptualizing employee silence and voice as distinct constructs. An important tenet on which this research is based is that employee silence is not merely the opposite of employee voice. This idea builds upon recent conceptual research which has expounded that employee silence and employee voice are not simply opposite ends of a one-dimensional continuum of employee expressive behaviors (e.g., Van Dyne et al., 2003). Moreover, although the idea that silence is meaningful beyond the absence of voice has a long history outside the organizational sciences (see Bruneau, 1973), and recent research within the organizational sciences has acknowledged the importance of this distinction, there has been no systematic examination of this supposition.
Relative to a particular issue and to a particular target, the behavior of silence and voice may appear to be opposite of each other, with the presence of one implying the absence of the other. That is, a person either does, or does not, speak up about a particular issue to a particular target. However, as described in the general process model of employee silence (see Figure 3.3), motives for remaining silent and speaking-up may exist simultaneously in a given situation. Therefore the underlying motives for remaining silent and speaking-up are not necessarily polar opposites, with the presence of one implying the absence of the other. For example, a person may simultaneously desire to speak up about an issue due to a sense of obligation or responsibility, but at the same time they may be motivated to remain silent to protect themselves from harm. Simply investigating the motives for voice, and inferring the motives for silence based on an absence or opposite of the motives for voice, does not begin to get at the underlying complexity of the issue.
179 In addition to the conceptual argument for examining silence and voice as distinct constructs, the results of the open ended survey questions further strengthen the case for
doing so (see Table 4.19 for a comparison of silence- and voice-motive categories; see
Figure 4.8 for a comparison of the MDS analyses of silence- and voice-motive category
dimensional clusters). When asked to think about incidents when they remained silent,
subjects reported some motives that one could interpret as the opposite of the motives for speaking-up (e.g., did not care [silence] vs. felt obligation [voice]), although this requires
a degree of inference. They also reported two motives for silence and voice which were
identical (protect self from material harm and harm another individual/person), although
in the case of protect self from material harm, the reported frequency differed
considerably based on whether or not the motive was for silence or for voice. However,
most of the resultant silence- and voice-motive categories appear to be conceptually
unique to either silence or voice. For example, a common silence-motive category is I
didn’t want others to think negatively of me, but none of the voice-motive categories appear to be conceptually related to this category. Similarly, a common voice-motive category is to correct/improve a negative situation, which does not appear to have a clear
conceptual counterpart within the silence-motive categories.
180 Table 4.19: Comparison of Silence- and Voice-Motive Categories Silence Voice SILENCE / VOICE-MOTIVE CATEGORIES FREQ % FREQ % I didn't think it would do any good 86 14.98% 0 0.00% I didn't want others to think negatively of me 70 12.20% 0 0.00% To protect self from material harm 70 12.20% 34 4.53% I wanted to avoid conflict 66 11.50% 0 0.00% I didn't care enough 60 10.45% 0 0.00% Negative management characteristics 40 6.97% 0 0.00% I was unsure what to say 36 6.27% 0 0.00% To avoid negative emotions 27 4.70% 0 0.00% Protect relationship with another 24 4.18% 0 0.00% I thought someone else would speak up 21 3.66% 0 0.00% To protect another person 19 3.31% 0 0.00% I did not have authority 15 2.61% 0 0.00% I've had previous negative experiences with speaking-up 9 1.57% 0 0.00% Instructed to remain silent 6 1.05% 0 0.00% To protect the organization 3 0.52% 0 0.00% Remaining silent gave me an advantage 3 0.52% 0 0.00% To harm another individual/person 1 0.17% 2 0.27% To correct/improve a negative situation 0 0.00% 365 48.60% Felt obligation/responsibility 0 0.00% 152 20.24% To help the organization 0 0.00% 70 9.32% Desire to be heard 0 0.00% 66 8.79% To benefit myself 0 0.00% 16 2.13% Positive relationship with supervisor/management 0 0.00% 16 2.13% To help another person 0 0.00% 16 2.13% Unclassified 18 3.14% 14 1.86% Total 574 100.00% 751 100.00%
181
Silence-Motive Category Clusters All 17 Categories Included Cluster 3: Prosocial Cluster 4: Deviant
Cluster 1: Self-Protect
Cluster 2: Acquiescent
Voice-Motive Category Clusters
Cluster 2: Desire Cluster 4:Pos Mgt Relations
Cluster 3: Self-Interested Cluster 1: Constructive
Figure 4.8: Comparison of Silence- and Voice-Motive Category Clusters
182 In addition to examining motives for silence and voice, the nature of the incidents
respondents reported remaining silent and/or speaking-up in response to were also
examined. For both silence and voice, the types of initiating incidents were quite similar
(see Table 4.20). For example, a commonly reported incident-type was “in response to
unfair or unethical treatment” for both silence and voice. Coincidently, this incident type
accounted for 16.3% of the responses for both silence and voice. In fact, every type of
incident reported for silence was also reported for voice, and the relative frequencies of
all these different types of initiating incidents were remarkably similar regardless of whether it was an initiating incident for silence or voice. However, there was one
incident type reported for voice which was not reported for silence; “safety or legal
concern,” but it was a relatively infrequent incident-type accounting for only 2.8% of the
total voice-incidents reported.
The targets of both silence and voice were also examined, and as with incidents,
there appeared to be a high degree of similarity between the types and relative
frequencies of targets regardless of whether the target was the focus of silence or voice
(see Table 4.20). As indicated in Table 4.20, respondents reported that the target was
usually someone “higher up” in the organization. This was the case for both remaining
silent and for speaking-up (74.4% and 64.5% respectively). Not surprisingly, silence was
more often directed upward than was voice. Presumably this is due to the greater frequency of “self-protect” as a motive for silence than for voice, and the likelihood that a person higher up in an organization is in a relatively better position to cause harm to a
“lower level” individual.
183 Table 4.20: Employee Silence and Voice: Incident and Target Comparison Silence Voice Total 313 100% 361 100% Incident Experienced Unfair/Unethical 51 16.3% 59 16.3% Voice Opportunity 56 17.9% 55 15.2% Witnessed Unfair/Unethical 57 18.2% 40 11.1% Co-worker's competence/performance 48 15.3% 58 16.1% Org process issue/suggest for improve 37 11.8% 26 7.2% Disagree w/company policy/decision 18 5.8% 52 14.4% Supervisor/management competence/performance 15 4.8% 12 3.3% Personal performance issue 15 4.8% 15 4.2% Personal career issue 3 1.0% 14 3.9% Safety or legal concern NA 10 2.8% Unclear 13 4.2% 20 5.5%
Target Upward 233 74.4% 233 64.5% Lateral 55 17.6% 68 18.8% Everyone 8 2.6% 31 8.6% Downward 4 1.3% 15 4.2% External 4 1.3% 6 1.7% Unclear 9 2.5% 8 2.2%
Based on the analysis of the initiating incidents and targets it is difficult to definitively assert that silence and voice should be examined as distinct constructs. It appears that depending on the specific situation, employees may either remain silent or speak up in response to a wide variety of ostensibly similar issues. They may also remain silent or speak up to virtually anyone in the organization; although most often both silence and voice were reported as being directed upward. However, when looking at the underlying motives, the need to not simply assume that silence is equivalent to an absence of voice is apparent. Considering that employees may remain silent and/or speak up for similar motives, motives that may be interpreted as conceptually opposite, and motives
184 which appear to be distinct to either silence or voice, the value in conceptualizing and measuring silence and voice as distinct constructs, based on their distinct motives, is clear. There simply is no way that one can examine employee voice, and infer the meanings and implications of employee silence, based on the assumption that silence is equivalent to the absence, or opposite, of voice.
Objective (c): Investigate the underlying dimensionality of employee silence- motives. As previously discussed, researchers have proposed that both employee silence and voice are multi-dimensional constructs based on different underlying motives. The two most notable contributions to this idea are those of Pinder and Harlos (2001) and Van
Dyne et al. (2003). The work of Van Dyne and colleagues was an extension of the previous work of Pinder and Harlos and proposed three dimensions of silence
(Acquiescent Silence, Defensive Silence, and ProSocial Silence) and three parallel dimensions of voice (Acquiescent Voice, Defensive Voice, and ProSocial Voice). In addition, other researchers have proposed a Deviant Silence dimension (Greenberg et al.,
2007). The results of this study are mixed relative to finding support for these previously proposed dimensions of silence and voice. The silence dimensions proposed by Van
Dyne et al. (self-protect, acquiescence, and prosocial, 2003) were supported in this study.
However, only minimal support was found for the deviant silence dimension proposed by
Greenberg et al. (2007). For voice, dimensions considerably different from those proposed by Pinder and Harlos (2001) and Van Dyne et al., were revealed, although there is a moderate degree of conceptual overlap between the voice dimensions revealed in this study and those proposed in the extant literature (see previous discussion of the employee silence- and voice-motive MDS analysis for a more in-depth analysis).
185 In conclusion, both silence and voice manifest in organizations for a wide variety of motives. People may speak up or remain silent for very similar motives, or for vastly different motives, depending on the specific situation. However, the relative pervasiveness of the motives varies considerably depending on whether the motive is for silence or for voice (i.e., to self-protect is a much more common motive for silence than for voice). Furthermore, these motives do appear to group into meaningful dimensional clusters, however, the precise composition of these dimensions is certainly open to multiple interpretations. Moreover, the composition of the proposed dimensions is also a function of the extent of aggregation of the unique motive categories into dimensions.
The extent of aggregation of unique silence-motive categories into broader dimensions is an important issue when developing measures because antecedents and outcomes may be differentially related to these different motive-categories. Aggregate too much and important insights relative to these differential relationships may not reveal themselves.
Aggregate too little and effect sizes may be diminished and practical utility not realized.
In the next study (Study 2) measures of employee silence are developed based on the silence-motive exemplars and resultant categories revealed in Study 1. Following Study
2, these new measures are tested with a variety of subjects (Study 3) and relationships between resultant silence-motive dimensions, and various individual and contextual factors are investigated. It is expected that in conjunction with the MDS analysis conducted in Study 1, the investigation of the factor analytic structure of these new measures, and their relationships to various contextual factors, will provide important insights relative to the dimensional structure of employee silence-motives.
186 Limitations of Study 1
Although this study makes numerous contributions, there are several notable
limitations which may impair the interpretability and generalizability of the results.
These include the inherent subjectivity of qualitative research, the exclusive reliance on
self-report data, limitations of the subject pool, possible conceptual bias on the part of
this researcher, and study design issues.
This study was a mixed-methods design, employing both qualitative and
quantitative techniques. Considering the exploratory nature of this research, and lack of
existing theoretical guidance relative to the phenomenon of employee silence, this mixed-
methods approach facilitated an inductively derived typology of employee silence-
motives. The qualitative aspects of this study (analysis of open-ended survey responses),
made possible a deeper understanding of how people think and feel about remaining
silent and/or speaking-up at work. This depth of understanding would not have been
possible with closed-ended questions requiring participants to choose from a limited
number of responses predetermined by the researcher. Notwithstanding this important benefit, this technique does have its drawbacks. Since the data gathered in this study could be interpreted and categorized in a variety of different ways, there is inherent subjectivity in the process which could jeopardize the validity of the results. To mitigate this subjective element, several important steps were taken. First, detailed documentation
of the data gathering and analyses procedures is provided. Second, as described in the
process documentation, independent response analysts were used during the coding and categorization phases. Third, ratings of agreement were calculated, and found to be
satisfactory for this type of research.
187 Another potential limitation of this study is the exclusive reliance on single
source, self-report, responses for the nature of the initiating incidents, targets, and motives for silence and/or voice. Exclusive reliance on self-report data can be problematic in that it is often based on retrospective accounts of behaviors, feelings, and
cognitions which are potentially subject to a variety of perceptual biases. Furthermore,
these types of responses may be influenced by the desire of the respondent to present themselves in the most socially acceptable way (i.e., social desirability biases) (Sackett,
Burris, & Callahan, 1989; Sackett & Larson, 1990). Notwithstanding these potential problems, there is considerable evidence pointing toward the effectiveness of self-report measures (see P. E. Spector, 1992). Considering the covert and generally ambiguous
nature of silence, it is unlikely that external sources of information or inference could
accurately assess the complexities of this phenomenon. Furthermore, considering that
subjects completed on-line surveys in relative privacy and anonymity, the desire to
enhance their self-presentation should be attenuated.
The exclusive use of student subjects is another potential limitation of this study.
However, considering that subjects consisted of undergraduate, graduate, and executive
MBA students, from a large state university and a small local community university, the
diversity and representativeness of the subject pool is likely sufficient. In fact,
considering that this phase of the research was intended to explore the general nature of
silence and voice across a wide variety of job and individual contexts, the wide diversity
of subjects with respect to personal demographics, industry, job classification, and work
experience, makes this a nearly ideal sample. The main drawback of this sample is that it does not adequately represent less-educated, less-skilled, or older workers. This
188 drawback is partially mitigated by two factors. First, although this study reports relative frequencies of silence and voice, the primary purpose was to develop a comprehensive typology. In the spirit of exploration and representativeness, the resultant typology includes many categories which are based on relatively low-occurring exemplars.
Although less-educated, less-skilled, or older workers may report relatively different frequencies of these phenomena, their reporting of completely different phenomena,
which are not included in this typology, is less likely. Second, the measures which are
based on this inclusive typology are validated in Study 3 using a subject pool wherein
less-educated, less-skilled, and older workers are more significantly represented.
Due to the subjective nature of qualitative research is the possibility that this
researcher’s familiarity with previous conceptualizations of employee silence biased the
interpretation and/or categorization of the responses. I think this is most likely to have
occurred during the interpretation of the MDS spatial representations. Admittedly,
awareness of the previous dimensions of employee silence described in the literature may
have influenced the interpretation of the silence-motive category clusters so as to align
with the dimensionality previously described in the literature. This issue was partially
off-set by having three senior-level management professors assist in the interpretation the
MDS configurations, and by developing measures which relied on the underlying
categories included in the dimensions, as opposed to specifically designing items to
conform to the dimensions proposed in this study. This allowed for an independent
corroboration of dimensionality based on the MDS results from Study 1 and the EFA
results from Study 3.
189 In retrospect, the design of this study potentially limits the interpretation of
particular results. Most notable of these limitations is the inability to empirically
investigate the existence and implications of the conflicting motives of silence and voice
proposed in the model. Because subjects were asked to describe silence and voice-
incidents separately, and not to describe whether or not they simultaneously experienced
motives to speak up and motives to remain silent, it is impossible to empirically test this aspect of the model.
These limitations notwithstanding, this study makes several important
contributions to the study of employee silence and provides a solid platform on which future empirical research can be constructed. Building on these results, in the next study
(see Study 2), measures of employee silence are developed.
190 CHAPTER 5
STUDY 2 - DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES
As previously discussed, there have been notable previous attempts to measure
employee silence, but these measures have either not been validated, or are actually
assessing something other than employee silence as currently defined (see Literature
Review Section: Employee Silence; Burgoon, 1976; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005; Van
Dyne et al., 2003). In view of the shortcomings of these previous attempts to measure
silence, the development of valid and reliable measures remains an important issue. This
is especially vital considering that: (a) only through measurement can recent conceptual
developments be empirically substantiated, (b) measurement will likely lead to additional
theoretical developments by revealing previously unconsidered relationships, (c) only through measurement can organizations accurately assess the extent of the various forms of silence they are facing, (d) measurement is necessary to effectively design and evaluate interventions intended to reduce dysfunctional or promote functional forms of silence, and (e) these measures will be valuable to researchers studying the phenomenon on which the underlying motive(s) is based (i.e., employee withdrawal, impression management, prosocial work behaviors, defensive behavior in organizations, etc.), as existing measures of these related phenomena often fail to account for their manifestation through silence.
191 Plan for Study 2
The purpose of this study is to develop survey-item measures of employee silence based on the construct component factors illustrated in Figure 5.1, and the underlying silence-motive exemplars and resultant categories established in Study 1. As indicated in
Figure 5.1, employee silence is a multi-faceted construct consisting of silence-behavior
based on potentially many different silence-motives. As such, measures of this
phenomenon need to assess the frequency of the behavior, when said behavior is due to
specific silence-motives.
Silence-Motive (Dimension 1)
Silence-Motive (Dimension 2) Motive-Based Silence Behavior
Silence-Motive (Dimension 3)
Silence-Motive (Dimension N)
Figure 5.1: The Multidimensional Construct of Employee Silence (reproduction of Figure 3.4 for convenience)
Moreover, the measurement of employee silence presents some rather unique
challenges in that silence entails an intentional absence of a behavior, and therefore is not
easily interpretable. Therefore, although the behavior itself may be observable, whether
or not the observed behavior is a form of employee silence is dependent on the
192 underlying intent. One could infer intent based on observable behavior (or lack thereof), but because of the highly contextual nature of silence, and the great possibility for misinterpretation, third party measures would likely lack construct validity. Therefore, the measure will aptly be of the self-report variety.
Since it is the manifestation of the intentional behavior of silence, when that behavior is based on specific underlying motives, which is of primary interest, the measurement of the motive(s) alone, separate from the intentional behavior, presents certain difficulties. The foremost of these difficulties concerns the causal link from motives to intention to behavior. If a separate measure of the silence-motives, and a separate measure of the intentional silence-behavior were developed, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to attribute the behavior to a specific motive outside of a controlled laboratory setting. Only by directly asking subjects the extent to which they engage in the intentional behavior of silence based on a specific motive can this casual link, which is fundamental to the concept of employee silence, be adequately established.
Furthermore, although it is theoretically appealing to separately conceptualize and measure the individual components of employee silence, it is unlikely that these separate components would correlate with hypothesized outcomes in as meaningful a way as would the multi-faceted (motive → intentional behavior) construct.
Methodology of Study 2
Scale Development
According to Hinkin (1998) successful item generation is dependent on the development of a well-articulated theoretical foundation that adequately specifies the
193 content domain for the new measure. The preceding sections which provided a
definition, boundary conditions, general process model of employee silence (see Figure
3.3), diagram of the construct of employee silence (see Figure 3.4), qualitative analysis,
and MDS study, in part, provide such a foundation. Hinkin describes two approaches by
which preliminary items may be created; deductive and inductive. In deductive scale
development the initial items are created from the definition and existing theoretical
foundation. In contrast, the inductive approach usually entails the development of scales
by asking a sample of respondents to provide descriptions of their feelings about their
organizations, or to describe some aspect of behavior. Considering the nascent stage of the research on employee silence, along with the somewhat equivocal findings of Study
1, it is most appropriate at this stage not to design measures to fit specific dimensions.
Rather, items were developed using actual silence-motive category names, or silence- motive exemplars identified in the previous qualitative study. Considering the nascent stage of the research on employee silence, and the exploratory nature of this research, analysis of the factor structure of these inductively derived items will also provided a valuable comparison to the silence-motive dimensions indicated in the previous MDS study.
In Study 1, seventeen silence-motive categories were derived from the categorization of the 84 silence-motive exemplars. In some categories, there was one dominantly occurring exemplar which so well represented the essence of the category that the exemplar statement was used as the name for the category. In categories containing more than one high-occurrence exemplar, exemplars which did not become the name for the category were also adopted as scale items. All of the items were derived
194 directly from the identified silence-motive categories, or other high-occurrence
exemplars, with two exceptions. Because of the theoretical justification discussed earlier
for two forms of silence intended to cause harm: (1) silence intended to harm the
organization, and (2) silence intended to harm another individual, one additional item was
added so both forms of deviant silence would be represented (see Appendix E.1:
Employee Silence Measures, item number 21). In addition, a control item was developed
which was designed to assess the extent of intentional silence regardless of the underlying motive. Presumably, if a person can not recall any time when they have intentionally remained silent at work regardless of motive, their responses to the remainder of the survey will lack validity.
As previously discussed, it is important to design measures which tap the essence of employee silence as something more than simply an absence of voice. In this respect, the measures have been worded in a way which makes salient the motives and intentionality which differentiate employee silence from simply an absence of voice.
Furthermore, to focus response variation on the underlying motives, rather than on some other unintended item artifact, all items were consistently worded with respect to context and scale. Therefore, all items utilized the prefix “I frequently remain silent at work….,” with the remainder of the item content derived directly from the silence-motive exemplars and categories. The control item utilized a five-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = Never, to 5 = Very Often. All other silence items utilized a seven-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree, to 7 = Strongly Agree.
195 Pilot Test of Employee Silence Measures
As a preliminary test of item performance a pilot test was conducted. This limited
pilot test was not intended to be an item refinement or scale validation study (that is the purpose of the next study), but rather simply a preliminary test to determine whether or not the items are generally interpretable and appear to be assessing the construct as intended. Subjects for the pilot test consisted of a group of upper-level undergraduate business school students with work experience (N = 52). Table 5.1 provides the mean, standard deviation, and range for each item administered in the pilot test. In Study 1 the reported frequency of silence varied considerably with respect to the underlying motive.
In Study 1, silence for self-protective motives was the most common, followed by acquiescent silence, prosocial silence, and deviant silence respectively. Similarly, in this pilot test of the employee silence measures the means for items comprising each of these silence-motive dimensions followed a relatively similar frequency pattern. Although this is far from a definitive indication of validity, it does provide some indication of the general interpretability of the items.
196 Table 5.1: Descriptive Statistics: Silence Measures Pilot Test
Std. Item Mean Min Max Dev. Q01: control item: frequency of silence (no reason specified) 2.65 .711 1 5 Q02: to avoid conflict 4.52 1.799 1 7 Q03: due to negative experiences I’ve had with speaking up 3.52 1.766 1 7 Q04: because I was instructed not to speak up 2.23 1.277 1 6 Q05: to protect myself from harm 3.48 1.788 1 7 Q06: due to fear of retaliation 3.44 1.765 1 7 Q07: to avoid experiencing negative emotions 3.83 1.746 1 7 Q08: to avoid embarrassing myself 4.33 1.677 1 7 Q09: to protect another person from harm 3.52 1.515 1 7 Q10: to avoid hurting someone’s feelings 3.88 1.722 1 7 Q11: to protect my organization from harm 2.98 1.365 1 6 Q12: to protect my relationship with another individual 3.92 1.655 1 7 Q13: because I am unsure what to say 4.02 1.651 1 7 Q14: to protect my image or reputation 3.67 1.746 1 7 Q15: because I do not want to be viewed as causing problems 4.19 1.585 1 7 Q16: because I do not want to appear incompetent 3.94 1.650 1 7 Q17: because I do not have the authority to correct the situation 4.27 1.728 1 7 Q18: because I do not think it will do any good to speak up 4.08 1.655 1 7 Q19: because I do not think it is worth the effort to speak up 4.06 1.673 1 7 Q20: because I expect someone else to speak up 3.92 1.607 1 7 Q21: to purposefully harm another individual 1.67 .985 1 5 Q22: to purposefully harm the organization 1.63 .929 1 5 Q23: because management is not open to other’s views, opinions, or 3.52 1.915 1 7 ideas Q24: because I am intimidated by management 3.23 1.843 1 7 Q25: due to bad management practices 3.46 1.787 1 7 Q26: to gain a personal advantage 2.83 1.309 1 5 Q27: because I do not care what happens 2.79 1.625 1 7 Note: Item Q1 is based on a 5-point Likert type scale. Items Q2 - Q27 based on 7-point Likert type scale. Items Q2 - Q27 all have the same prefix root: I frequently remain silent at work….
In an attempt to preview the performance of the new measures, and determine their suitability for the item refinement and validation study, the results of the pilot test were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Because it was anticipated that the scale items would be correlated, the maximum likelihood method of extraction with oblique rotation was selected to interpret the structure (for review see Conway &
Huffcutt, 2003). Seven factors with eigenvalues greater than one emerged.
197 To assist in the interpretation of the results of the EFA the scale items were sorted in descending order by factor weights for each factor category (see Table 5.2). Note that
Item 1 is not included in Table 5.2. This item is the control item which asked the extent to which an employee had remained silent in the past year regardless of the reason. Only four of the fifty two pilot subjects responded “1 = never” to this question; these four responses were removed from the EFA. Following Table 5.2, the MDS visual configuration is reproduced for comparison purposes (see Figure 5.2). Then in Table 5.3, a comparison of the proposed MDS dimensions and preliminary EFA factors is provided, followed by a brief discussion of the findings.
(see Table 5.2 next page)
198 Table 5.2: EFA Pattern Matrix: Silence Measures Pilot Test MDS Category Item F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 Abbreviation Q08: to avoid embarrassing myself Avoid_Neg_Emot 1.014 -.156 -.128 -.091 -.157 .040 .096 Q16: because I do not want to appear incompetent Avoid_Neg_Impress .796 -.135 -.259 -.147 .248 .047 .057 Q13: because I am unsure what to say Unsure_what_to_say .763 -.141 .112 -.153 -.169 .032 -.090 Q24: because I am intimidated by management Bad_Management .726 -.083 .031 .177 -.141 .005 .637 Q07: to avoid experiencing negative emotions Avoid_Neg_Emot .703 .202 -.060 -.125 .057 .085 .159 Q20: because I expect someone else to speak up Someone_Else .631 -.088 .007 .106 .245 -.004 -.023 Q14: to protect my image or reputation Avoid_Neg_Impress .618 .360 -.051 .039 -.049 -.054 -.260 Q15: because I do not want to be viewed as causing problems Avoid_Neg_Impress .491 .392 -.067 -.002 -.071 -.202 -.063 Q03: due to negative experiences I’ve had with speaking up Prior_Neg_Exp .311 -.256 .277 .166 .197 -.127 -.033 Q12: to protect my relationship with another individual Protect_Relationship -.199 .967 -.141 -.077 -.180 .052 .106 Q02: to avoid conflict Avoid_Conflict .178 .627 .235 -.035 .088 .024 .131 199 Q10: to avoid hurting someone’s feelings Protect_Another -.115 .559 -.030 .071 .229 .149 -.086 Q06: due to fear of retaliation Protect_Self .172 .429 .358 .157 -.108 .065 .032 Q09: to protect another person from harm Protect_Another -.093 .377 -.168 -.029 .369 .059 -.213 Q05: to protect myself from harm Protect_Self .372 .375 .188 -.002 .026 .124 -.076 Q23: because management is not open to other’s views, Bad_Management -.072 -.078 .964 -.085 -.026 .027 -.075 opinions, or ideas Q25: due to bad management practices Bad_Management -.161 -.108 .962 -.053 .020 -.007 .003 Q17: because I do not have the authority to correct the situation Lacking_Authority -.065 .200 .488 -.074 .058 -.232 .018 Q21: to purposefully harm another individual Harm Another -.144 .045 -.180 1.075 -.091 -.115 -.072 Q22: to purposefully harm the organization NA: Item added for Study 2 -.168 -.083 -.005 .616 .049 .058 .082 Q04: because I was instructed not to speak up Instructed .050 .092 .032 .328 .095 .248 .192 Q18: because I do not think it will do any good to speak up Useless -.065 .064 .007 -.026 1.010 -.046 -.025 Q27: because I do not care what happens Didn’t Care .046 -.207 .169 .037 .331 .120 -.265 Q19: because I do not think it is worth the effort to speak up Useless .292 .149 .065 .004 .304 -.224 .145 Q11: to protect my organization from harm Protect_Org .050 .202 -.109 -.021 -.013 .916 -.107 Q26: to gain a personal advantage Gain Advantage .135 -.043 .098 .265 .053 .308 -.348
All 17 Categories Included Prosocial Dimension Deviant Dimension
Self-Protective Dimension
Acquiescent Dimension
Figure 5.2: MDS Visual Representation of Silence-Motive Categories with Indicated Dimensions (reproduction of Figure 4.6 for comparison purposes)
Note: the number following the underscore is the reported frequency of occurrence of the category from Study 1.
200 Table 5.3: Comparison of MDS and EFA Silence-Motive Dimensionality
MDS Category MDS EFA Factor Item Abbreviation Dimension Factor Loading Q08: to avoid embarrassing myself Avoid_Neg_Emot Self-Protective F1 1.014 Q16: because I do not want to appear incompetent Avoid_Neg_Impress Self-Protective F1 0.796 Q13: because I am unsure what to say Unsure_what_to_say Acquiescent F1 0.763 Q24: because I am intimidated by management Bad_Management Self-Protective F1 0.726 Q07: to avoid experiencing negative emotions Avoid_Neg_Emot Self-Protective F1 0.703 Q20: because I expect someone else to speak up Someone_Else Acquiescent F1 0.631 Q14: to protect my image or reputation Avoid_Neg_Impress Self-Protective F1 0.618 Q15: because I do not want to be viewed as causing problems Avoid_Neg_Impress Self-Protective F1 0.491 Q03: due to negative experiences I’ve had with speaking up Prior_Neg_Exp NA NA NA Q12: to protect my relationship with another individual Protect_Relationship Self-Protective F2 0.967
201 Q02: to avoid conflict Avoid_Conflict Self-Protective F2 0.627 Q10: to avoid hurting someone’s feelings Protect_Another Prosocial F2 0.559 Q06: due to fear of retaliation Protect_Self Self-Protective F2 0.429 Q09: to protect another person from harm Protect_Another Prosocial F2 0.377 Q05: to protect myself from harm Protect_Self Self-Protective F2 0.375 Q23: because management is not open to other’s views, opinions, or ideas Bad_Management Self-Protective F3 0.964 Q25: due to bad management practices Bad_Management Self-Protective F3 0.962 Q17: because I do not have the authority to correct the situation Lacking_Authority Acquiescent NA NA Q21: to purposefully harm another individual Harm Another Deviant F4 1.075 Q22: to purposefully harm the organization Harm Organization NA F4 0.616 Q04: because I was instructed not to speak up Instructed Self-Protective NA NA Q18: because I do not think it will do any good to speak up Useless Acquiescent F5 1.010 Q27: because I do not care what happens Didn’t Care Acquiescent F5 0.331 Q19: because I do not think it is worth the effort to speak up Useless Acquiescent F5 0.304 Q11: to protect my organization from harm Protect_Org Prosocial F6 0.916 Q26: to gain a personal advantage Gain Advantage Self-Protective NA NA
As previously discussed, this pilot test was not intended to be an item-refinement or validation study, but rather a preliminary assessment of the general interpretability of the new measures. Nevertheless, several interesting observations emerge from the EFA, and comparison of the factor loadings with the dimensional clustering of silence-motive categories identified in the previous MDS analysis. First, although seven factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than one, factor number seven (F7) loaded only on one item
(item Q24: r = .637). Considering that F1 also loaded on item Q24 (r = .726) to an even greater degree, it seems that item Q24 is potentially confusing. For now, this item is retained, but may need to be rewritten, or eliminated pending the results of the planned item-refinement and validation study (see Study 3). Consequently, at this point, there is not sufficient evidence to consider F7 a unique dimension of employee silence.
Factor One (F1) appears to load on items that were contained in both the self- protective and the acquiescent dimensions of the previous MDS analysis. Of the eight items loading at (r = .491) or above in F1, six fall into the self-protective dimension, and two fall into the acquiescent dimension. An examination of the actual items (see
Appendix E.1: Employee Silence Measures) reveals that the two items, which were included in the acquiescent dimensions of the MDS analysis, could potentially be interpreted as self-protective.
Factor Two (F2) loads on items contained in both the self-protective and the prosocial dimensions. Of the six items with F2 loadings of (r = .375) or higher, four fall into the self-protective dimension, and two items fall into the prosocial dimension. An examination of the two F2 items which are included in the MDS Prosocial dimension “to avoid hurting someone’s feelings” and “to protect another person from harm” deal with
202 avoiding an ostensibly negative outcome associated with speaking-up. Although in the
case of these two items the negative outcome pertains to someone other than the person
remaining silent.
Factor Three (F3) loads on items “because management is not open to other’s
views, opinions, or ideas” and “due to bad management practices,” at (r = .962) and (r =
.964) respectively. Both of these items are contained in the “Negative Management
Characteristics” category identified in Study 1 and subsumed by the broader self- protective dimension in the MDS analysis. F3 also loads on the scale item “because I do not have the authority to correct the situation” (r = .488) which is subsumed in the broader acquiescent dimension indicated in the MDS analysis. It appears that there is some conceptual similarity between not having authority and perception of negative management characteristics, but not surprisingly this relationship is not definitive.
However, based on the very high loadings on the first two items indicated, it appears that a factor dealing with negative perceptions of management does emerge. Whether or not this factor should be combined with other “self-protective” related factors is unclear at
this time.
Factor Four (F4) loads high on two items related to deviant silence, “to purposefully harm another individual” (r = 1.075), and “to purposefully harm the
organization” (r = .616). These are the only two items in the scale that are related to the
deviant silence dimension proposed by Greenberg et al. (2007). Based on the factor
structure revealed in this pilot test, it appears that silence for deviant motives is a distinct
phenomenon. As with the qualitative investigation conducted in Study 1, silence
intended to harm was the least frequently reported form of silence in the pilot test.
203 However, although it was relatively infrequent, it was not non-existent, and considering
the potential negative consequences of this form of silence, and possible the reluctance of
subjects to report it, further investigation is warranted.
Factor Five (F5) loads on one item to a high degree and on two other items to a
lesser extent. All three of these items are contained within the acquiescent dimension
revealed in the previous MDS analysis. This factor loads on the item “because I do not
think it will do any good to speak up” (r = 1.01); on item “because I do not care what
happens” (r = .331); and on item “because I do not think it is worth the effort to speak
up” (r = .304). Interestingly, these three acquiescent items seem to entail an internal
feeling of resignation, whereas the acquiescent items not loaded on by this factor appear
to be more about not knowing what to say, or believing that someone else would speak
up.
Factor Six (F6) loads on the item “to protect my organization from harm” (r =
.916). This item is clearly prosocial directed at the organization. In contrast to the other
prosocial items not loaded on by this factor, this item is focused on the organization, whereas the other prosocial items appear to be more concerned with protecting another individual. This factor also loads on one other item, but this loading is relatively low (r =
.308) and the item does not appear to be clearly related to the prosocial dimension.
Discussion of Study 2
As previously discussed, this study was not meant to be an item refinement or measures validation study, but rather intended to describe the rationale and process of item development, and provide a preliminary indication of their performance through a
204 limited pilot test. Although there have been many recent conceptual developments
regarding employee silence, empirical support is seriously lacking, and that which does
exist is based on measures of questionable validity. As previously mentioned, before
measures of a construct can be developed there must be a clear understanding of what the
construct actually is. Prior to this research the fundamental nature of employee silence
had not been clearly articulated. The development of the proposed model of employee
silence, in conjunction with the inductively derived silence-motive exemplars, and resultant silence-motive categories from Study 1, established a foundation upon which
reliable and valid measures could begin to be developed.
As indicated in Study 1, although the content breadth of the silence-motive
exemplars and categories appears to adequately cover the range of likely motives for
employee silence, the dimensional structure of the silence-motive categories indicated in
the MDS analysis was not definitive enough to warrant developing measures to fit
specific dimensions. Therefore, the measurement items developed in this study were
derived directly from the silence-motive exemplars and categories found in the
qualitative phase of Study 1. Moreover, considering the exploratory nature of this
research, this strategy will enable further inductive investigation of silence-motive
dimensionality with a larger and more representative sample (i.e., one of the primary
objectives of the next study).
The measures developed in this study, along with the subsequent pilot testing and
analysis of factor structure represents an important preliminary step in the development
of valid and reliable measures of employee silence. Prior to this research, scholars have
theorized about the existence of employee silence, and formed inferences from anecdotal
205 and qualitative findings, but have been unable to quantify its pervasiveness, or relationship to other factors. Therefore, the development of valid and reliable measures, which are based on empirically substantiated motives, represents an important advancement in the study of this abstract and complex phenomenon.
In addition to finding support for the existence of employee silence based on different underlying motives, and the capacity to empirically assess it; this study adds value in the form of the future empirical research it enables. Too often in the management sciences research is conducted using measures of questionable validity, only later to realize that much time and effort has been wasted. The development of measures with sound psychometric properties, especially at this relatively early stage in the study of employee silence, should prove helpful in the advancement of research in this area.
Additionally, the use of these items may eventually advance the measurement of organizational phenomena on which the underlying motives for silence are based (i.e., self-protective behavior, employee withdrawal, OCB, workplace deviance). If it is found that these related phenomena readily manifest through silence, then the adoption of silence-based items for the measurement of these respective phenomena may improve the content validity of measures currently in use.
It is not surprising that the factor structure of the items pilot tested do not neatly align with the dimensions indicated in the MDS analysis conducted in Study 1. As indicated in the MDS spatial representation of silence-motive categories (see Figure 4.6), the spatial location of the various silence-motive categories relative to the indicated dimensional-clusters is not unequivocal. As indicated in Figure 4.6, there does appear to be meaningful groupings of silence-motive categories into clusters or dimensions, but
206 some categories are located on the edge of a particular dimension, and therefore relatively
closer to other dimensions, whereas other categories are more centrally located within
their proposed dimension. For example, the silence-motive category “thought someone
else would speak up” is located on the upper-left edge of the acquiescent dimension.
Although it resides within the oval indicating the acquiescent dimension, it is spatially
quite close to the self-protective dimension. Similarly, in the pilot test of the silence
measures, items composing this category are loaded on by Factor One. In addition to
loading on this acquiescent item, factor one also loads on self-protective items which are
located in the lower portion of the self-protective dimension as indicted in Figure 4.6. In
this respect the factor loadings appear to roughly follow the spatial locations indicated in
the MDS analysis, although there is some discrepancy between the MDS and the EFA
relative to which items are conceptually similar enough to warrant their being grouped
together into a broader silence-motive dimension.
It is hoped that the next study, which utilizes a larger and more representative sample, and examines the relationships between these scale items and factors thought to be differentially related to the proposed silence-motive dimensions will further inform the most valid way to organize these items into dimensions.
Limitations of Study 2
This study represents an intermediate step in the development of measures of employee silence, as further refinement and validation is necessary (i.e., a primary purpose of Study 3). Notwithstanding these additional requirements, Study 2 does provide a viable point from which to continue this psychometric development. However,
207 this is not to say that this study is without limitations that need to be considered as these
measures are tested and refined.
As previously indicated, Study 1 provided the “raw material” from which these
new measure were constructed. As such, the limitations described in Study 1 also potentially impact this Study. Most notable of these is the use of the most commonly occurring silence-motive exemplars to create the new items. If the previously described
Study 1 subject-pool limitations resulted in rates of occurrence idiosyncratic to the MBA student sample, then motives which should have been transformed into items may not have been, or visa versa. Considering that 84 silence-motive exemplars were initially provided, and only 27 items ultimately constructed, potentially significant exemplars may have been omitted, or less significant exemplars may have been erroneously included.
Another potential limitation may involve the fact that these items were developed with anonymous respondents outside the workplace. It is difficult to know to what extent the responses to this scale would be different if it was given to actual employees who may not be confident of their anonymity. Even when anonymity is guaranteed, respondents may provide different responses if the survey is collected within an organizational setting. Further testing and refinement in a field setting should provide insight relative to this issue (see Study 3).
The general nature of this scale entails certain trade-offs which also may limit its validity. As previously discussed, considering the nascent stage of the literature on employee silence, I decided to take a broad approach relative to the type of incident silence was occurring in response to (i.e., fairness concern, ethical issue, need for process improvement, etc.), the type of information withheld (i.e., idea, concern, opinions, etc.),
208 the target of silence (i.e., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, etc.), and the communication medium (i.e., face-to-face, e-mail, telephone, etc.). The items developed in this study do not differentiate between any of these potential boundary limiting factors, but rather let the respondent relate these general items to these situational specifics as they deem appropriate. I expect that future research will narrow the focus of silence relative to these boundary issues to achieve a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. I also expect that the items developed in the Study will be readily adaptable to a wide variety boundary constraints, but that will have to be the focus of future research.
The nature of the sample is also an important limitation. Both the relatively small size (N = 52), and the fact that subjects were undergraduate business school students may limit the interpretability and generalizability of the results. However, considering that this was a pilot test intended to derive general insights of the psychometric nature of the items, and not an item refinement or validation study, these potential sample deficiencies are of relatively less concern. This limitation is also mitigated considering that Study 3 further examines these items with a larger and more representative sample.
Putting aside the unavoidable limitations and the need for further research that accompany the development of any new measure, the systematic derivation and preliminary testing of the employee silence items developed in this study is adequate to the point where they can be further examined in a field setting. In the next study, these items are administered to a diverse group of subjects in multiple organizations to examine their factor structure, reliability, and relationships with pertinent individual and contextual factors.
209 CHAPTER 6
STUDY 3 - ITEM REFINEMENT AND INVESTIGATION OF RELATED FACTORS
Overview
The purpose of this study is threefold. First, this study serves as an extension of
Study 1 through further assessment of the dimensionality of employee silence measures and subsequent item refinement. Second, this study serves as an extension of Study 2 through assessment of the psychometric attributes, and subsequent refinement, of the previously developed employee silence measures. Third, in the proposed general process model of employee silence (see Figure 6.1 [reproduction of Figure 3.3]), broad categories of target-, individual-, and contextual-factors are illustrated to affect the manifestation of employee silence via their influence on silence-motives. To further our understanding of this aspect of the model, this study investigates the relationships between particular individual- and contextual-factors (i.e., organizational justice, trust, job withdrawal, job satisfaction, workplace commitment, and various subject demographics), and the new motive-based measures of employee silence. To accomplish these objectives, this study is divided into two parts. Part I: Refinement of Measures, further investigates the factor structure and reliability of the measures developed in Study 2. Based on this analysis, edited scales of the resultant silence-motive dimensions are presented. Part II:
Investigation of Related Factors, examines the relationships of these newly developed scales with the various contextual and individual factors mentioned above. Analysis of
210 these potentially differential relationships should provide further insights relative to the dimensional structure of the proposed measurement items.
(See Figure 6.1: General Process Model of Employee Silence -
reproduction of Figure 3.3 for convenience - next page)
211
Input Stimulus
Voice Forces Silence Forces
Target Individual Contextual Contextual Individual Target Factors Factors Factors Factors Factors Factors
Voice-Motives (Multidimensional) Silence-Motives (Multidimensional) Silence Employee Outcomes of (Typology) Comparator 212
3 4 Employee Silence Possible Employee Silence Unlikely High Discrepancy Low Discrepancy Ambivalence (Voice Likely) (Voice Possible)
Employee Silence Unlikely Employee Silence Likely Low Discrepancy Low Discrepancy Indifference (Voice Unlikely) (Voice Unlikely) (Weak) (Strong) Voice-Motives
1 2
(Weak) Silence-Motives (Strong)
Figure 6.1: General Process Model of Employee Silence (reproduction of Figure 3.3 for convenience) Part I: Refinement of Measures
Although employee silence has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct (see Greenberg et al., 2007; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003), and the previous two studies further support this notion, the dimensionality of the scale items
developed in Study 2 was somewhat equivocal. From Studies 1 and 2 it is clear that
employee silence manifests for a variety of different motives, and these motives can be
grouped into conceptually similar categories, and these categories can be grouped into
broader dimensions. However, based on the previous pilot test, the factor structure of the
items developed to assess these various silence-motive categories is not neatly aligned
with the silence-motive dimensions indicated in the MDS analysis conducted in Study 1
(see Discussion of Study 2 for possible explanations). In an attempt to better understand
the dimensional structure of the items developed in Study 2, this study extends the previous pilot test using a larger and more representative sample. Whereas the pilot test consisted of 52 undergraduate students, this study utilizes a larger sample composed of
actual employees in the manufacturing, logistics, service, and non-profit sectors, along
with executive MBA students at a local university. The larger sample size, in
conjunction with subjects’ more significant work experience, should enhance the validity
and generalizability of the results.
Method
To fulfill the objectives of this study, the following sequence of procedures was
performed: (a) determination and acquisition of subjects, (b) administration of measures
and data collection, (c) analysis of the factor structure and refinement of measures.
213
Determination and Acquisition of Subjects
Initially, the subjects were to be all categories of employees at two facilities of an
automotive parts manufacturing company located in the mid-western United States. I had
extensively discussed the nature of the research with the CEO of North American
operations and had received his approval to conduct this research three months prior to
the anticipated launch date. On the evening before I was to travel to the field site I was
contacted by the CEO and informed that the human resource manager felt there was
currently too much “employee unrest” at one of the facilities, and that “asking questions
of such a sensitive nature may stir things up.” I was still granted permission to survey
subjects at the other facility, but this reduced the potential sample size from over 400 to
less than 125 employees.
To compensate for this unanticipated reduction in sample size I also recruited
subjects from two additional sources. First, subjects were recruited from personal
business contacts in the manufacturing, logistics, service, and non-profit sectors. These
subjects included over 100 employees of various job classifications. Additionally,
subjects were recruited from executive MBA classes at a local university. Subjects in
this group also spanned a variety of job classifications and industries.
Determination of sample size based on a power analysis (J. Cohen, 1977) is
difficult considering the nascent stage of the literature in this area. Considering this is the first empirical study to examine employee silence based on particular motives the required estimate of effect size for power determination is speculative. However, validity
214
studies of other related psychological constructs do provide some guidance. For example, Colquitt (2001) in a criterion validity study of newly developed organizational
justice measures utilized a sample consisting of 337 employees of a manufacturing organization. Becker and Randall (1994) evaluated the validity of a new measure of
organizational citizenship behavior in a field setting utilizing a sample of 112 restaurant
employees. Hinkin (1998), and Guadagnoli and Velicer (1988), both suggest that 200
should be sufficient for internal consistency and factor structure analysis. Other
recommendations have been made in terms of the ratio of sample size to the number of
variables. Cattell (1978) proposed a sample size to number of variables ratio ranging
from 3:1 to 6:1; Everitt (1975) suggested a ratio of at least 10:1; and Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, and Black (1995) recommended a ratio of 20:1.
Although there is a good deal of debate concerning the issue of sample size, considering that there are 26 items in the proposed employee silence scale, a sample of
260 respondents should be sufficient. Moreover, although the initial plan was to survey employees from a single organization, the addition of these other data sources provided opportunities for interesting comparisons between various groups of subjects as well as potentially enhancing the generalizability of the results.
Two hundred and forty seven total responses were collected. Subject demographic questions consisted of tenure with current employer, job classification, age, gender, ethnicity, and education level. Subject demographic statistics are presented in
Table 6.1.
215 Table 6.1: Subject Demographic Statistics
If employed, how long have you worked for your current employer? 1 0.4% Less than 6 months 85 35.9% 6 months – 2 years 105 44.3% 3-5 years 28 11.8% 6-10 years 10 4.2% 10-15 years 3 1.3% 16 years or longer 3 1.3% Not applicable
Which of the following categories best describes your current job? 18 7.6% Executive/Management 58 24.5% Technical/Professional 43 18.1% Sales/Marketing 28 11.8% Administrative/Clerical 43 18.1% Customer Service (e.g., restaurant server) 4 1.7% Skilled Crafts 39 16.5% Laborer 1 0.4% Student
Which of the following includes your current age? 6 2.5% 18-24 80 33.8% 25-34 67 28.3% 35-44 61 25.7% 45-54 17 7.2% 55-64 4 1.7% 65 or older
What is your biological sex? 87 36.7% Female 145 61.2% Male
Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? 18 7.6% Asian 2 0.8% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 16 6.8% Black / African-American (Not of Hispanic origin) 8 3.4% Hispanic / Latino 11 4.6% American Indian / Alaskan Native 173 73.0% White (Not of Hispanic origin) 5 2.1% Two or more races
Continued
216
Table 6.1 continued What is the highest level of education you have completed? 3 1.3% Some high school 27 11.4% High school diploma or GED 40 16.9% Some college 55 23.2% College degree 96 40.5% Some graduate work 11 4.6% Masters degree 1 0.4% Doctoral degree 2 0.8% Other professional degree (e.g., J.D., M.D.)
Administration of Measures and Data Collection
The purpose of this phase is to collect data to enable the examination of the factor
structure and refinement of the employee silence scale items developed in Study 2. In
addition, the data collected in this phase will be used to examine the relationships of the
resultant silence dimensions to various individual and contextual factors (see Part II). To accomplish this, a survey consisting of the employee silence items developed in Study 2 was created. As previously discussed (see Study 2), a control item was included in this survey which assessed the extent to which respondents intentionally remained silent at work, rather than spoke up, concerning important issues, situations, events, concerns, or ideas they had within the past year. This item did not differentiate among the underlying motives for remaining silent, as did the other 26 silence-items. Only 10 (4%) of 247 total respondents reported “Never = 1” intentionally remaining silent at work within the past year. These 10 responses were not included in the subsequent item-analysis. Moreover, it does appear that intentionally remaining silent at work (irrespective of the underlying motive) is a behavior that most employees can recall having engaged in, albeit to varying
217
degrees. Employee silence was measured with the 26 items developed in Study 2. These items are intended to assess the 18 silence-motive categories identified in Study 1 (see
Appendix E.1 for list of items and their representative silence-motive categories). In addition to the employee silence items, various individual and contextual factors were
included in the survey. Rationale for the inclusion of each these individual and
contextual factors, along with the specific measures included in this survey, is provided
in the later Part II: Investigation of Related Factors section.
Analysis of the Factor Structure and Refinement of Measures
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the employee silence items was
conducted to investigate the factor structure of the new measures. Because it was
anticipated that the silence-items may be correlated, the maximum likelihood method of
extraction with oblique rotation was selected to interpret the structure (for review see
Conway & Huffcutt, 2003).
The EFA of the 26 silence items revealed six factors with eigenvalues greater than
one (see Figure 6.2). Eigenvalues, in and of themselves, are best viewed as indicators,
and not strict guidelines to follow concerning the underlying dimensionality of a latent
construct. Therefore, in addition to the factor eigenvalues, the factor pattern matrix
should also be examined.
218
Figure 6.2: Scree Plot: EFA Employee Silence Items
The EFA pattern matrix is presented in Table 6.2 (next page). The items in this matrix are sorted by size across factors. Shading indicates items with either high loading by one distinct factor, or items which, based on conceptual reasons merit consideration for inclusion with the indicated factor. Following Table 6.2 is a brief discussion of: (a) the apparent conceptual nature of each of the factors and rationale for inclusion of specific items within a factor, (b) refinement and presentation of the multidimensional silence-scales, and (c) rationale for the proposed labels for the associated silence-motive dimensions.
219 Table 6.2: EFA Pattern Matrix
Item # Item Factor Item Root: I frequently remain silent at work….. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 M SD Q23 because management is not open to other’s views, opinions, or ideas 1.044 -.134 -.214 -.084 -.022 .099 3.64 1.81 Q25 due to bad management practices .889 -.254 -.011 .060 -.091 .180 3.69 1.73 Q03 due to negative experiences I’ve had with speaking up .614 .163 -.028 .020 -.043 .006 3.55 1.75 Q06 due to fear of retaliation .411 -.059 .409 .024 .060 -.225 3.51 1.81 Q04 because I was instructed not to speak up .407 .148 .161 -.291 .123 .049 2.20 1.48 Q17 because I do not have the authority to correct the situation .344 .075 .045 .222 .034 -.041 4.29 1.76 Q07 to avoid experiencing negative emotions .252 .184 .142 .115 .151 -.052 3.63 1.65 Q16 because I do not want to appear incompetent -.021 .931 -.126 -.065 -.017 .061 3.81 1.78 Q08 to avoid embarrassing myself -.168 .892 .005 .047 .019 .050 4.06 1.75 Q13 because I am unsure what to say -.045 .788 -.152 -.105 -.090 -.022 3.86 1.59 Q20 because I expect someone else to speak up -.004 .590 -.068 .173 .030 .042 3.77 1.57 Q24 because I am intimidated by management .376 .501 -.119 .019 .060 -.194 3.30 1.78 220 Q12 to protect my relationship with another individual -.033 -.164 .817 -.002 -.095 .063 3.88 1.67 Q10 to avoid hurting someone’s feelings -.123 -.075 .691 .073 .039 .084 3.82 1.57 Q09 to protect another person from harm -.034 -.079 .634 -.094 .036 .069 3.63 1.63 Q11 to protect my organization from harm -.176 -.130 .549 -.115 .246 -.131 2.93 1.46 Q15 because I do not want to be viewed as causing problems .202 .131 .507 -.006 -.025 .009 4.16 1.69 Q02 to avoid conflict .154 .116 .461 .258 -.182 .037 4.43 1.67 Q05 to protect myself from harm .252 .053 .435 .075 .041 -.173 3.59 1.75 Q14 to protect my image or reputation .006 .381 .414 .020 -.055 .272 3.77 1.66 Q19 because I do not think it is worth the effort to speak up -.042 -.006 -.049 .828 -.002 .061 3.88 1.75 Q18 because I do not think it will do any good to speak up .112 -.047 -.019 .735 .018 .084 4.06 1.75 Q22 to purposefully harm the organization .041 -.012 -.090 -.016 .946 .127 1.59 0.96 Q21 to purposefully harm another individual -.101 -.057 .156 .061 .683 .085 1.61 1.02 Q27 because I do not care what happens .136 -.009 -.098 .326 .184 .548 2.63 1.61 Q26 to gain a personal advantage .035 .196 .366 -.186 .031 .494 2.89 1.47
Dimension One: Defensive Silence
Items initially included in this dimension include: Q23, Q25, Q03, Q06, Q04,
Q17, Q24, and Q05 (Note: Dimensions correspond to the Factors indicated in Table 6.2.
The individual items are presented in the same sort order as in Table 6.2). Cronbach’s alpha for the scale composed of these eight items = .848. Table 6.3 below provides item- total statistics along with resultant alpha if item deleted.
Table 6.3: Dimension 1: Item-Total Statistics
Note: Items Q04, Q17, Q24 removed from final scale. Alpha = .830 for the remaining 5 items.
Based on this analysis, the reliability of the scale actually increases if item Q04
“instructed not to speak up” is removed. This is not surprising considering the relatively
low factor loading on this item, and considering the potential for various interpretations
of the meaning of this item. Whereas the other items in this dimension are more clearly
focused on negative management characteristics and the resultant need to self-protect,
this item could also be interpreted as being a “good soldier,” wanting to make a positive
impression, or a number of other inferences conceptually aligned with behaving as
instructed, and not necessarily due to the need to protect oneself. Based on the EFA, and
221 reliability investigation, along with face-validity evaluation indicating the potential for divergent interpretations, item Q04 is not included in the final scale. Item Q17 “I did not have the authority to correct the situation” is also equivocal in its factor loading and contribution to scale reliability. As indicated in Table 6.3, removal of this item reduces the scale’s alpha a modest amount from .848 to .840. Moreover, the face-validity of this item is questionable, as one can understand how “lacking authority” may be related to increased risk associated with speaking-up, but could also be related to feeling unable to make a difference (see F4, Table 6.2). Therefore, item Q17 is not included in the final scale. Item Q24 “because I am intimidated by management” is also equivocal relative to its factor loading and contribution to scale reliability. As indicated in Table 6.2, this item is loaded on by both F1 and F2. Considering this ambiguity, item Q24 is not included in the final scale for this dimension. Also, as indicated in Table 6.2, item Q05 “to protect myself from harm” is loaded on by F1 (L = .252), and loaded on by F3 (L = .435).
However, even though F3 has a higher loading on this item than does F1, this item has been retained in the Dimension One (Defensive Silence) scale rather than in the
Dimension Three scale. This is due to what appears to be confounding due to the word
“protect” contained within the item. This likely contributed to conceptual association with other F3 items which also contained the word “protect,” but which had decidedly different meanings. Furthermore, the fact that all 26 items were presented as one scale with the order of presentation randomized likely increased this effect. It is likely that respondents would make a more meaningful distinction relative to this item if it was administered distinctly with the other items representing this dimension, similar to the
222
way the four different forms of organizational justice are assessed (see Colquitt, 2001).
Therefore item Q05 was retained in the final scale of this dimension.
The alpha for the scale composed of the five remaining items is .830. These
remaining five items appear to represent what Van Dyne et al. (2003) refer to as
“Defensive Silence.” As such, the proposed label for this dimension is “Defensive
Silence.” The final scale for this dimension is presented below. This scale is based on a
7-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree.”
I frequently remain silent at work…..
(Q23) because management is not open to other’s views, opinions, or ideas.
(Q25) due to bad management practices.
(Q03) due to negative experiences I’ve had with speaking up.
(Q06) due to fear of retaliation.
(Q05) to protect myself from harm.
Dimension Two: Diffident Silence
Scale items with interpretable F2 loadings are indicated in Table 6.2. These items
are: Q16, Q08, Q13, Q20, Q24, and Q14. The alpha for the scale composed of these
initial six items is .840. As discussed in the Dimension One section, item Q24 “because I
am intimidated by management” is ambiguous in that it is loaded on by both F1 and F2
(see Table 6.2), and its contribution to scale reliability is marginal (see Table 6.4).
223
Therefore, this item has been removed from the final Dimension Two scale. Item Q14
“to protect my image or reputation,” although ambiguous from a factor loading and contribution to reliability standpoint, has been retained in the final scale. This is because the use of the word “protect” in the item has likely resulted in respondents confounding the meaning of this item with other items (which also contain the word “protect”) loaded on by F3. The alpha for the scale composed of the five remaining items is .829.
Table 6.4: Dimension 2: Item-Total Statistics
Note: Item Q24 removed from final scale. Alpha = .829 for the remaining 5 items.
These remaining five items appear to represent a dimension conceptually related to uncertainty and the resultant desire to protect one’s image or reputation. This dimension is related to Dimension One in the sense that both are concerned with protecting oneself. However, whereas Dimension One is focused on external factors which may make remaining silent instrumentally advantageous, Dimension Two appears to be more concerned with one’s own lack of confidence relative to the information one has to convey along with the desire to avoid the potential reputational damage that could result from speaking-up. Or, as Abraham Lincoln once said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt” (c. 1865). The proposed label 224 for this dimension is “Diffident Silence.” The final scale for this dimension is presented below. This scale is based on a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly
Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree.”
I frequently remain silent at work…..
(Q16) because I do not want to appear incompetent.
(Q08) to avoid embarrassing myself.
(Q13) because I am unsure what to say.
(Q20) because I expect someone else to speak up.
(Q14) to protect my image or reputation.
Dimension Three: Relational Silence
Items: Q12, Q10, Q09, Q11, Q15, and Q02 are indicated in Table 6.2 as having interpretable F3 loadings. The alpha for the scale containing these six items is .769.
Table 6.4 below provides item-total statistics along with resultant alpha if an item is deleted.
225
Table 6.5: Dimension 3: Item-Total Statistics
Note: Item Q11 removed from final scale. Alpha = .780 for the remaining 5 items.
Based on this analysis, the reliability of the scale actually increases if item Q11
“to protect my organization from harm” is removed. This is not surprising considering
the other items in this dimension are more clearly focused on interpersonal relational
criterion, whereas this item is focused solely on protecting one’s organization. Therefore,
item Q11 is removed from the final scale for this dimension. The proposed label for this
dimension is “Relational Silence.” The final scale for this dimension is presented below.
This scale is based on a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to
7 = “Strongly Agree.”
I frequently remain silent at work…..
(Q12) to protect my relationship with another individual.
(Q10) to avoid hurting someone’s feelings.
(Q09) to protect another person from harm.
(Q15) because I do not want to be viewed as causing problems.
(Q02) to avoid conflict.
226
Dimension Four: Acquiescent Silence
Scale items with interpretable F4 loadings are indicated in Table 6.2. These items
are: Q19 and Q18. The alpha for the scale composed of these two items is .766. Item
total statistics are provided in Table 6.6. Note that “Alpha if Item Deleted” is not provided since there are only two items included in this scale. Moreover, there seems to be disagreement as to the best indicator of reliability when a scale is composed of two items. Although some researchers believe that Cronbach’s alpha should be used, others are certain that a correlation coefficient should be used and that Cronbach’s alpha is inappropriate (see Hulin, 2001).
Table 6.6: Dimension 4: Item-Total Statistics
A potential problem with a two-item scale is the lack of representation of a larger domain. However, considering that this scale is only assessing one dimension of the larger domain of employee silence, the representativeness issue is, to some extent, mitigated. This dimension is conceptually similar to the “Acquiescent Silence” identified by Pinder and Harlos (Pinder & Harlos, 2001) and expounded up on by Van Dyne et al.
(2003). As such, the proposed label for this dimension is “Acquiescent Silence.” The
227
final scale for this dimension is presented below. This scale is based on a 7-point Likert
type scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree.”
I frequently remain silent at work…..
(Q19) because I do not think it is worth the effort to speak up.
(Q18) because I do not think it will do any good to speak up.
Dimension Five: Deviant Silence
Scale items with interpretable F5 loadings are indicated in Table 6.2. These items
are: Q22 “to purposefully harm the organization,” and Q21 “to purposefully harm another
individual.” The alpha for the scale composed of these two items is .787. Item total
statistics are provided in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7: Dimension 5: Item-Total Statistics
As with Dimension Four, a two item scale may be unable to detect the heterogeneity of the construct. However, given that this scale is designed to assess a single dimension of employee silence the potential for insufficient representativeness is reduced. This dimension is similar to the deviant silence dimension proposed by
228
Greenberg et al. (2007), hence the proposed label is “Deviant Silence.” However, as with
Study 1, the reported frequency of this dimension of silence is quite low. Nevertheless,
considering the potential negative impact that this form of silence could have on
individuals or organizations, along with the possibility that the reported frequency may
be attenuated due to social desirability bias, further investigation is warranted. The final
scale for this dimension is presented below. This scale is based on a 7-point Likert type
scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree.”
I frequently remain silent at work…..
(Q22) to purposefully harm the organization.
(Q21) to purposefully harm another individual.
Factor Six
There are two items with moderate F6 loadings, item Q27 “because I do not care
what happens,” and item Q26 “to gain a personal advantage” as indicated in Table 6.2
(F6). At first glance it is tempting to include item Q27 with Dimension Four:
Acquiescent Silence. However, the inclusion of this item with the other Dimension Four
items reduces the alpha of the Dimension Four scale from .766 to .686. In addition, item
Q27 is silence based on “not caring what happens,” which is conceptually different than feeling that speaking-up would not make a difference (i.e., acquiescent silence).
Furthermore, considering that the definition of employee silence entails remaining silent
229
in response to “important issues,” it is questionable whether or not this item represents a
form of employee silence. As for item Q26, the results of the EFA indicate that this item
is too ambiguous to be considered a unique dimension, or placed within one of the previously identified dimensions. Therefore, neither of these items are included in any of the final silence-dimension scales. Subsequently, factor six is not considered dimension of employee silence, and not included in the related-factors study which follows.
Based on the preceding EFA and item reliability analysis, five dimensions of employee silence have been identified: (1) Defensive Silence, (2) Diffident Silence, (3)
Relational-Silence, (4) Acquiescent Silence, and (5) Deviant Silence. Next, specific hypotheses concerning the relationships between these dimensions of employee silence and various contextual and individual factors (i.e., organizational justice, trust, job satisfaction, psychological withdrawal, commitment, and subject demographics) are developed and tested.
230
Part II: Investigation of Related Factors
An important part of the construct validation process is the examination of the
relationships between the new measures and constructs which have previously been
shown to be related to alternate measures of the same construct (Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994). Considering that there are no other measures of these specific dimensions of
employee silence, this qualification is difficult to fulfill. As an alternative, constructs
which have been shown to be related to general measures of voice, and/or related to the
motives on which the proposed silence-motive dimensions are based, have been selected
for examination. In addition to providing further evidence of construct validity of the
new measures, this phase of the research seeks to advance our understanding of how the
selected individual and contextual factors are differentially related to the various
dimensions of employee silence.
Development of Contextual and Individual Factors Hypotheses
To the extent possible, hypotheses are based on existing theory relative to the
proposed relationships. However, considering the nascent stage of the research on
employee silence, there is admittedly a considerable degree of theoretical exploration
involved in their development. Furthermore, the hypotheses are necessarily dependent on
the dimensions of silence indicated in this study. However, considering that the data
from which the silence dimensions were derived, and the related factors data, were collected at the same time with the same group of subjects, the selection of which related
231
factors to include in this study was necessarily a priori to the final determination of
silence dimensions.
The hypotheses which follow represent only a small subset of the potential
relationships between the various dimensions of employee silence and the related factors
which were measured in this study. These hypotheses represent what are expected to be
the most obvious relationships, although other theoretically tenable and statistically
significant relationships are also likely. Therefore in addition to the following
hypotheses, a post-hoc exploratory examination of the relationships between all of the
dimensions of silence and all of the related factors is also conducted.
Although the eventual aim of this line of research is to identify antecedents and
outcomes of the various dimensions of employee silence, given the nature of this study
(survey administered at a single point in time), it lacks the ability to control for
extraneous causal factors, or the temporal order of occurrence, necessary to infer
causality. Therefore, only the expected direction of the relationship (i.e., positive or
negative) is specified in the following hypotheses. In some cases, silence may be a
dependent variable, in others an independent variable. However, considering the paucity
of theoretical guidance and methodological limitations of this study, this facet of the
relationships is not specified or tested. Next, an overview of each related factor is provided along with specific hypotheses regarding its expected relationship(s) with the various dimensions of employee silence.
232
Organizational Justice
The term “organizational justice” was used first by Greenberg (1987) to refer to people’s perceptions of fairness in organizations. Organizational justice consists of four distinct dimensions: distributive justice, the perceived fairness of the distribution of outcomes; procedural justice, the perceived fairness of the procedures used to determine outcome distributions; interpersonal justice, the perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment used in communicating outcomes and procedures; and informational justice, the perceived fairness of the nature and degree of information used in communicating outcomes and procedures (for a review, see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005).
Two forms of organizational justice (procedural and informational) are particularly interesting relative to their potential impact on employee silence. Theories developed to explain why people care about justice lend support for the role of procedural justice in the proposed defensive dimension of employee silence. The instrumental model suggests that people care about procedural justice because it provides some predictability and control over outcomes (see Lind & Tyler, 1988). In this sense, fair procedures may be perceived as insulating a person from the potential harm associated with speaking-up, thus reducing silence based on the defensive motive. Relative to the model of employee silence depicted in Figure 3.3, procedural justice represents a contextual factor which is expected to be negatively related to the defensive dimension of silence.
H01: Procedural Justice will be negatively related to the defensive dimension of
employee silence.
233
Scholars have previously proposed that perceptions of procedural justice may be related to employees’ feelings of withdrawal and disengagement (Greenberg, 1993a).
Greenberg suggests that procedural justice may be a better predictor of these types of feelings and behaviors than distributive justice because unfavorable procedures indicate deeper, systems related issues, and are therefore are more informative of future treatment than is a one-time distributive inequity. In a related vein, Conlon, Meyer, and
Nowakowski (2005) in a review of organizational justice and employee withdrawal also suggest the procedural justice may lead to the withdrawal behaviors of turnover intentions, absenteeism, and employee silence. Although the specific literature they cite relative to silence is based on avoidance in response to a distributive injustice, they nevertheless acknowledge that procedural justice may also be a related factor. Relative to the model of employee silence depicted in Figure 3.3, procedural justice represents a contextual factor which is expected to be negatively related to employee silence based on the motive of acquiescence.
H02: Procedural Justice will be negatively related to the acquiescent dimension
of employee silence.
In addition to procedural justice, interpersonal justice is also thought to be related to employee silence. In particular, interpersonal justice may contribute to the relational dimension of employee silence because of the link between interpersonal justice and
234 social identity theory (see Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Tyler & Blader, 2000). According to the group engagement model, interpersonal justice originating with supervisors and organizations may drive identity judgments (e.g., pride in group, felt respect from group and identification with group; Tyler & Blader, 2000). In the group engagement model interpersonal justice signals to the individual their relative status within the group. To the extent that they are treated fairly they begin to identify and engage with the group.
Moreover, according to Tyler and Blader (2000), when a person identifies with a group they will be motivated to engage in prosocial behaviors as a way of benefiting the group and subsequently enhancing their own sense of identity. Since the motive for engaging in relational silence is based, in part, on prosocial intent directed toward others, interactional justice should be positively related to this dimension of employee silence.
H03: Interpersonal Justice will be positively related to the relational dimension of
employee silence.
Trust
Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998) defined trust as: “A psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based on the positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (p. 395). Trust has previously been examined as an antecedent of communicative behaviors which are conceptually related to employee silence, such as information exchange in a dyad (Kimmel, Pruitt, Magenau, Konar-
Glodband, & Carnevale, 1980), openness in communication (Boss, 1978), information
235
sharing in a group (Dirks, 1999; Zand, 1972), amount of information sent to superior
(O'Reilly, 1978; O'Reilly & Roberts, 1974), but the findings have been inconsistent (see
Dirks & Ferrin, 2001).
One of the ways that trust has been shown to lead to positive outcomes is through an associated increase in the willingness to take risks (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,
1995). Previous conceptual research has linked the propensity to remain silent to the perception of the risks associated with breaking the silence (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). It therefore follows that as perceptions of trust increase, an employee will be more willing to endure the risks associated with breaking silence when that silence is based on defensive motives. Furthermore, considering that the incidents of employee silence reported in Study 1 were frequently directed at supervisors and/or management (see
Table 4.5 Employee Silence-Target Categories), both trust in supervisor and trust in management are measured in this study. Relative to the model of employee silence depicted in Figure 3.3, trust in supervisor, and trust in management, represent contextual factors which are expected to be negatively related to defensive dimension of employee silence.
H04: Trust in supervisor will be negatively related to the defensive dimension of
employee silence.
H05: Trust in management will be negatively related to the defensive dimension
of employee silence.
236
Job Withdrawal Behavior
A variety of behaviors and behavioral intentions are frequently subsumed under
the heading of job withdrawal behavior. These various behavioral phenomena, for
example, include employee turnover, absenteeism, neglect, disengagement, and more
recently, employee silence (e.g., Conlon et al., 2005; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986; Hirschman,
1970; Molseed, 1989; Mowday & Spencer, 1981; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; K. D. Scott &
Taylor, 1985; Swindall, 2007; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Accordingly, employee silence is
becoming more widely recognized as a form of job withdrawal (see Conlon et al., 2005), but it is a form of withdrawal not typically examined in job withdrawal studies.
Since Pinder and Harlos’s examination of different underlying motives for employee silence and voice, the organizational sciences have begun to recognize that silence may itself be a form of withdrawal (see Conlon et al., 2005), as well as being a precursor to other forms of employee withdrawal, such as absenteeism or turnover (see
Morrison & Milliken, 2000). One aspect of the acquiescent silence described by Pinder and Harlos is that an employee has given up hope for improving an unsatisfactory situation or circumstance. This feeling of hopelessness may lead to an employee suffering in silence, feeling that speaking-up is futile, thus compelling the employee into further states of disengagement and withdrawal.
Consistent with the idea that silence often implies more than simply acceptance of the status quo, Parker and August (1997) proposed that some dissatisfied employees combine silence with exit to quit quietly in what they termed principled turnover. Other
237
studies have also found a relationship between employee expressive behaviors, or lack
there of, and intentions to quit, but the nature of this relationship seems to depend on the
form of expression. For example, Olson-Buchanan and Boswell (2002) found that more
loyal employees may prefer and use less formal methods to voice discontent and that the
use of less formal voice methods relates to less job search activity and lower intent to
quit. Consistent with previous research on grievance procedures, they also found that the use of formal voice systems may actually positively predict withdrawal behavior. This is
seemingly based on a lack of satisfaction and/or possible reprisal associated with the use
of formal grievance systems.
Although there is much left to learn about the role of silence in employee
withdrawal and withdrawal related behaviors (e.g., disengagement), the previous research has revealed that people may remain silent as a means of disengaging from work.
Additionally, this previous work has also shown that when employees stop voicing concerns it may only be a matter of time before they choose to leave the organization.
Relative to the model of employee silence depicted in Figure 3.3, psychological withdrawal represents an individual and/or outcome factor which is expected to be
positively related to acquiescent dimension of employee silence.
H06: Job Withdrawal will be positively related to the acquiescent dimension of
employee silence.
238
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is one of the most widely studied phenomena in organizational behavior (for a review, see O'Reilly, 1991). Job satisfaction consists of multidimensional
psychological responses to one’s job. These responses have affective, behavioral, and
cognitive components which can be arrayed along a positive-to-negative continuum.
They may be quantified with measurement techniques that assess evaluations of features
or characteristics of the job, emotional responses to events that occur on the job, and
behavioral dispositions, intentions, and enacted behaviors (Hulin & Judge, 2003).
Job satisfaction may be either an antecedent or outcome of employee silence. For
example, Hirschman (1970) proposed that employees may respond to job dissatisfaction
with either exit, voice, or loyalty. According to Hirschman, loyalty often entails
remaining with the organization but responding passively to job dissatisfaction by
accepting the status quo without raising any objections or making any suggestions for
improvements. In contrast, Morrison and Milliken (2000) indicate that diminished job
satisfaction may result from organizational silence. According to Morrison and Milliken
this may be due to a perceived lack of control which occurs when employees are denied
an opportunity to voice their concerns (see also Greenberger & Strasser, 1986; Lind &
Tyler, 1988). Similarly, Vakola and Bouradas (2005) in an empirical study of 667
employees from an organization in the technology sector found that supervisors’ attitudes
toward silence were positively correlated with subordinates job satisfaction.
Although the design of the current research precludes the delineation of job
satisfaction as an antecedent or outcome of employee silence, there nevertheless is reason
239
to believe that job satisfaction will be correlated to the various dimensions of employee silence. Moreover, based on the expected negative relationship between job satisfaction
and elements of withdrawal associated with acquiescent silence, it is expected that job
satisfaction will be negatively related to the acquiescent dimension of employee silence.
H07: Job Satisfaction will be negatively related to the acquiescent dimension of
employee silence.
In addition, based on previous research which has shown a negative relationship
between job satisfaction end employee deviance (see Robinson & Greenberg, 1998), it is
expected that job satisfaction will be negatively related to the deviant dimension of
employee silence.
H08: Job Satisfaction will be negatively related to the deviant dimension of
employee silence.
Workplace Commitment
Workplace commitment has been conceptualized, defined, and measured in a
variety of ways within the OB literature (for reviews, see A. Cohen, 2003; Cooper-Hakim
& Viswesvaran, 2005; Klein, Brinsfield, & Molloy, 2006). However, a common theme
throughout these diverse approaches is that commitment entails a perceived bond to a
particular target (Klein et al., 2006). Furthermore, notwithstanding this variety of
240
investigative approaches, commitment in its various forms has been linked to many
important individual and organizational outcomes (i.e., turnover, attendance, OCB,
performance, employee well-being, etc.; for a review, see Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &
Topolnytsky, 2002).
According to Morrison and Milliken (2000), organizational silence may lead to
lower commitment. They base this on aspects of Lind and Tyler’s (1988) group value
model which asserts that procedures that allow for employee voice are usually perceived
more positively because they signal that employees are valued members of the
organization. The group value model also suggests that employees feel less valued when
they perceive that they and others cannot openly express their viewpoints. Subsequently,
when employees feel less valued, they will be less likely to value, identify, trust, and
commit to the organization (see Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990).
In addition to the theoretical rationale for expecting a negative relationship
between commitment and general organizational silence, there is also evidence that commitment is related to the underlying factors on which the various dimensions of employee silence are based. For example, commitment has been shown to be negatively correlated with employee withdrawal (Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993). Based on the conceptual similarity between employee withdrawal cognitions and the items proposed to compose the acquiescent dimension of employee silence, it is expected that there will be a negative relationship between commitment and the acquiescent dimension of employee silence.
241
H09: Organizational Commitment will be negatively related to the acquiescent
dimension of employee silence.
Commitment has also been found to be related to factors similar to those contained within the proposed defensive dimension of employee silence. For example, commitment has been found to be positively related to interactional justice and supervisor satisfaction (see Meyer et al., 2002). The silence category negative management characteristics, which falls within the defensive dimension, contains exemplars
“intimidated by my supervisor,” “supervisor demeaning to employees,” “supervisor not open to other’s views or ideas.” These exemplars ostensibly embody the respect and dignity facets of interactional justice (see Bies & Moag, 1986) and in all likelihood would lead to dissatisfaction with one’s supervisor. Based on this reasoning, it is expected that workplace commitment will be negatively related to the defensive dimension of employee silence.
H10: Organizational Commitment will be negatively related to the defensive
dimension of employee silence.
Subject Demographics
Various subject demographic factors are also measured in this study (see
Appendix F.1). Previous research has found significant differences in communicative behaviors based on race, education, gender, age, and job classification (see LePine & Van
242
Dyne, 1998; Molseed, 1989; Tannen, 1990). And although none of these previous studies have examined employee silence as it is defined in this research, they are nevertheless indicative of potential relationships with employee silence. For example,
Molseed (1989) found that females were more likely to engage in supportive silences, indicated by smiling and nodding heads to encourage collaboration and improve relationships. Therefore it is expected that females will be more likely to report engaging in the relational dimension of silence than men.
H11: Females will report higher rates of the relational dimension of employee
silence than men.
In addition, LePine and Van Dyne (1998) found that participants with at least some college engaged in more voice than those with no college. Therefore, to the extent that education level is indicative of higher self-confidence it is expected that respondents with higher levels of education will report lower levels of the diffident dimension of employee silence.
H12: Subjects with a college degree will report lower rates of the diffident
dimension of employee silence than subjects without a college degree.
243
To examine the specific hypotheses proposed above, the following measures of the relevant individual and contextual factors were included in the survey. Note that the data for the silence-measures indicated in Part I, and the contextual and individual factors indicated in Part II, were collected from the same group of subjects via a survey comprised of all the silence, contextual, and individual measures indicated.
Measures: Contextual and Individual Factors
Procedural justice was measured using the seven-item Likert-type scale developed by Colquitt (2001). See Appendix F.1 questions 28 - 34 for actual items.
Interpersonal justice was measured using the four-item Likert-type scale developed by Colquitt (2001). See Appendix F.1 questions 35 - 38 for actual items.
Trust in supervisor was measured using a ten-item Likert-type scale (Mayer &
Gavin, 2005). See Appendix F.1 questions 39 - 48 for actual items.
Trust in top management was measured using a ten-item Likert-type scale (Mayer
& Gavin, 2005). See Appendix F.1 questions 49 - 58 for actual items. Alpha = .812.
Psychological withdrawal was measured with an eight-item Likert-type scale
(Lehman & Simpson, 1992). See Appendix F.1 questions 59 - 66 for actual items.
Job satisfaction was measured with a three-item Likert-type scale (Mitchell,
Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). See Appendix F.1 questions 67 - 69 for actual items.
244
Workplace commitment was measured using a six-item Likert-type scale (Klein,
Molloy, Brinsfield, & Cooper, 2008). See Appendix F.1 questions 70 - 75 for actual items.
Hypotheses Testing and Reporting of Results
Correlation analysis was conducted to test Hypotheses H01 - H10. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is suitable for examining ordinal data of the type collected in both the employee silence scales and the contextual factors scales. Table 6.8 provides the effect size and significance level for all of the relationships between all measured variables, with the exception of subject demographics. Because subject demographic data in nominal, rather than ordinal, independent sample t-tests were conducted to examine hypotheses H11 and H12. The results of the t-tests for hypotheses
H11 and H12 are provided in Table 6.9. All hypotheses, along with the results are summarized in Table 6.10.
245
Table 6.8: Effect Size and Significance Level (excludes subject demographic variables) 246
Table 6.9: H11 - H12 Subject Demographics: t -tests Std. Hypotheses Group N Mean Sig. Deviation H11: Females will report higher rates of the relational dimension Female 87 4.25 1.24 0.006 of employee silence than men. Male 141 3.80 1.16
H12: Subjects with a college degree will report lower rates of the No College Degree 68 4.21 1.21 0.005 diffident dimension of employee silence than subjects without a college degree. College Degree 161 3.68 1.30
247
Table 6.10: Summary of Hypotheses Effect Hypotheses Hypotheses Sig. Size Supported Procedural Justice will be negatively related to the defensive dimension of H01: -.472 .01 Yes employee silence. Procedural Justice will be negatively related to the acquiescent dimension of H02: -.403 .01 Yes employee silence. Interpersonal Justice will be positively related to the relational dimension of H03: -.324 .01 No employee silence. Trust in supervisor will be negatively related to the defensive dimension of H04: -.401 .01 Yes employee silence. Trust in management will be negatively related to the defensive dimension of H05: -.398 .01 Yes employee silence. Job Withdrawal will be positively related to the acquiescent dimension of H06: .317 .01 Yes employee silence. Job Satisfaction will be negatively related to the acquiescent dimension of H07: -.290 .01 Yes employee silence.
248 Job Satisfaction will be negatively related to the deviant dimension of employee H08: -.099 NS No silence. Organizational Commitment will be negatively related to the acquiescent H09: -.260 .01 Yes dimension of employee silence. Organizational Commitment will be negatively related to the defensive dimension H10: -.186 .01 Yes of employee silence. Females will report higher rates of the relational dimension of employee silence H11: NA .006 Yes than men. Subjects with a college degree will report lower rates of the diffident dimension of H12: NA .005 Yes employee silence than subjects without a college degree. Notes: NS: Correlation not significant at .05 H11 - H12 Effect size not available (NA) in t-test analysis.
As indicated in Table 6.10, ten of the twelve hypotheses were supported. As
expected, procedural justice perceptions were found to be a significant predictor of the
defensive dimension (H01), and the acquiescent dimension (H02), of employee silence.
In fact, the effect sizes for these relationships (r = -.472 and r = -.403) respectively, are
stronger than those often found between procedural justice and other commonly studied
organizational factors (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCB,
withdrawal; see Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Interestingly,
interpersonal justice was found to be related to the relational dimension of employee
silence (H03) in the opposite direction expected (r = -.324). The initial rationale for this
hypothesis was that when a person is treated in an interpersonally fair manner they will
be more likely to remain silent when remaining silent is motivated by a desire to protect
the person or relationship (relational silence). However, it appears that when a person
perceives they have been treated in an interpersonally fair manner, they are less likely to engage in relational silence. In hindsight, it appears that the positive qualities of the relationship inferred by higher levels of interpersonal justice make an individual less likely to remain silent, even when doing so may be beneficial to the person or relationship.
As expected, trust was found to be a significant predictor of the defensive dimension of employee silence. As previously discussed, both trust in supervisor, and trust in management, were measured in this study. Both forms of trust are hypothesized to be negatively related to the defensive dimension of employee silence (H04, H05). As indicated in Table 6.10, trust in supervisor was found to be negatively related to
249
defensive silence (r = -.401), and trust in management was also found to be negatively related to defensive silence (r = -.398). As previously discussed, trust entails a willingness to be vulnerable and to take risks. Therefore, trust likely acts to mitigate the fear of consequences associated with the defensive dimension of employee silence, hence, as trust increases, defensive silence decreases. Also as previously discussed, this study did not specify the target of silence, but as indicated in Study 1, silence was most often reported as directed at one’s supervisor or management. Therefore, measuring both trust in supervisor and trust in management covered the majority the reported targets of silence (72%; see Study 1).
Job Withdrawal was also measured in this study and hypothesized to be positively related to the acquiescent dimension of employee silence (H06). As indicated in Table
6.10, this hypothesis was supported with an associated effect size of r = .317.
Furthermore, although job withdrawal is positively related to all of the dimensions of silence with the exception of deviant silence, its relationship to acquiescent silence is stronger than its relationship to any of the other dimensions of silence. Whether or not job withdrawal is an antecedent or outcome of acquiescent silence is unclear. However, it is likely that factors which contribute to job withdrawal also contribute to this dimension of silence, and this form of silence may reasonably be considered a form of job withdrawal. Clearly more work is needed to understand the nuances of the relationship between employee silence and job withdrawal. Nevertheless, the initial performance of the measures of acquiescent silence indicates that this is an existent form of silence which can be reliably assessed.
250
Job Satisfaction was also measured in this study and hypothesized to be
negatively related to both the acquiescent dimension (H07), and deviant dimension
(H08), of employee silence. As expected, job satisfaction was found to be significantly
related to acquiescent silence (r = -.290). However, job satisfaction was not found to be
significantly related to the deviant dimension of employee silence. Considering the relatively low base rates and limited variance of the deviant silence items, failure to find a significant relationship is not surprising. Moreover, considering the previously discussed
methodological concerns in reliably assessing deviant silence, along with its purported infrequency, and the insignificant findings of this study, its status as a “dimension” of
employee silence is indeterminate. Based on this one study, and considering the nascent stage of the research on deviant silence, it is premature to drop this dimension from future
consideration. However, the previously mentioned methodological issues need to be addressed. This may possibly be accomplished through developing additional deviant silence scale items, or through assessment means other than self-report surveys.
Hypotheses H09 and H10 proposed a negative relationship between organizational commitment, and the acquiescent and defensive dimensions of employee silence, respectively. As indicated in Table 6.10, hypothesis H09 was supported with an associated effect size of r = -.260. Considering the consistent findings in the literature
that organizational commitment is related to a variety of withdrawal related phenomena
(e.g., turnover, withdrawal cognitions, attendance; see Meyer et al., 2002), the measures
of acquiescent silence performed as expected relative to organizational commitment.
H10 was also supported although the effect size was a more modest r = -.186. Although
251
there is theoretical rational to expect commitment to be negatively related to defensive
silence, this connection is not as theoretically robust as it is for the relationship between
commitment and acquiescent silence. Therefore, although H10 was supported, this lower
effect size is perhaps more indicative of the conceptual distinctiveness of acquiescent and
defensive silence.
The final two hypotheses (H11, H12) examine subject demographic variables
previously found to be related to employee communicative behaviors (see Molseed,
1989; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Specifically, H11 proposed that females would report higher rates of the relational silence than men. This hypothesis was supported with a p-
value of .006. H12 proposed that subjects with a college degree would report lower rates
of diffident silence than subjects without a college degree. This hypothesis was
supported with a p-value of .005.
As indicated, ten of the twelve hypotheses were supported. As a general rule of
thumb, J. Cohen (1988) provided the following guideline for the social sciences: small
effect size, r = 0.1; medium, r = 0.3; large, r = 0.5. As illustrated in Table 6.10, six of the
ten effect sizes for the tested hypotheses were between what Cohen would consider
“medium” and “large.” Also, considering the relatively modest effect sizes often found
in prior investigations of the factors examined in this study (i.e., organizational justice,
trust, job withdrawal, job satisfaction, workplace commitment; see Colquitt et al., 2001;
Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Hulin & Judge, 2003; Meyer et al., 2002; Somers & Birnbaum,
2000), the strengths of the relationships tested in this study are noteworthy. While not
conclusive evidence of validity, the general support for these hypotheses does provide
252 further indication that the proposed measures of employee silence are measuring the various silence-dimensions as intended.
Exploratory Regression Analysis
In addition to the correlational analyses, a series of regression analyses were performed as an exploratory investigation of potentially interesting and informative relationships. Considering that defensive silence and acquiescent silence were the two original dimensions of employee silence proposed by Pinder and Harlos (2001), and later conceptually advanced by Van Dyne et al. (2003), as well as being supported by the preceding exploratory factor analysis, defensive and acquiescent silence appear to be the most dimensionally robust forms of silence, and hence the most appropriate criterions for this initial regression analysis. Moreover, the contextual factors measured in this study were selected a-priori based in large part on their expected relationships with these two dimensions of silence. Therefore, multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine how well organizational justice (interpersonal and procedural), trust (trust in supervisor and trust in management), and job satisfaction predicted defensive silence and acquiescent silence.
First, the linear combination of organizational justice, trust, and job satisfaction was examined and found to be significantly related to defensive silence, F (5, 229) =
30.10, p < .01. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .63, indicating that approximately 40% of the variance in defensive silence in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of organizational justice, trust, and job satisfaction.
253
In Table 6.11 the relative strength of individual predictors is presented. All
bivariate correlations between the five predictor variables and defensive silence were
negative, and four of the five indices were statistically significant (p < .05). However,
only the partial correlations between interpersonal justice and defensive silence, and
between procedural justice and defensive silence were significant. On the basis of these
partial correlational analyses, it is tempting to conclude that the two forms of organizational justice are the only useful predictors of defensive silence, and that trust and job satisfaction add little to the predictive value of the equation. However, judgments about the relative importance of these predictors are difficult because they are
correlated. The correlations among the justice, trust, and job satisfaction measures
ranged from .27 to .50.
Nevertheless, it does appear safe to assert that perceptions of fairness play a considerable role in the manifestation of defensive silence. And as previously discussed,
this is likely due to the mitigating effects of fairness on fear of reprisal associated with
this dimension of silence. Furthermore, it appears that trust does play a role in the manifestation of defensive silence, but it is difficult to determine to what extent it is operative over and above the influence of justice. Interestingly, job satisfaction plays a relatively lesser role in predicting defensive silence. Based on these results it appears that employees can be relatively satisfied with their jobs and still be predisposed to remain silent based on defensive motives.
254
Table 6.11: The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors of Defensive Silence
Correlation between each Correlation between each predictor and defensive predictor and silence controlling for all Predictors defensive silence other predictors Interpersonal Justice -.50** -.31** Procedural Justice -.47** -.28** Trust in Supervisor -.40* -.13 Trust in Management -.40* -.16 Job Satisfaction -.393 -.08 * p < .05, ** p < .01
Next, the linear combination of organizational justice, trust, and job satisfaction was examined and found to be significantly related to acquiescent silence, F (5, 229) =
14.39, p < .01. The sample multiple correlation coefficient was .49 indicating that approximately 24% of the variance in acquiescent silence in the sample can be accounted for by the linear combination of organizational justice, trust, and job satisfaction.
In Table 6.12 the relative strength of individual predictors is presented. All bivariate correlations between the five predictor variables and acquiescent silence were negative, and three of the five indices were statistically significant (p < .05). Only the partial correlation between procedural justice and acquiescent silence was significant. On the basis of these correlational analyses, it is tempting to conclude that procedural justice is the only useful predictor of acquiescent silence, and that trust and job satisfaction add little to the predictive value of the equation. As previously discussed, however, judgments about the relative importance of these predictors are difficult because they are correlated.
255
Nevertheless, it does appear safe to assert that perceptions of procedural fairness
play a strong role in the acquiescent dimension of silence. Considering that the
acquiescent dimension of silence is largely based on feelings of futility, it may be that
perceptions of fair procedures create an atmosphere where employees feel that the issue
has a better chance of being resolved if they speak up than it does in situations where
perceptions of procedural fairness are lower. Based on the non-significant partial
correlations of interpersonal justice, trust, and job satisfaction it is difficult to determine
their respective influence on the manifestation of acquiescent silence. However, it is interesting that the linear combination of these factors had almost twice (40% vs. 24%)
the predictive capacity for defensive silence as for acquiescent silence. This differential
predictive capacity provides further evidence of the value in conceptualizing and
measuring the various dimensions of silence separately, as opposed to treating employee
silence as a unitary construct.
Table 6.12: The Bivariate and Partial Correlations of the Predictors of Acquiescent Silence
Correlation between each Correlation between each predictor and acquiescent predictor and silence controlling for all Predictors acquiescent silence other predictors Interpersonal Justice -.27 -.05 Procedural Justice -.41** -.26** Trust in Supervisor -.33* -.14 Trust in Management -.34* -.14 Job Satisfaction -.29 -.05 * p < .05, ** p < .01
256
The preceding analyses provides evidence that the different dimensions of
employee silence can be reliably measured and shown to be correlated to factors that
theoretically may lead to the various dimensions of silence. However, as previously
indicated, the measures of the various dimensions of employee silence may need to be
further refined. This especially appears to be the case with defensive silence, as some
items appear vary in their level of abstraction and subsequently may assess reasons for
silence which could be related to either defensive or acquiescent motives (e.g., Item Q25:
I frequently remain silent at work due to bad management practices), thus potentially
confounding the results. Additionally, the measure of acquiescent silence is comprised of
only two items, hence the measure may be fail to adequately assess the entire domain of
this dimension.
These methodological issues notwithstanding, more work is needed to further
understand the precise nature of these relationships, especially pertaining to causality.
Moreover, this exploratory analysis is indicative of the need to investigate other potential
antecedents of the various dimensions of silence. For example, team psychological
safety, defined as “a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking”
(Edmondson, 1999, p. 354), represents a likely antecedent of defensive silence. In addition, Milliken et al. (2003) in their model of employee silence suggested that an unsupportive management style and lack of closeness may lead to employee silence.
Similarly, Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, and Roth (1992) found that employees’ willingness to voice work-related concerns and suggestions to their supervisor was related to how approachable and responsive they perceived their supervisors to be.
257
Considering that acquiescent silence is based, in part, on the underlying feeling of futility, a participative as opposed to an autocratic leadership style (see Surinder, Sosik, &
Avolio, 1997) of an employee’s supervisor would likely be negatively related to the manifestation of acquiescent silence.
The other dimensions of silence revealed in the study also are also in need of investigation relative to antecedent and outcome factors. For example, do factors which have been shown to lead to employee deviant behavior also contribute to deviant silence, and if so, under what circumstances and to what ends? How do factors which have been shown to be related to relationship supportive behaviors, such as prosocial behaviors
directed toward other individuals (e.g., OCB-I; Williams & Anderson, 1991) contribute
to relational silence? Clearly there are many more relationships to be examined, but the
results presented here do demonstrate that the seemingly ambiguous phenomenon of
employee silence can be empirically studied, an endeavor that up to this point has
generally been avoided in the organizational sciences.
Discussion of Study 3
The main objectives of this study were: (a) further analysis and refinement of the employee silence dimensions proposed in Study 1, (b) further analysis and refinement of the employee silence measures developed in Study 2, and (c) investigation of the relationships between particular individual- and contextual-factors (i.e., trust,
258
organizational justice, job satisfaction, psychological withdrawal, commitment, and subject demographics), and the resultant measures of employee silence.
As previously discussed, the development of a typology of employee silence
based on different dimensions is especially important if antecedents, as well as outcomes,
of employee silence differ as a function of the underlying motive. If different factors are
related to the manifestation of different motive-based dimensions of employee silence, then targeted intervention and refined theoretical development depends on understanding
these specific relationships. Similarly, if different dimensions of silence are related to
different types of outcomes, then predicting and identifying consequences of employee
silence is dependent on understanding and identifying these specific relationships.
Several important findings emerged from this Study. First, the dimensionality
proposed in Study 1 was further refined through testing of measures based on the initial
exemplars and associated silence categories, rather than on measures designed explicitly
to conform to the dimensionality proposed in Study 1. This was beneficial at this stage in
the study of employee silence considering that the dimensionality proposed in Study 1
was potentially open to a variety of interpretations. Therefore, subjecting these silence
exemplars and the resultant categories to a different group of subjects and a different
analytic technique (EFA vs. MDS), provided a distinct and valuable vantage point from
which to interpret the results. As previously indicated, five dimensions of employee
silence were identified: (1) Defensive Silence, (2) Diffident Silence, (3) Relational-
Silence, (4) Acquiescent Silence, and (5) Deviant Silence. The defensive, acquiescent,
and deviant dimensions had previously been proposed in the literature, but not
259
empirically substantiated (see Greenberg et al., 2007; see Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van
Dyne et al., 2003). The diffident and relational dimensions had not been previously proposed in the employee silence literature.
Interestingly, Prosocial Silence (see Van Dyne et al., 2003), did not emerge as a distinct dimension in this study, however, aspects of prosocial silence overlap with the
relational dimension revealed in this study. “Relational Silence,” however, is a more
accurate descriptor for this dimension than “Prosocial Silence” as the exemplar-based items which comprise this category are more concerned with protecting relationships than with purely prosocial intentions. A notable exception is the item “to protect my organization from harm” which is also loaded on by the relational dimension (r = .549).
Conceptually, this item is seemingly distinct from the other items included in the
relational dimension, but this was not indicated in the EFA. Considering that prosocial
silence only accounted for 3 of 574 reasons for remaining silent reported in Study 1, and
that this item did not emerge as a distinct dimension in the EFA, its status as a dimension
of employee silence is equivocal. However, there is little doubt that employees do at
times remain silent to protect their organizations. This most likely takes the form of
protecting proprietary or sensitive information. Whether or not to include this item, and
the prosocial form of silence it represents, depends on the specific research question.
Clearly, remaining silent to protect one’s organization is a potentially important issue,
however, it is questionable whether or not this form of silence should be included within
the domain of what is considered “employee silence,” or be examined as a distinct
construct. Considering these conceptual and empirical ambiguities, the prosocial
260
dimension is not included in the typology of silence-motive dimensions proposed in this
study, although this is a potentially important topic for future research.
Based on the results of the hypotheses testing it appears that the different dimensions of employee silence are differentially related to other important
organizational behavior phenomena. As previously discussed, there is limited theoretical foundation on which to base each of the specific hypotheses. Although broad theoretical guidance was provided as to why each of these associated factors may be related to employee silence, the hypothesized relationships are largely exploratory.
As indicated in Table 6.10, nine of the twelve hypotheses were supported.
Perhaps what is most interesting, and indicative of the value in conceptualizing and
measuring employee silence as a multi-dimensional construct, are the differential effect
sizes across the various relationships reported in Table 6.8. For example, measures of
justice and trust appear to be stronger predictors of defensive silence than for any of the
other silence dimensions. This is not surprising considering the role of justice and trust in
risk taking. In contrast, organizational commitment appears to be a stronger predictor of
acquiescent silence than for any of the other silence dimensions. As expected, job
withdrawal has a positive relationship with all dimensions of silence, but the relationship
is the strongest with acquiescent silence.
As previously discussed, the primary focus of this study was not the development
and testing of these specific hypotheses, per se, but rather a preliminary exploration of the
nature of these relationships. Showing that different dimensions of silence are
261 differentially related to relevant organizational phenomena shows the value in conceptualizing and measuring employee silence as a multi-dimensional construct.
In addition to examining relationships between the dimensions of silence and various contextual and individual factors, this study also enabled the examination of how the different dimensions of silence are related to one another. As indicated in Table 6.8, all of the proposed silence dimensions were significantly positively related to one another, with the exception of the relationship between acquiescent and deviant silence.
The strongest relationship between silence dimensions is r = .585 for the relationship between defensive and relational silence, but even this is not so strong as to indicate that the two dimensions are measuring the same underlying construct. Moreover, other multidimensional OB constructs typically report substantial correlations between dimensions. For example, Colquitt’s et al. (2001) meta-analysis reported relationships between interpersonal and informational justice (r = .57) and between procedural and distributive justice (r = .48). Similarly, dimensions of organizational commitment are often found to be significantly correlated. For example, the correlation between the affective commitment and normative commitment (see Meyer & Allen, 1991) are often quite strong (Meyer et al., 2002). Indeed, as Meyer and colleagues point out, some investigators have questioned the utility of retaining normative commitment as a separate scale, but others argued that, despite their high correlation, affective and normative commitment exhibit sufficiently different correlations with other variables, and therefore both are worth retaining (e.g., A. Cohen, 1996). Considering the findings of this study, and the general nascent stage of the research on employee silence, a similar argument can
262
be made for separately conceptualizing and measuring the various dimensions of
employee silence. But, clearly more research is needed, especially considering that the
same sample was used to determine the various silence dimensions and to derive the
correlations presented in Table 6.8. Additionally, research which examines the causal
nature of the relationships between the different silence dimensions and various outcome
variables has the potential to be very informative.
Limitations of Study 3
Although the findings of this study represent a significant advancement in the
systematic examination of employee silence, the results must be interpreted with a degree
of caution, as methodological limitations qualify the inferences which can be derived.
In this study, the proposed dimensionality of employee silence was derived from
the interpretation of the EFA, an examination of the relationships of the resultant
dimensions with other organizational phenomena (i.e., trust, organizational justice,
withdrawal, etc.), and from the insights derived via the MDS analysis conducted in Study
1. Considering that each of these analytic techniques presents a distinct view of the underlying data, the final determination of dimensionality entails a non-trivial amount of
subjectivity. As such, this research is closer to the first, rather than the last, word on the
topic of employee silence dimensionality.
Of particular concern is the content validity of the measures of the proposed
silence-dimensions. This is especially important with regard to dimensions comprised of
just two items (acquiescent and deviant silence). In retrospect, inclusion of additional
263
items based on the exemplars contained in these respective categories may have been
beneficial. However, as indicated in the EFA and reliability analysis, items which were initially thought to be contained in these respective categories were dropped due to
ambiguous factor loadings or because they did not enhance scale reliability. Future
versions of these measures may benefit from the development and testing of additional
items designed to tap these respective dimensions.
As previously discussed, due to methodological limitations of this study, it is
impossible to infer causality relative to the hypothesized relationships. Further
examination of these relationships employing methodologies controlling for temporality
and other causal factors would significantly increase our understanding of the how the
various dimensions of employee silence are related to other organizational phenomena.
Another important limitation of this study is that all measures were of the self-
report variety. Examining how the various silence dimensions are related to objective
measures of individual, team, and organizational outcomes would be especially
insightful.
In conclusion, this study represents the first attempt to empirically examine
factors related to the manifestation of the different dimensions of employee silence. It is,
however, just one small step in what I expect will be burgeoning area of study as
researchers and practitioners begin to recognize that previous examinations of employee
of voice have failed to account for the implications of intentional silence.
264
CHAPTER 7
GENERAL DISCUSSION
“The most important aspect of business communication is hearing what isn’t
being said” (Peter F. Drucker, n.d.).
There is little doubt that effective communication is essential for the healthy
functioning of an organization. Communication is essential for innovation (Ryan &
Oestreich, 1991), organizational learning (Argyris, 1976), team processes (Edmondson,
2003), perceptions of fair treatment (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), employee well-being
(Cortina & Magley, 2003), creating and maintaining an ethical workplace (Near &
Miceli, 1985), extra-role work behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998), job performance
(LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). In fact, it is difficult to think of an organizational process
that would not be negatively impacted by ineffectual communication. It is also true that
communicative behaviors have been studied extensively within the management sciences.
However, notwithstanding this body of previous research on the various forms and facets of communication within organizations, it has been proposed that our knowledge is incomplete. More specifically, it has been suggested that despite the diverse array of research on various communicative behaviors, we still know relatively little about how
and why employees intentionally remain silent at work (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). It
265 has also been suggested that a reason for this is the assumption that there is no need to study silence, per se, as silence is essentially the absence of speaking-up (Van Dyne et al., 2003). That is, one could simply infer that antecedents and outcomes associated with silence are essentially the opposite, or absence, of those associated with voice.
More recently, however, researchers within the organizational sciences have recognized that silence may be more complex than can be accounted for by simply assuming it is equivalent to an absence of voice. This is evidenced by an increase in research attention in recent years which has focused on employee silence as a distinct construct (see Journal of Management Studies: Special Issue, September 2003, and Voice and Silence in Organizations, Edited by Jerald Greenberg and Marissa Edwards, 2009), among others. However, much of the research to date has been conceptual in nature, relying on anecdotal evidence concerning the nature, pervasiveness, and reasons for silence in organizations. To address this void, this research attempted to: (a) systematically investigate what constitutes the construct of employee silence and whether or not it is distinct from simply an absence of voice, (b) analytically explore recent conceptualizations of employee silence as a multi-dimensional construct based on different underlying motives, (c) develop a valid way to measure this construct, and (d) examine the relationships between the resultant dimensions of employee silence and factors previously linked to other communicative behaviors in organizations or to the motives on which the dimensions are based.
To achieve these objectives, five separate, albeit related, phases of research were conducted: (a) literature review, (b) development of a model of employee silence, (c)
266
investigation of the dimensionality of the motives for employee silence and employee voice, (d) development of measures of employee silence, and (e) validation of measures and investigation of factors thought to be differentially related to the various dimensions of employee silence.
Overview of Findings
As evidenced in the literature review section, the breadth of research on the topic of communicative behaviors within organizations is indeed vast. Within this body of work there have been efforts to investigate various forms of employee expressive behaviors (i.e., whistle-blowing, issue selling, complaining, procedural justice, voice as a form of OCB, etc.). There have also been efforts which have primarily focused on the failure to communicate (i.e., the MUM effect, spirals of silence, deaf ear syndrome, social ostracism, job withdrawal, etc.). These various efforts have differed with respect to the target of the communication (e.g., top-management, supervisor, co-workers, subordinates, parties outside the organization). They have differed with respect to the stimulus one is communicating (or failing to communicate) in response to (i.e., fairness concern, witnessed wrongdoing, idea, need for improvement, negative information, etc.).
They have also differed with respect to their level of analysis (e.g., individual, group, organization) (for an overview see Table 2.1.). However, this previous research has not adequately explained the fundamental nature of intentional silence at work (employee silence), and whether or not there is value in examining it as a distinct construct. This previous research also has not provided a valid means of measuring employee silence,
267 nor provided empirical investigation of the underlying reasons for its manifestation.
While this dissertation may not provide definitive answers relative to all these issues, it does provide important insights and a solid platform from which to build.
The specific multi-faceted nature of employee silence has yet to be clearly articulated in the extant literature. In an attempt to fill this void, the proposed general process model of employee silence (see Figure 3.3) illustrates the component and associated factors of employee silence and their expected relationships. Per the model, employee silence is a process beginning with a stimulus (i.e., witnessed wrongdoing, idea for improvement, unfair treatment, etc.) which a person feels motivated to speak up in response to (i.e., voice motive). In the case of employee silence, however, motive(s) to remain silent co-occur with, and potentially counteract, motive(s) to speak up. These motives to speak up and remain silent were the focus of Study 1, and are indeed quite varied and complex.
As illustrated in the model, and tangentially supported by a significant body of research on employee communicative behaviors, target-, individual-, and contextual- factors, are thought to impact the development of both silence- and voice-motives. For example, a supervisor’s management style (target factor) may impact the motive to remain silent toward that supervisor. This could occur if the supervisor had a domineering or abusive management style. In this case the employee may be motivated to withhold unpleasant information from the supervisor due to the motive to protect themselves from negative repercussions associated with speaking-up. Similarly, employees may often find themselves in situations where they are willing to share
268 information with a peer, but are fearful to share the same information with a superior. In addition to target factors, individual factors are also proposed to impact both silence and voice-motives. Previous research has shown that individual factors such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus-of-control, education level, gender, personality, are related to communicative behaviors (for a review see Individual Factors section). For example, it could be that two individuals witness a perceived wrongdoing at work. However, because of differences in their personal values one person may feel compelled to speak up (voice motive) about the situation and the other may not. Similarly, these same two individuals may experience different motives to remain silent based on their individual differences. For example, if one of them has a higher level of self-esteem that person may feel they have the psychological resources to mitigate the potential negative consequences associated with speaking-up. In contrast, a person with lower self-esteem may be more subject to fear of reprisal associated with speaking-up because they feel less confident in their ability to effectually deal with the situation. Contextual factors are also depicted in the model as impacting both silence- and voice-motives. For example, procedural justice may diminish the self-protect motive to remain silent as perceptions of fair procedures may be thought to insulate the individual from the reprisal often associated with speaking-up about sensitive issues. Considering the significant relationship between procedural justice and defensive silence found in Study 3, this appears to be quite plausible.
A notable aspect of this model is the psychological discrepancy resulting from the conflicting motives to speak up and remain silent potentially leading to feelings of
269
ambivalence. As such, silence occurring when a person feels no impetus to speak up is
not the type of silence which is the focus of employee silence. The construct of interest is
silence in a situation where, if not for the motive(s) to remain silent, a person would
otherwise be compelled to speak up. Discrepancies resulting from these types of
conflicting motives can be a significant source of dissatisfaction in life (see Baumeister et al., 1985; Emmons & King, 1988; Van Hook & Higgins, 1988) and may be a reason for the negative psychological and physiological consequences of self-suppression found in prior research (see Cortina & Magley, 2003). However, as previously discussed, the empirical studies were based on an earlier version of the model which did not incorporate the opposing forces of psychological field theory, and hence the empirical studies did not directly test the extent and implications of the co-occurrence of the various voice and
silence motives (see Future Research section for ideas relating to the empirical
examination of opposing motives for voice and silence).
In addition, although objective outcomes of employee silence are not empirically
examined in this research study, the model does indicate a typology of distinct outcome
categories. For example, outcomes may impact the person who is remaining silent, the
person or entity that is the target of silence, or even third parties (i.e., the astronauts who
died in the Columbia space shuttle disaster who were neither the perpetrators nor targets
of silence within NASA’s engineering department). Furthermore, although most of the
anecdotal evidence portrays ostensibly negative outcomes associated with silence, this is
not always the case. As described in the Typology of Employee Silence Outcomes
section, outcomes of silence may be either positive or negative. This is largely a matter
270
of context and perspective. The same silence-incident may result in positive outcomes for one party and negative outcomes for another. And lastly, the typology of outcomes indicates outcomes as psychological, and/or instrumental in nature. For example, silence may impact a person’s emotional state, and/or result in material/instrumental gains or losses for an individual, team, organization, etc., depending on the context and perspective.
Drawing from cybernetic control theory, the model of employee silence also recognizes that employee silence is not simply a linear process with distinct beginning and end points, but rather an ongoing process which may be impacted by an assessment/re-assessment of the outcomes experienced, or a variety of stimulus, target, individual, or contextual changes. That is, although a person may initially decide that remaining silent is the preferred action (or inaction in this case), they may later decide to speak up. This helps to explain how people are able to adapt their silence behavior according to the dynamics of the situation.
In addition to a thorough review of the literature and the development of a model of employee silence, this dissertation forged new ground through qualitative and quantitative investigation of: (a) the types of issues employees remain silent and/or speak up in response to, (b) the targets of silence and/or voice, and (c) the dimensionality of the motives for employee silence and voice.
In Study 1 it was revealed that both silence and voice can occur in response to a wide array of stimuli; be directed upward, laterally, or downward; and occur for a wide variety of motives. In fact, depending on the situation, people may speak up or remain
271
silent based on the same motive, or for substantially different motives. For example,
employees may speak up or remain silent to protect themselves from harm, however, this
motives was reported much more frequently for remaining silent than for speaking-up.
Moreover, certain motives appear to be relatively exclusive to either silence or voice. For
example, employees reported remaining silent to avoid embarrassment, but they did not
report speaking-up for this reason. Based on the differential nature and reported
frequencies of the underlying motives for silence and voice, it is apparent that silence is
much more complex than is accounted for by assuming it is equivalent to an absence or
opposite of voice.
Developing measures to investigate employee silence is a fundamental challenge
for researchers working in this field. Although employee silence has attracted significant conceptual attention in recent years, the absence of valid scales has limited further progress. Although there have been some efforts to develop valid measures (e.g., Vakola
& Bouradas, 2005; Van Dyne et al., 2003) these measures have not been based on a clearly articulated conception of the underlying construct, nor empirically supported.
In Study 2, measures were developed based on a clearly articulated definition and
model of employee silence. The items are self-report Likert-type scales designed to assess the frequency of intentional silence behavior when said behavior is based on a particular motive. Additionally, the actual items were adopted from exemplars obtained through extensive qualitative investigation. These inductively derived items were subjected to psychometric analysis and further refined and tested in a variety of settings
(see Study 3). The factor analytic structure of the items indicated that distinct dimensions
272
of silence are being assessed by these items. Internal consistency assessment indicated
that items reflecting the same silence-dimension yielded similar results. These items
were further tested and refined in Study 3.
In Study 3 the employee silence measures were administered to a diverse group of subjects including employees from an automotive parts manufacturer, various business contacts from the logistics, manufacturing, and service sectors, and executive MBA students.
The dimensionality of employee silence-motives revealed in Study 3 aligned with the dimensionality revealed in the MDS analysis conducted in Study 1 with respect to the defensive, acquiescent, and deviant dimensions. Two additional dimensions were identified in Study 3, the relational dimension and the diffident dimension. However, the prosocial dimension indicated in Study 1 did not emerge as a distinctly identifiable dimension in Study 3. Rather, items placed in the prosocial dimension in Study 1 either became part of the relational dimension, or were dropped from the scales.
In Study 3 the relationships of the new silence measures with various individual and contextual factors were also examined. Although largely exploratory, hypotheses were developed and tested. As indicated in Study 3, different dimensions of silence are differentially related to various contextual and individual factors. This further supports the assertion that there is value in examining silence as a multi-dimensional construct, and not simply as a unitary concept. Indeed, depending on the underlying motives the possible antecedents and/or consequences appear to be quite different. Although as
273 previously noted, causality was indeterminate due to methodological limitations (i.e., cross-sectional survey).
Practical Implications
Considering the abundance of anecdotal evidence there is little doubt that employees’ reluctance to speak up about important issues at work can have substantial consequences. Furthermore, based on both anecdotal and previous research evidence it appears that this phenomenon is quite pervasive (see Milliken et al., 2003). However, until now there was no reliable method of determining the nature and extent of silence within an organization.
With the development of measures based on clear articulation of the construct and empirically substantiated dimensions, managers now have an instrument to assess the extent of various forms of silence within their organizations. Admittedly, further testing and refinement of these measures is necessary, but considering the relatively sound psychometric properties indicated in this research, the measures in their current form appear suitably valid and reliable.
Beyond simply assessing the extent of the various dimensions of employee silence, this research demonstrated the importance of trust and organizational justice in employee silence. Considering the significant relationships found in Study 3, it appears that managers have yet another reason to develop and maintain a climate of trust and justice within their organizations. Furthermore, the differential relationships of these
274 factors with the various dimensions of silence indicate that targeted intervention tactics will be dependent on distinguishing among silence dimensions.
Researchers and practitioners alike have acknowledged the potential consequences of failing to communicate important information. However, neither research nor practitioner attention has been commensurate with the potential implications of this phenomenon. Additionally, employee silence has not been an area of focus in most business school curriculums. A primary reason for this may be the belief that this issue is too indistinct to examine empirically. Subsequently, it remained an interesting topic for conceptualization, but had not become a “mainstream” issue of organizational consideration and systematic examination. It is hoped that this research may help facilitate the transition of employee silence into the empirical domain of inquiry and ultimately into meaningful practical application.
Future Research
Although this research certainly has advanced our understanding of the multidimensional nature of employee silence, there is little doubt that we are just beginning to build a foundation of knowledge on the topic. As stated, a primary purpose of this research was to investigate the underlying dimensionality of employee silence.
This research, in part, confirmed silence-dimensions previously proposed in the literature, but also found evidence for dimensions not previously considered. It is clear that further research is necessary, perhaps additional qualitative research to corroborate and/or
275
augment the findings of Study 1, as well as deductive development of additional silence-
items and subsequent factor structure analysis in a variety of contexts.
Although the measures developed in Study 2 appear to be acceptably reliable and
to generally be assessing the dimensions of silence as indicated, they are in need of further refinement. Specifically, in retrospect, items Q03, Q23, and Q05, appear to be indicative of a higher level of abstraction, and hence may be assessing antecedents (i.e.,
management characteristics, prior negative experiences) of defensive silence, and not the
construct itself. Developing additional items with a more distinct focus should further
enhance the validity of the defensive silence scale. Also, as previously discussed, only
two items remained in the acquiescent silence scale after removal of ambiguous items.
Developing additional items to tap the acquiescent dimension of silence should enhance
the content validity and reliability of this scale. Fortunately, there are many more
silence-exemplars from Study 1 which were not adapted into the original measures which
can provide valuable guidance for additional item development.
As previously discussed, this research purposefully adopted a broad domain
relative to what is considered employee silence. Future research which narrows the
construct’s domain relative to the type incident an employee is remaining silent in
response to (i.e., witnessing an ethical indiscretion, an idea for improvement, etc.), and
the target of silence (i.e., top-management, supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, etc.) may
lead to a greater degree of precision in our understanding of this phenomenon. Similarly,
this research assumes a face-to-face context, but as prior research has found, people’s
communicative behaviors may be affected by the type of communication medium (i.e.,
276
telephone, e-mail, video-conferencing, etc) (see Kiesler & Sproull, 1992). Furthermore,
the items developed in study may behave differently if the incident type, target, or
communication medium is specified. Therefore future research should continue to refine
and adapt these measures to these types of boundary considerations.
Another potentially fruitful direction for future research involves examining the
interactions between silence- and voice-motives. In this research, the primary focus was
on employee silence. As such, the construct of employee silence was developed, and
measures designed to assess the frequency of this distinct phenomenon were constructed
and tested. However, as indicated in the proposed general process model of employee
silence (see Figure 3.3), the manifestation of employee silence is likely the result of a
complex interaction of silence- and voice-motives. Moreover, even when an individual
does speak up about a particular issue, it may be that they are not only experiencing
voice-motives, but could simultaneously be experiencing silence-motives, potentially
resulting in feelings of ambivalence. Future research drawing from a significant body of
literature on the nature and implications of ambivalence (e.g., Conner & Sparks, 2002;
Nordgren, van Harreveld, & van der Pligt, 2006; Sparks, Harris, & Lockwood, 2004)
promises to further inform our understanding of situations wherein employees are
simultaneously motivated to speak up and remain silent. Specifically, an empirical study
designed to assess the simultaneous extent of the various dimensions of voice and silence motives across different types of issues (i.e., fairness concern, ethical issue, idea for improvement, etc.), in conjunction with measures of ambivalence, dissonance, or stress, and objective silence-voice behavioral criterion, may be especially informative.
277
In Study 3, the relationships between various employee behaviors, perceptions and attitudes, and the identified dimensions of employee silence were examined. As
previously discussed, however, this phase of the research was largely exploratory, and
due to methodological limitations unable to establish causality. Laboratory studies may
be useful for further investigating the fundamental relationships suggested in the
proposed model of employee silence. Past research by Moss and Martinko (1998) and others suggests that at least some of the factors associated with employee silence can be manipulated in a laboratory setting. More expansive experimental designs should build upon this past research to test the effects of contextual (e.g., organizational policies and norms), target (e.g., power of the target relative to the actor), and individual-level factors
(i.e., self-esteem, self-efficacy, personality, etc.) that have been linked to withholding information.
Finally, it is recognized, of course, that employees should not speak up about all issues at all times. As Morrison and Milliken (2003) observed, such organizations would be chaotic and disordered. Indeed a certain amount of silence is perhaps quite functional.
Future research focusing on the potential positive implications of silence promises to further our overall understanding of the role of silence in the modern workplace.
Concluding Remarks
Based on the findings of this research, employee silence is evidently quite
pervasive in many organizations. In an attempt to increase our understanding of this
phenomenon this research empirically expanded upon previous research which
278
conceptualized employee silence as a multi-dimensional construct that is distinct from
simply an absence of voice. Based on systematic examination of subjects’ reported
experiences, silence does indeed appear to be more complex than can be accounted for by
assuming it is equivalent to an absence of voice. Moreover, the empirical evidence
gathered in this research makes a strong case for conceptualizing and examining
employee silence as a multi-dimensional construct. Additionally, this research
demonstrated that this covert and seemingly ambiguous phenomenon can be reliably
measured. Although more work is needed in the areas of construct and measurement
refinement, it appears that this research has effectively set the stage for further empirical examination and theoretical development.
279
REFERENCES
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Adelmann, P. K. (1995). Emotional labor as a potential source of job stress. In S. L. Sauter & L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Organizational risk factors for job stress. (pp. 371- 381). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 521-543.
Allport, F. (1924). Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1073-1091.
Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 363-375.
Argyris, C. (1977, September-October). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55, 115-125.
Argyris, C. (1993). On organizational learning. Cambridge: Blackwell.
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, 23-57.
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (1998). The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banerjee, A., & Somanathan, R. (2001). A simple model of voice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 189-227.
280
Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35, 397-417.
Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H. J., & Pennings, J. M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 151-166.
Barry, B. (2007). Speechless: The erosion of free expression in the American workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Basso, K. H. (1970). To give up on words: Silence in Western Apache culture. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 26, 213-230.
Baumeister, R. F., Shapiro, J. P., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Two kinds of identity crisis. Journal of Personality, 53, 407-424.
Becker, T. E., & Randall, D. M. (1994). Validation of a measure of organizational citizenship behavior against an objective behavioral criterion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 160-167.
Benedict, M. E., & Levine, E. L. (1988). Delay and distortion: Tacit influences on performance appraisal effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 507-514.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Wedel, M. (1995). The effects of alternative methods of collecting similarity data for multidimensional scaling. Research in Marketing, 12, 363-371.
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Boss, R. W. (1978). Trust and managerial problem solving revisited. Group and Organization Studies, 3, 331-342.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1393-1417.
Brewin, C. R., Dalgleish, T., & Joseph, S. (1996). A dual representation theory of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Review, 103, 670-686.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.
281
Bruneau, T. J. (1973). Communicative silences: Forms and functions. Journal of Communication, 23, 17-46.
Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and validation. Speech Monographs, 43, 60-69.
Caron, R. J., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Stoddard, D. B. (1994). Business reengineering at CIGNA Corporation: Experiences and lessons learned from the first five. MIS Quarterly, 18, 233-250.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 545-568.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-135.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., & Webster, J. (2003). Applicant reactions to face-to- face and technology-mediated interviews: A field investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 944-953.
Cohen, A. (1996). On the discriminant validity of the Meyer and Allen measure of organizational commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 494-503.
Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). The concepts of power analysis. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp. 1-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.
282
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Conlee, M. C., & Tesser, A. (1973). The effects of recipient desire to hear on news transmission. Sociometry, Vol. 36, 588-599.
Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice affect performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 301- 327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Attitudes and ambivalence. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 37-70.
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147-168.
Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259.
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247-265.
Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 55-70.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.
Diamond, G. A. (1992). Field theory and rational choice: A Lewinian approach to modeling motivation. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 79-94.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 445-455.
283
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450-467.
Donsbach, W., & Stevenson, R. L. (1984, May). Challenges, problems and empirical evidence of the theory of the spiral of silence. Paper presented at the Panel on the Spiral of Silence Theory at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Drucker, P. F. (n.d.). Retrieved November, 17, 2008, from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/peterdruck142500.html
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1149-1170.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397-428.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light: Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling. Organization Science, 13, 355-369.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O'Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716-736.
Edmondson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419-1452.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.
Emmons, R. A., & King, L. A. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1040-1048.
Esterling, B. A., L'Abate, L., Murray, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1999). Empirical foundations for writing in prevention and psychotherapy: Mental and physical health outcomes. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 79-96.
Everitt, B. S. (1975). Multivariate analysis: The need for data, and other problems. British Journal of Psychiatry, 237-240.
284
Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596-607.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378-382.
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2004). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Ganguly, S. N. (1968). Culture, communication and silence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 29, 182-200.
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321-338.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329.
Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Perceived support for one's opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the "spiral of silence." Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 452-463.
Glynn, C. J., & McLeod, J. M. (1984). Public opinion du jour: An examination of the spiral of silence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 731-740.
Gorden, W. I. (1988). Range of employee voice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 1, 283-299.
Graham, J. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). "Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts": Correction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 667.
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
285
Greenberg, J. (1993a). Justice and organizational citizenship: A commentary on the state of the science. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 249-256.
Greenberg, J. (1993b). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greenberg, J., Brinsfield, C. T., & Edwards, M. S. (2007, April). Silence as deviant work behavior: The peril of words unspoken. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.
Greenberg, J., & Edwards, M. S. (Eds.). (2009). Voice and Silence in Organizations. Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 164-177.
Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95-103.
Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 30-42.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation to sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265-275.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harlos, K. P. (1999). Cultures of injustice: Organizational correlates of unjust employment relationships. Paper presented at the Third Australian Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Brisbane, QLD.
Harlos, K. P. (2001). When organizational voice systems fail: More on the deaf-ear syndrome and frustration effects. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 324- 342.
Harvey, J. B. (1974). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, 3, 63-80.
Hayward, M. L. A. (2002). When do firms learn from their acquisition experience? Evidence from 1990-1995. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 21-39.
286
Hinkin, T. T. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questions. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to declines in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hogarty, K. Y., Hines, C. V., Kromrey, J. D., Ferron, J. M., & Mumford, K. R. (2005). The quality of factor solutions in exploratory factor analysis: The influence of sample size, communality, and overdetermination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 202-226.
Hollenbeck, J. R., LePine, J. A., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996). Adapting to roles in decision- making teams. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 300-333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Howard, A. (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hulin, C. (2001). Cronbach's alpha on two-item scales. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10, 55.
Hulin, C., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 12. (pp. 255-276).
Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., Giunipero, L. C., & Nichols Jr., E. L. (2000). Organizational learning in global purchasing: A model and test of internal users and corporate buyers. Decision Sciences, 31, 293-325.
Ilgen, D. R. (1994). Jobs and roles: Accepting and coping with the changing structure of organizations. In M. G. Rumsey & C. B. Harris (Eds.), Selection and classification (pp. 13-32). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ilgen, D. R., & Knowlton, W. A. (1980). Performance attributional effects on feedback from superiors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 441-456.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
287
Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951-995.
Jefferson, G. (1973). A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica, 9, 47-96.
Jensen, J. V. (1973). Communicative functions of silence. ETC, 30, 249-257.
Johnson, J. D., Donohue, W. A., Atkin, C. K., & Johnson, S. (1994). Differences between formal and informal communication channels. Journal of Business Communication, 31, 111-122.
Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2003). The relationship between perceptions of fairness and voluntary turnover among retail employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1226-1243.
Jones, R. G. (1969). A factored measure of Ellis' irrational belief system, with personality and maladjustment correlates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Technical College.
Kahn, E. (1958). Functions of silence in life and literature. Contemporary Review, 194, 204-206.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96-123.
Kimmel, M. J., Pruitt, D. G., Magenau, J., Konar-Glodband, E., & Carnevale, P. (1980). Effects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 9-22.
King, W. R., Chung, T. R., & Haney, M. H. (2008). Knowledge management and organizational learning. Omega, 36, 167-172.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.
Klaas, B. S. (1989). The determinants and consequences of grievance activity: A review and critical analysis. Academy of Management Review, 14, 445-458. 288
Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 150-172.
Klein, H. J., Brinsfield, C. T., & Molloy, J. C. (2006, August 13, 2006). Understanding commitments in the workplace: Differentiating commitment from its antecedents, targets, rationales, and consequences. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., Brinsfield, C. T., & Cooper, J. T. (2008). Workplace commitments: The Ohio State University.
Kolarska, L., & Aldrich, H. (1980). Exit, voice, and silence: Consumers' and managers' responses to organizational decline. Organization Studies, 1980, 41-58.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253- 266.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
Kowalski, R. M. (1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 179-196.
Kowalski, R. M. (2002). Whining, griping, and complaining: Positivity in the negativity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1023-1035.
Kowalski, R. M., & Cantrell, C. C. (2002). Intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of complaints. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 26, 26-33.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Langford, P. H. (2003). A one-minute measure of the big five? Evaluating and abridging Shafer's (1999a) big five markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1127-1140.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.
Lehman, W. E., & Simpson, D. D. (1992). Employee substance use and on-the-job behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 309-321.
289
Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1349-1364.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853-868.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-336.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 377-383.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the "field at a given time". Psychological Review, 50, 292- 310.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Malisoff, W. M. (1944). Cratylus or an essay on silence. Philosophy of Science, 11, 3-8.
Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 975-990.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874-888. 290
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37, 269-277.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1989). The incidence of wrongdoing, whistle-blowing, and retaliation: Results of a naturally occurring field experiment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 91-108.
Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 298-305.
Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. (pp. 287-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Milligan, R., & Waller, G. (2000). Anger and bulimic psychopathology among nonclinical women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 446-450.
Milliken, F. J., & Morrison, E. W. (2003). Shades of silence: Emerging themes and future directions for research on silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1563-1568.
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, 1453-1476.
MIT. (2007). A Conversation with Jack Welch and Alex D'Arbeloff. MIT Sloan School of Management.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1121.
Molseed, M. J. (1989). Gender, silence, and group structure. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
291
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.
Morran, D. K., Stockton, R., & Bond, L. (1991). Delivery of positive and corrective feedback in counseling groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 410-414.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706-725.
Moss, S. E., & Martinko, M. J. (1998). The effects of performance attributions and outcome dependence on leader feedback behavior following poor subordinate performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 259-274.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.
Mowday, R. T. (1978). The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 40-64.
Mowday, R. T., & Spencer, D. G. (1981). The influence of task and personality characteristics on employee turnover and absenteeism incidents. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 634-642.
NASA. (2003). Columbia Accident Investigation Board (Vol. 1, pp. 248): National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle- blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1-16.
Nemeth, C. P. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, Fall, 59-74.
Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2007). The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of Communication, 57, 450-468.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24, 43-51.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1977). Turbulences in the climate of opinion: Methodological applications of the spiral of silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41, 143- 158.
292
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). The theory of public opinion: The concept of the spiral of silence. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 256-308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nordgren, L. F., van Harreveld, F., & van der Pligt, J. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 252-258.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Hara, J. (1998, May 25). Rape in the military. Maclean's, 15-21.
O'Reilly, C. A. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: A laboratory and field investigation. Human Relations, 31, 173- 193.
O'Reilly, C. A. (1991). Organizational behavior: Where we've been, where we're going. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 42, pp. 427-458). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1974). Information filtration in organizations: Three experiments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 11, 253- 265.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). The role of employee loyalty and formality in voicing discontent. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1167-1174.
Oppel, R. A. (2002, February 15). Enron's many strands: The Overview. New York Times, p. A1.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Parker, L., & August, D. (1997). Silent dissenters: A model for exploring the source and consequences of principled turnover. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Boston, MA.
Peirce, E., Smolinski, C. A., & Rosen, B. (1998). Why sexual harassment complaints fall on deaf ears. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 41-54.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as response to perceived injustice. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 331-369). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 293
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1537-1562.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15, 3-15.
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The cognitive consequences of emotion suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1033-1044.
Roberts, K. H., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1974). Failures in upward communication in organizations: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 205- 215.
Robey, D., & Sahay, S. (1996). Transforming work through information technology: A comparative case study of geographic information systems in county government. Information Systems Research, 7, 93-110.
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self- esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self- Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151-161.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 5. (pp. 1-30). New York: Wiley.
294
Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 658-672.
Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM effect. Sociometry, Vol. 33, 253-263.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 80, 1-28.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995a). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 71-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995b). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393- 404.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., Sypher, H. E., Beatty, M. J., DeWine, S., Downs, C. W., Graham, E. E., Greenbaum, H. H., Kearney, P., & Perse, E. M. (1994). Communication research measures: A sourcebook. New York: Guilford.
Rusbult, C. E., Zembrodt, I. M., & Gunn, L. K. (1982). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1230-1242.
Ryan, K. D., & Oestreich, D. K. (1991). Driving fear out of the workplace; How to overcome the invisible barriers to quality, productivity, and innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sackett, P. R., Burris, L. R., & Callahan, C. (1989). Integrity testing for personnel selection: An update. Personnel Psychology, 42, 491-529.
Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. J. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 419-489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Salmon, C. T., & Glynn, C. J. (1996). Spiral of silence: Communication and public opinion as social control. In M. B. Salwen & D. W. Stacks (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 165-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 295
Salmon, C. T., & Neuwirth, K. (1990). Perceptions of opinion “climates” and willingness to discuss the issue of abortion. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 567-577.
Salmon, C. T., & Oshagan, H. (1990). Community size, perceptions of majority opinion, and opinion expression. In L. A. Grunig & J. E. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 157-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 241-259.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schnieder, J. W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. In R. H. Turner (Ed.), Annual review of sociology (Vol. 11, pp. 209-229). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1984). Psychometric properties of organizational research instruments. In T. S. Bateman & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Method & analysis in organizational research (pp. 68-80). Reston, VA: Reston.
Scott, C. R., & Rockwell, S. C. (1997). The effect of communication, writing, and technology apprehension on likelihood to use new communication technologies. Communication Education, 46, 44-62.
Scott, K. D., & Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of conflicting findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 599-612.
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Sobkowiak, W. (1997). Silence and markedness theory. In A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 39-62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Somers, M., & Birnbaum, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between commitment profiles and work attitudes, employee withdrawal, and job performance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 353-364. 296
Sontag, S. (1966). The aesthetics of silence. In S. Sontag (Ed.), Styles of radical will (pp. 3-34). New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
Sparks, P., Harris, P. R., & Lockwood, N. (2004). Predictors and predictive effects of ambivalence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 371-383.
Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. (1977). Constructing social problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.
Spector, P. E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of job conditions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 123-151). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Swindall, C. (2007). Engaged leadership: Building a culture to overcome employee disengagement. New York: Wiley.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2005). Employee silence on critical work issues: Effects of procedural fairness climate (pp. 52): Purdue University.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Taylor, D. G. (1982). Pluralistic ignorance and the spiral of silence: A formal analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46, 311-335.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1981). Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York: Academic Press.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776-793.
Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1972). Similarity of objective fate as a determinant of the reluctance to transmit unpleasant information: The MUM effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 46-53.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thompson, P. (1983). Some missing data patterns for multidimensional scaling. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 45-55. 297
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. New York: Psychology Press.
Vakola, M., & Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27, 441-458.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359-1392.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108- 119.
Van Hook, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Self-related problems beyond the self-concept: Motivational consequences of discrepant self-guides. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 625-633.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.
Vardi, Y., & Wiener, Y. (1996). Misbehavior in organizations: A motivational framework. Organization Science, 7, 151-165.
Vaughan, D. (2006). System effects: On slippery slopes, repeating negative patterns, and learning from mistake? In W. H. Starbuck & M. Farjoun (Eds.), Organizations at the limit: Lessons from the Columbia disaster (pp. 41-59). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wang, S. H.-Y., & Chang, H.-C. (1999). Chinese professionals' perceptions of interpersonal communication in corporate America: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Howard Journal of Communication, 10, 297-315.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics; or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford.
Williams, K. D., Shore, W. J., & Grahe, J. E. (1998). The silent treatment: Perceptions of its behaviors and associated feelings. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 117-141.
298
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.
Wish, M. (1971). Individual differences in perception and preferences among nations. In C. W. King & D. Tigert (Eds.), Attitude research reaches new heights (pp. 312- 328). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521-539.
Young, F. W. (n.d.). Multidimensional scaling. Retrieved April 11th, 2007, from http://forrest.psych.unc.edu/teaching/p208a/mds/mds.html
Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229-239.
299
APPENDIX A
STUDY 1 SURVEY:
EMPLOYEE SILENCE - INCIDENTS, TARGETS, AND MOTIVES
NOTE:
A.1 for students receiving extra credit
A.2 for students not receiving extra credit
A.1 & A.2 identical except where indicated
Question identification tags omitted from actual survey.
Writing in italics not included as part of the actual survey.
300
Welcome!
Thank you for your interest in our study on employee silence and voice.
To be eligible to participate in this study, you must be 18 years of age or older, currently employed, and be able to read and understand this web page.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, the online survey that follows will take approximately 15-30 minutes to complete. You may skip any question you do not wish to answer and you can end your participation at any time. As mentioned in the recruitment e-mail you previously received, this survey is one of two surveys you are being asked to complete. You should wait at least one day, but no more than one week, between completing each survey. We would like you to complete each survey in a single session, so please make sure you have enough time before proceeding to the survey.
Because you will be completing two different surveys at two different times, this survey asks you to create a survey matching code and enter it on each survey so that we can match together your responses from the two different surveys. The survey matching code does not contain information that links you to your responses; it is only for the purpose of matching together your responses from the two different surveys you completed. That will be the only use of your survey matching code, and once we have completed our analyses it will be deleted.
This survey does ask for your e-mail address and course information solely for the purpose of applying the extra credit you will receive for participating. Your personal identification information is separated from your responses and stored in a separate file immediately after retrieval. Your personal identifying information will be destroyed after your extra credit is recorded. Although every precaution has been taken to ensure your responses to the survey will remain confidential, no guarantee of internet security can be given as, while unlikely, transmission can be intercepted and IP addresses can be identified. (Preceding paragraph A.1 only)
Before proceeding to the survey, please read the following consent information.
Please click on the ">>" button below to continue.
301
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
I consent to my participation in this research being conducted by Professor Roy J. Lewicki (Principal Investigator), and Mr. Chad Brinsfield (Co-Investigator) of the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. The purpose of the study, the procedures that will be followed, and the amount of time it will take have been explained to me. The possible benefits, if any, of my participation have been explained to me. I know that I can choose not to participate without penalty to me. If I agree to participate, I can skip any question I do not want to answer and I can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I can contact study principal investigator Dr. Roy J. Lewicki (614- 292-0258; [email protected]) or co-investigator Chad Brinsfield (614-578-7888; [email protected]) if I have any further questions about this research. If I have questions about my rights as a research participant in this study or if I want to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, I may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251. I have read and understand this page, I am 18 years of age or older, and I am currently employed. I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study and I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. If you disagree with any of the above statements and do not wish to participate, simply close this window to end this session. Do the same should you wish to discontinue your participation once you have begun. If you agree to all of the above statements, you may want to print a copy of this page by selecting the print button on your web browser.
Once the page has printed, click the ">>" button below to continue to the survey.
302
GENERAL INSTRUCTION
This survey is aimed at better understanding the different reasons employees have for intentionally remaining silent, rather than speaking-up, in response to important issues, events, or concerns at work. Please read each question carefully and answer each question honestly. There are no right or wrong answers, we are interested in your thoughts and opinions. Remember that your responses will be kept confidential. In addition, you are free to skip any questions you do not wish to answer.
Because you will be completing two different surveys at two different times, this survey asks you to create a survey matching code and enter it on each survey so that we can match together your responses from the two different surveys. The survey matching code does not contain information that links you to your responses; it is only for the purpose of matching together your responses from the two different surveys you completed. That will be the only use of your survey matching code, and once we have completed our analyses it will be deleted.
Your survey matching code should be the first four letters of your mother’s maiden name + your address number. Example: Mother’s maiden name: Jane Smith; Your address: 123 North St. Example: Survey Matching Code: Smit123
(SQ01) Please enter your survey matching code here:
To start, think about a time when you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke up, at work in response to an important issue, event, or concern. In the space below please describe the nature of this issue, event, or concern you were intentionally silent in response to. Next provide a brief description of the person(s) to whom you were intentionally silent. And finally, please provide a description of the reason(s) why you intentionally remained silent in response to this issue or event. Previous research has revealed many different possible reasons for intentionally remaining silent at work. The reasons for intentionally remaining silent may be quite varied, so please try and think deeply about the underlying reasons.
Space is provided to describe four different times you were intentionally silent at work, rather than spoke up, along with the corresponding target(s), and reason(s). Please try to think of four different silence-incidents, but if you can not think of four, please provide as many silence-incidents as you can recall, along with the corresponding target(s) and reason(s). Please be as honest as possible keeping in mind that your responses are anonymous and will be kept confidential.
303
SILENCE INCIDENT #1 (S1Q1) Description of important work-related issue, event, or concern you were intentionally silent, rather than spoke-up, in response to:
(S1Q2) Description of person(s) to whom you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke-up (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, team, top management, etc.):
(S1Q3) Description of all of the reason(s) you decided to intentionally remain silent, rather than speak up, in response to this issue, event, or concern:
(S1Q4) When confronted with this important work-related issue, event, or concern to which you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke up, to what extent did you feel stressed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moderate Great Not at All Amount Extent
304
SILENCE INCIDENT #2 (S2Q1) Description of important work-related issue, event, or concern you were intentionally silent, rather than spoke-up, in response to:
(S2Q2) Description of person(s) to whom you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke-up (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, team, top management, etc.):
(S2Q3) Description of all of the reason(s) you decided to intentionally remain silent, rather than speak up, in response to this issue, event, or concern:
(S2Q4) When confronted with this important work-related issue, event, or concern to which you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke up, to what extent did you feel stressed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moderate Great Not at All Amount Extent
305
SILENCE INCIDENT #3 (S3Q1) Description of important work-related issue, event, or concern you were intentionally silent, rather than spoke-up, in response to:
(S3Q2) Description of person(s) to whom you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke-up (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, team, top management, etc.):
(S3Q3) Description of all of the reason(s) you decided to intentionally remain silent, rather than speak up, in response to this issue, event, or concern:
(S3Q4) When confronted with this important work-related issue, event, or concern to which you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke up, to what extent did you feel stressed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moderate Great Not at All Amount Extent
306
SILENCE INCIDENT #4 (S4Q1) Description of important work-related issue, event, or concern you were intentionally silent, rather than spoke-up, in response to:
(S4Q2) Description of person(s) to whom you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke-up (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, team, top management, etc.):
(S4Q3) Description of all of the reason(s) you decided to intentionally remain silent, rather than speak up, in response to this issue, event, or concern:
(S4Q4) When confronted with this important work-related issue, event, or concern to which you intentionally remained silent, rather than spoke up, to what extent did you feel stressed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moderate Great Not at All Amount Extent
307
To better understand who has participated in our study, please provide us with the following information.
Please indicate the most appropriate response to the following statements
(SDQ01) I have high self-esteem. 1 2 3 4 5
not very true somewhat true very true of me of me of me
(SDQ02) Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability. 1 2 3 4 5 strongly neutral strongly agree disagree
(SDQ03) When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. 1 2 3 4 5 strongly neutral strongly agree disagree
(SDQ04) I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. 1 2 3 4 5 strongly neutral strongly agree disagree
(SDQ05) I am usually able to protect my personal interests. 1 2 3 4 5 strongly neutral strongly agree disagree
(SDQ06) When I get what I want, it's usually because I worked hard for it 1 2 3 4 5 strongly neutral strongly agree disagree
(SDQ07) My life is determined by my own actions.
308
1 2 3 4 5 strongly neutral strongly agree disagree
For the following pairs of personality traits please indicate from 1 (the left trait in the trait-pair describes me very well) to 7 (the right trait in the trait pair describes me very well).
SD808_1 shy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 outgoing SD808_2 quiet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 talkative SD808_3 introverted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 extroverted SD808_4 lazy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 hardworking SD808_5 irresponsible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 responsible SD808_6 weak willed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 self-disciplined SD808_7 uncreative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 creative SD808_8 unartistic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 artistic SD808_9 down-to-earth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 imaginative SD808_10 headstrong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 gentle SD808_11 disagreeable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agreeable SD808_12 vengeful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 forgiving SD808_13 nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at ease SD808_14 tense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unagitated SD808_15 anxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 calm
(SDQ09) If employed, how long have you worked for your current employer? (If not currently employed, please select “Not Applicable.”)
1. Less than 6 months 2. 6 months - 2 years 3. 3-5 years 4. 6-10 years 5. 10-15 years 6. 16 years or longer 309
7. Not applicable
(SDQ10) Which of the following categories best describes your current job?
1. Executive/Management 2. Technical/Professional 3. Sales/Marketing 4. Administrative/Clerical 5. Customer Service (e.g., restaurant server) 6. Skilled Crafts 7. Laborer 8. Student 9. Not applicable
(SDQ11) Which of the following categories best describes the industry in which you are employed.
1. Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, or Fishing 2. Communication 3. Construction 4. Education 5. Finance, Insurance, or Real Estate 6. Manufacturing 7. Public Administration 8. Public Utilities 9. Retail or Wholesale Trade 10. Services 11. Transportation 12. Other ______.
(SDQ12) Which of the following includes your current age?
1. 18-24 2. 25-34 3. 35-44 4. 45-54 5. 55-64 6. 65 or older
(SDQ13) What is your biological sex?
310
1. Female 2. Male
(SDQ14) Which of the following best describes your ethnic background?
1. Asian 2. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 3. Black / African-American (Not of Hispanic origin) 4. Hispanic / Latino 5. American Indian / Alaskan Native 6. White (Not of Hispanic origin) 7. Two or more races (please specify) ______.
(SDQ15) What is the highest level of education you have completed?
1. Some high school 2. High school diploma or GED 3. Some college 4. College degree 5. Some graduate work 6. Masters degree 7. Doctoral degree Other professional degree (e.g., J.D.)
(SDQ16) For which class are you receiving extra credit: ______(For recording of extra credit: Appendix A.1 only)
(SDQ17) Please indicate your OSU E-Mail address for application of extra credit: ______(For recording of extra credit: Appendix A.1 only)
311
APPENDIX A.3
STUDY 1 - SILENCE EXEMPLARS SURVEY:
INDEX OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE ITEMS
312
Identification Tag Variable Assessed Reference SDQ01 Self-Esteem (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001) SDQ02 Locus of control (Levenson, 1974) SDQ03 Locus of control (Levenson, 1974) SDQ04 Locus of control (Levenson, 1974) SDQ05 Locus of control (Levenson, 1974) SDQ06 Locus of control (Levenson, 1974) SDQ07 Locus of control (Levenson, 1974) SD808_1 Extroversion (Langford, 2003) SD808_2 Extroversion (Langford, 2003) SD808_3 Extroversion (Langford, 2003) SD808_4 Conscientiousness (Langford, 2003) SD808_5 Conscientiousness (Langford, 2003) SD808_6 Conscientiousness (Langford, 2003) SD808_7 Openness (Langford, 2003) SD808_8 Openness (Langford, 2003) SD808_9 Openness (Langford, 2003) SD808_10 Agreeable (Langford, 2003) SD808_11 Agreeable (Langford, 2003) SD808_12 Agreeable (Langford, 2003) SD808_13 Neuroticism (Langford, 2003) SD808_14 Neuroticism (Langford, 2003) SD808_15 Neuroticism (Langford, 2003)
313
APPENDIX B
STUDY 1 SURVEY:
EMPLOYEE VOICE - INCIDENTS, TARGETS, AND MOTIVES
NOTE:
B.1 For students receiving extra credit
B.2 For students not receiving extra credit
B.1 & B.2 identical except where indicated
Question identification tags omitted from actual survey.
Writing in italics not included as part of the actual survey.
314
Welcome!
Thank you for your interest in our study on employee silence and voice.
To be eligible to participate in this study, you must be 18 years of age or older, currently employed, and be able to read and understand this web page.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, the online survey that follows will take approximately 15-30 minutes to complete. You may skip any question you do not wish to answer and you can end your participation at any time. As mentioned in the recruitment e-mail you previously received, this survey is one of two surveys you are being asked to complete. You should wait at least one day, but no more than one week, between completing each survey. We would like you to complete each survey in a single session, so please make sure you have enough time before proceeding to the survey.
Because you will be completing two different surveys at two different times, this survey asks you to create a survey matching code and enter it on each survey so that we can match together your responses from the two different surveys. The survey matching code does not contain information that links you to your responses; it is only for the purpose of matching together your responses from the two different surveys you completed. That will be the only use of your survey matching code, and once we have completed our analyses it will be deleted.
This survey does ask for your e-mail address and course information solely for the purpose of applying the extra credit you will receive for participating. Your personal identification information is separated from your responses and stored in a separate file immediately after retrieval. You personal identifying information will be destroyed after your extra credit is recorded. Although every precaution has been taken to ensure your responses to the survey will remain confidential, no guarantee of internet security can be given as, while unlikely, transmission can be intercepted and IP addresses can be identified. (Preceding paragraph B.1 only)
Before proceeding to the survey, please read the following consent information.
Please click on the ">>" button below to continue.
315
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE I consent to my participation in this research being conducted by Professor Roy J. Lewicki (Principal Investigator), and Mr. Chad Brinsfield (Co-Investigator) of the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. The purpose of the study, the procedures that will be followed, and the amount of time it will take have been explained to me. The possible benefits, if any, of my participation have been explained to me. I know that I can choose not to participate without penalty to me. If I agree to participate, I can skip any question I do not want to answer and I can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I can contact study principal investigator Dr. Roy J. Lewicki (614- 292-0258; [email protected]) or co-investigator Chad Brinsfield (614-578-7888; [email protected]) if I have any further questions about this research. If I have questions about my rights as a research participant in this study or if I want to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, I may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251. I have read and understand this page, I am 18 years of age or older, and I am currently employed. I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study and I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. If you disagree with any of the above statements and do not wish to participate, simply close this window to end this session. Do the same should you wish to discontinue your participation once you have begun. If you agree to all of the above statements, you may want to print a copy of this page by selecting the print button on your web browser.
Once the page has printed, click the ">>" button below to continue to the survey.
316
GENERAL INSTRUCTION
This survey is aimed at better understanding the different reasons employees have for speaking-up, rather than intentionally remaining silent, in response to important issues, events, or concerns at work. Please read each question carefully and answer each question honestly. There are no right or wrong answers, we are interested in your thoughts and opinions. Remember that your responses will be kept confidential. In addition, you are free to skip any questions you do not wish to answer.
Because you will be completing two different surveys at two different times, this survey asks you to create a survey matching code and enter it on each survey so that we can match together your responses from the two different surveys. The survey matching code does not contain information that links you to your responses; it is only for the purpose of matching together your responses from the two different surveys you completed. That will be the only use of your survey matching code, and once we have completed our analyses it will be deleted.
Your survey matching code should be the first four letters of your mother’s maiden name + your address number. Example: Mother’s maiden name: Jane Smith; Your address: 123 North St. Example: Survey Matching Code: Smit123
(VQ01) Please enter your survey matching code here:
To start, think about a time when you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, at work in response to an important issue, event, or concern. In the space below please describe the nature of this issue, event, or concern you spoke up in response to. Next provide a brief description of the person(s) to whom you spoke up. And finally, please provide a description of the reason(s) why you spoke up in response to this issue or event. Previous research has revealed many different possible reasons for speaking-up at work. The reasons for speaking-up may be quite varied, so please try and think deeply about the underlying reasons.
Space is provided to describe four different times you spoke up at work, rather than intentionally remained silent, along with the corresponding target(s), and reason(s). Please try to think of four different speaking-up incidents, but if you can not think of four, please provide as many speaking-up incidents as you can recall, along with the corresponding target(s) and reason(s). Please be as honest as possible keeping in mind that your responses are anonymous and will be kept confidential.
317
SPEAKING-UP INCIDENT #1 (V1Q1) Description of important work-related issue, event, or concern you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, in response to:
(V1Q2) Description of person(s) to whom you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, team, top management, etc.):
(V1Q3) Description of all of the reason(s) you decided to speak up, rather than intentionally remain silent, in response to this issue, event, or concern:
(V1Q4) When confronted with this important work-related issue, event, or concern to which you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, to what extent did you feel stressed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moderate Great Not at All Amount Extent
318
SPEAKING-UP INCIDENT #2 (V2Q1) Description of important work-related issue, event, or concern you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, in response to:
(V2Q2) Description of person(s) to whom you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, team, top management, etc.):
(V2Q3) Description of all of the reason(s) you decided to speak up, rather than intentionally remain silent, in response to this issue, event, or concern:
(V2Q4) When confronted with this important work-related issue, event, or concern to which you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, to what extent did you feel stressed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moderate Great Not at All Amount Extent
319
SPEAKING-UP INCIDENT #3 (V3Q1) Description of important work-related issue, event, or concern you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, in response to:
(V3Q2) Description of person(s) to whom you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, team, top management, etc.):
(V3Q3) Description of all of the reason(s) you decided to speak up, rather than intentionally remain silent, in response to this issue, event, or concern:
(V3Q4) When confronted with this important work-related issue, event, or concern to which you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, to what extent did you feel stressed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moderate Great Not at All Amount Extent
320
SPEAKING-UP INCIDENT #4 (V4Q1) Description of important work-related issue, event, or concern you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, in response to:
(V4Q2) Description of person(s) to whom you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent (e.g., supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, team, top management, etc.):
(V4Q3) Description of all of the reason(s) you decided to speak up, rather than intentionally remain silent, in response to this issue, event, or concern:
(V4Q4) When confronted with this important work-related issue, event, or concern to which you spoke up, rather than intentionally remained silent, to what extent did you feel stressed: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Moderate Great Not at All Amount Extent
321
To better understand who has participated in our study, please provide us with the following information.
Please indicate the most appropriate response to the following statements
(VDQ01) In social situations, I have the ability to alter my behavior if I feel that something else is called for.
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ02) I have the ability to control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish to give them. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ03) When I feel that the image I am portraying isn't working, I can readily change it to something that does. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ04) I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations ®. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ05) I have found that I can adjust my behavior to meet the requirements of any situation I find myself in. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
322
(VDQ06) Even when it might be to my advantage, I have difficulty putting up a good front ®. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ07) Once I know what the situation calls for, it's easy for me to regulate my actions accordingly. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ08) I am often able to read people’s true emotions correctly through their eyes. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ09) In conversations, I am sensitive to even the slightest change in the facial expression of the person I'm conversing with. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ10) My powers of intuition are quite good when it conies to understanding others' emotions and motives. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ11) I can usually tell when others consider a joke to be in bad taste, even though they may laugh convincingly. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ12) I can usually tell when I've said something inappropriate by reading it in the listener's eyes. 1 2 3 4 5 323
Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ13) If someone is lying to me, I usually know it at once from that person's manner of expression. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ14) It is important for me that others approve of me. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ15) I like the respect of others, but I don't have to have it. ® 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ16) I want everyone to like me. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ17) I can like myself even when many others don't. ® 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ18) If others dislike me, that's their problem, not mine. ® 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ19) I find it hard to go against what others think. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 324
Disagree Agree
(VDQ20) Although I like approval, it's not a real need for me. ® 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ21) I often worry about how much people approve of and accept me. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ22) I have considerable concern with what people are feeling about me. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ23) It is annoying but not upsetting to be criticized. ® 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Disagree Agree
(VDQ24) For which class are you receiving extra credit? ______(For recording of extra credit: Appendix B.1 only)
(VDQ25) Please indicate your OSU E-Mail address for application of extra credit: ______(For recording of extra credit: Appendix B.1 only)
325
APPENDIX B.3
STUDY 1 - VOICE EXEMPLARS SURVEY
INDEX OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE ITEMS
326
Identification Tag Variable Assessed Reference VDQ01 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ02 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ03 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ04 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ05 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ06 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ07 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ08 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ09 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ10 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ11 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ12 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ13 Self-Monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) VDQ14 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ15 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ16 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ17 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ18 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ19 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ20 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ21 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ22 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969) VDQ23 Need for Approval (R. G. Jones, 1969)
327
APPENDIX C
STUDY 1 SURVEY:
SIMILARITY RATING OF EMPLOYEE SILENCE-MOTIVE CATEGORIES
NOTE:
C.1 For students receiving extra credit.
C.2 For students not receiving extra credit.
C.1 & C.2 identical except where indicated.
One-half of the subjects answered subset 1: Questions 1 to 68.
One-half of the subjects answered subset 2: Questions 69 to 136.
Writing in italics not included as part of the actual survey.
328
Welcome!
Thank you for your interest in our study on employee silence. To be eligible to participate in this study, you must be 18 years of age or older, currently employed, and be able to read and understand this web page.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, the online survey that follows will take approximately 15-30 minutes to complete. You may skip any question you do not wish to answer and you can end your participation at any time. We would like you to complete each survey in a single session, so please make sure you have enough time before proceeding to the survey.
The survey does ask for your e-mail address solely for the purpose of applying the extra credit you will receive for participating. Your personal identification information is separated from your responses and stored in a separate file immediately after retrieval. Your personal identifying information will be destroyed after your extra credit is recorded. Although every precaution has been taken to ensure your responses to the survey will remain confidential, no guarantee of internet security can be given as, while unlikely, transmission can be intercepted and IP addresses can be identified. (Preceding paragraph C.1 only)
Before proceeding to the survey, please read the following consent information.
Please click on the “>>” button below to continue.
329
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
I consent to my participation in this research being conducted by Professor Roy J. Lewicki (Principal Investigator), and Mr. Chad Brinsfield (Co-Investigator) of the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. The purpose of the study, the procedures that will be followed, and the amount of time it will take have been explained to me. The possible benefits, if any, of my participation have been explained to me. I know that I can choose not to participate without penalty to me. If I agree to participate, I can skip any question I do not want to answer and I can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I can contact study principal investigator Dr. Roy J. Lewicki (614- 292-0258; [email protected]) or co-investigator Chad Brinsfield (614-578-7888; [email protected]) if I have any further questions about this research. If I have questions about my rights as a research participant in this study or if I want to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, I may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251. I have read and understand this page, I am 18 years of age or older, and I am currently employed. I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study and I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. If you disagree with any of the above statements and do not wish to participate, simply close this window to end this session. Do the same should you wish to discontinue your participation once you have begun. If you agree to all of the above statements, you may want to print a copy of this page by selecting the print button on your web browser.
Once the page has printed, click the “>>” button below to continue to the survey.
330
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The purpose of this survey is to help us better understand the various reasons employees have for intentionally remaining silent at work in response to important issues, events, or concerns at work.
In this survey we will show you pairs of different reasons employees have given for why they have intentionally remained silent, rather than spoken up, in response to important issues, events, or concerns at work. On the scale provided below each pair of reasons, please indicate on the scale from 1 to 10 according to the degree of similarity between the pairs of reasons. For example: if the reasons are almost identical, that is, the similarity between them is very high, mark a high-number. If the reasons are very different from one another, mark a low-numbered cell. In the same fashion, for all intermediate levels of similarity between the reasons, mark an intermediate number.
We are interested in your subjective impression of the degree of similarity between the different pairs of reasons for silence at work. Different people are likely to have different impressions. Hence, there are no correct or incorrect answers. Simply look at the reasons for a short time (typically no more than 10 to 20 seconds), and mark number that appears to correspond to the degree of similarity between the reasons. Remember, high numbers should correspond to high similarity and low numbers should correspond to low similarity.
Subset 1: Q1-68 administered to one-half of the subjects
Remember, high numbers should correspond to high similarity and low numbers should correspond to low similarity I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to Instructed to remain silent Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
331
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to To protect self from material harm Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to To avoid negative emotions Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to To protect another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to To protect the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to To protect relationship with another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to I was unsure what to say Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
332
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to I didn’t want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to I didn’t think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
333
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I wanted to avoid conflict Compared to I didn’t care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to Instructed to remain silent Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to To protect self from material harm Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to To avoid negative emotions Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to To protect another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
334
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to To protect the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to To protect relationship with another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to I was unsure what to say Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to I didn't want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
335
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I’ve had previous negative experiences with speaking up Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to To protect self from material harm Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
336
Instructed to remain silent Compared to To avoid negative emotions Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to To protect another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to To protect the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to To protect relationship with another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to I was unsure what to say Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to I didn't want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
337
Instructed to remain silent Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Instructed to remain silent Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
338
Instructed to remain silent Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to To avoid negative emotions Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to To protect another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to To protect the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to To protect relationship with another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to I was unsure what to say Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
339
To protect self from material harm Compared to I didn't want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
340
To protect self from material harm Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect self from material harm Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to To protect another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to To protect the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to To protect relationship with another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to I was unsure what to say Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
341
To avoid negative emotions Compared to I didn't want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
342
To avoid negative emotions Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Subset 2: Q69-136 administered to one-half of the subjects
To avoid negative emotions Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To avoid negative emotions Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to To protect the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to To protect relationship with another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to I was unsure what to say Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
343
To protect another person Compared to I didn't want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
344
To protect another person Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect another person Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect the organization Compared to To protect relationship with another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect the organization Compared to I was unsure what to say Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect the organization Compared to I didn't want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect the organization Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
345
To protect the organization Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect the organization Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect the organization Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect the organization Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect the organization Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect relationship with another person Compared to I was unsure what to say Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
346
To protect relationship with another person Compared to I didn't want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect relationship with another person Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect relationship with another person Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect relationship with another person Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect relationship with another person Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect relationship with another person Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
347
To protect relationship with another person Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect relationship with another person Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I was unsure what to say Compared to I didn't want others to think negatively of me Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I was unsure what to say Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I was unsure what to say Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I was unsure what to say Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
348
I was unsure what to say Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I was unsure what to say Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I was unsure what to say Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I was unsure what to say Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't want others to think negatively of me Compared to I did not have authority Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't want others to think negatively of me Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
349
I didn't want others to think negatively of me Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't want others to think negatively of me Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't want others to think negatively of me Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't want others to think negatively of me Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't want others to think negatively of me Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I did not have authority Compared to I didn't think it would do any good Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
350
I did not have authority Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I did not have authority Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I did not have authority Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I did not have authority Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I did not have authority Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't think it would do any good Compared to I thought someone else would speak up Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
351
I didn't think it would do any good Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't think it would do any good Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't think it would do any good Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I didn't think it would do any good Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I thought someone else would speak up Compared to To harm another individual Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I thought someone else would speak up Compared to Negative management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
352
I thought someone else would speak up Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I thought someone else would speak up Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To harm another individual Compared to Negative supervisor/management characteristics Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To harm another individual Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To harm another individual Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Negative supervisor/management characteristics Compared to Remaining silent gave me an advantage Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
353
Negative supervisor/management characteristics Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Remaining silent gave me an advantage Compared to I didn't care enough Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Please provide you university e-mail address: ______(For Recording of Extra Credit Only: Appendix C.1 only)
Please provide the course name and meeting time of the class for which you are receiving extra credit: ______(For Recording of Extra Credit Only: Appendix C.1 only)
354
APPENDIX D
STUDY 1 SURVEY:
SIMILARITY RATING OF EMPLOYEE VOICE-EXEMPLAR CATEGORIES
NOTE:
D.1 For students receiving extra credit.
D.2 For students not receiving extra credit.
D.1 & D.2 identical except where indicated.
Writing in italics not included as part of the actual survey.
355
Welcome!
Thank you for your interest in our study on employee voice. To be eligible to participate in this study, you must be 18 years of age or older, currently employed, and be able to read and understand this web page.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, the online survey that follows will take approximately 15-30 minutes to complete. You may skip any question you do not wish to answer and you can end your participation at any time. We would like you to complete each survey in a single session, so please make sure you have enough time before proceeding to the survey.
The survey does ask for your e-mail address solely for the purpose of applying the extra credit you will receive for participating. Your personal identification information is separated from your responses and stored in a separate file immediately after retrieval. Your personal identifying information will be destroyed after your extra credit is recorded. Although every precaution has been taken to ensure your responses to the survey will remain confidential, no guarantee of internet security can be given as, while unlikely, transmission can be intercepted and IP addresses can be identified. (Preceding paragraph D.1 only)
Before proceeding to the survey, please read the following consent information.
Please click on the “>>” button below to continue.
356
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
I consent to my participation in this research being conducted by Professor Roy J. Lewicki (Principal Investigator), and Mr. Chad Brinsfield (Co-Investigator) of the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University. The purpose of the study, the procedures that will be followed, and the amount of time it will take have been explained to me. The possible benefits, if any, of my participation have been explained to me. I know that I can choose not to participate without penalty to me. If I agree to participate, I can skip any question I do not want to answer and I can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I can contact study principal investigator Dr. Roy J. Lewicki (614- 292-0258; [email protected]) or co-investigator Chad Brinsfield (614-578-7888; [email protected]) if I have any further questions about this research. If I have questions about my rights as a research participant in this study or if I want to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, I may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251. I have read and understand this page, I am 18 years of age or older, and I am currently employed. I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study and I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. If you disagree with any of the above statements and do not wish to participate, simply close this window to end this session. Do the same should you wish to discontinue your participation once you have begun. If you agree to all of the above statements, you may want to print a copy of this page by selecting the print button on your web browser.
Once the page has printed, click the “>>” button below to continue to the survey.
357
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The purpose of this survey is to help us better understand the various reasons employees have for speaking up, rather than intentionally remaining silent in response to important issues, events, or concerns at work.
In this survey we will show you pairs of different reasons employees have given for why they have spoken up, rather than remained silent in response to important issues, events, or concerns at work. On the scale provided below each pair of reasons, please indicate on the scale from 1 to 10 according to the degree of similarity between the pairs of reasons. For example: if the reasons are almost identical, that is, the similarity between them is very high, mark a high-number. If the reasons are very different from one another, mark a low-numbered cell. In the same fashion, for all intermediate levels of similarity between the reasons, mark an intermediate number.
We are interested in your subjective impression of the degree of similarity between the different pairs of reasons for speaking up at work. Different people are likely to have different impressions. Hence, there are no correct or incorrect answers. Simply look at the reasons for a short time (typically no more than 10 to 20 seconds), and mark number that appears to correspond to the degree of similarity between the reasons. Remember, high numbers should correspond to high similarity and low numbers should correspond to low similarity.
Remember, high numbers should correspond to high similarity and low numbers should correspond to low similarity To correct/improve a negative situation Compared to To harm another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To correct/improve a negative situation Compared to To benefit myself Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
358
To correct/improve a negative situation Compared to To protect myself from harm Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To correct/improve a negative situation Compared to To help the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To correct/improve a negative situation Compared to Desire to be heard Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To correct/improve a negative situation Compared to I had a good relationship with supervisor/management Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To correct/improve a negative situation Compared to To help another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To correct/improve a negative situation Compared to Felt obligation/responsibility Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
359
To harm another person Compared to To benefit myself Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To harm another person Compared to To protect myself from harm Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To harm another person Compared to To help the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To harm another person Compared to Desire to be heard Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To harm another person Compared to I had a good relationship with supervisor/management Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To harm another person Compared to To help another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
360
To harm another person Compared to Felt obligation/responsibility Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To benefit myself Compared to To protect myself from harm Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To benefit myself Compared to To help the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To benefit myself Compared to Desire to be heard Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To benefit myself Compared to I had a good relationship with supervisor/management Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To benefit myself Compared to To help another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
361
To benefit myself Compared to Felt obligation/responsibility Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect myself from harm Compared to To help the organization Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect myself from harm Compared to Desire to be heard Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect myself from harm Compared to I had a good relationship with supervisor/management Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect myself from harm Compared to To help another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To protect myself from harm Compared to Felt obligation/responsibility Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
362
To help the organization Compared to Desire to be heard Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To help the organization Compared to I had a good relationship with supervisor/management Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To help the organization Compared to To help another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To help the organization Compared to Felt obligation/responsibility Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Desire to be heard Compared to I had a good relationship with supervisor/management Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Desire to be heard Compared to To help another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
363
Desire to be heard Compared to Felt obligation/responsibility Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I had a good relationship with supervisor/management Compared to To help another person Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I had a good relationship with supervisor/management Compared to Felt obligation/responsibility Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
To help another person Compared to Felt obligation/responsibility Very Dissimilar Somewhat Similar Very Similar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Please provide you university e-mail address: ______(For Recording of Extra Credit Only: Appendix D.1 only)
Please provide the course name and meeting time of the class for which you are receiving extra credit: ______(For Recording of Extra Credit Only: Appendix D.1 only)
364
APPENDIX E.1
EMPLOYEE SILENCE MEASURES
NOTE:
Items in italics not part of actual measure.
365
CONTROL ITEM 1. Please indicate the extent to which you have (within the past year) intentionally remained silent, rather than spoken up, at work in response to important issues, situations, events, concerns, or ideas.
1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often
INSTRUCTIONS At work, employees may intentionally remain silent (rather than speak up) about important issues, situations, events, concerns, or ideas they have. The reasons employees may have for intentionally remaining silent are potentially quite varied. For each of the following reasons for intentionally remaining silent please describe your typical behavior at your current job (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
SILENCE CATEGORY: I WANTED TO AVOID CONFLICT 2. I frequently remain silent at work to avoid conflict.
SILENCE CATEGORY: I'VE HAD PREVIOUS NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES WITH SPEAKING UP 3. I frequently remain silent at work due to negative experiences I’ve had with speaking up.
SILENCE CATEGORY: INSTRUCTED TO REMAIN SILENT 4. I frequently remain silent at work because I was instructed not to speak up.
SILENCE CATEGORY: TO PROTECT SELF FROM HARM 5. I frequently remain silent at work to protect myself from harm. 6. I frequently remain silent at work due to fear of retaliation.
SILENCE CATEGORY: TO AVOID NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 7. I frequently remain silent at work to avoid experiencing negative emotions. 8. I frequently remain silent at work to avoid embarrassing myself.
366
SILENCE CATEGORY: TO PROTECT ANOTHER PERSON 9. I frequently remain silent at work to protect another person from harm. 10. I frequently remain silent at work to avoid hurting someone’s feelings.
SILENCE CATEGORY: TO PROTECT THE ORGANIZATION 11. I frequently remain silent at work to protect my organization from harm.
SILENCE CATEGORY: TO PROTECT RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER 12. I frequently remain silent at work to protect my relationship with another individual.
SILENCE CATEGORY: I WAS UNSURE WHAT TO SAY 13. I frequently remain silent at work because I am unsure what to say.
SILENCE CATEGORY: I DIDN'T WANT OTHERS TO THINK NEGATIVELY OF ME 14. I frequently remain silent at work to protect my image or reputation. 15. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not want to be viewed as causing problems. 16. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not want to appear incompetent.
SILENCE CATEGORY: I DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY 17. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not have the authority to correct the situation.
SILENCE CATEGORY: I DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD DO ANY GOOD 18. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not think it will do any good to speak up. 19. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not think it is worth the effort to speak up.
SILENCE CATEGORY: I THOUGHT SOMEONE ELSE WOULD SPEAK UP 20. I frequently remain silent at work because I expect someone else to speak up.
SILENCE CATEGORY: TO HARM ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL 21. I frequently remain silent at work to purposefully harm another individual.
SILENCE CATEGORY: TO HARM THE ORGANIZATION 22. I frequently remain silent at work to purposefully harm the organization.
SILENCE CATEGORY: NEGATIVE MANAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 23. I frequently remain silent at work because management is not open to other’s views, opinions, or ideas. 24. I frequently remain silent at work because I am intimidated by management. 25. I frequently remain silent at work due to bad management practices.
367
SILENCE CATEGORY: REMAINING SILENT GAVE ME AN ADVANTAGE 26. I frequently remain silent at work to gain a personal advantage.
SILENCE CATEGORY: I DIDN'T CARE ENOUGH 27. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not care what happens.
368
APPENDIX F.1
STUDY 3 SURVEY
369
Welcome!
Thank you for your interest in our research study on Employee Silence.
About this survey. This survey is being conducted as part of my dissertation research and with the support of your organization. The purpose of this study is to better understand the various reasons employees have for intentionally remaining silent at work in response to important issues, events, situations, concerns, or ideas they may have. This survey will ask you about the extent to which you have remained silent at work, and the various reasons you have for remaining silent. Your participation in this study will help us better understand the reasons employees have for remaining silent, rather than speaking up, about important issues at work.
About Your Participation. To be eligible to participate in this study, you must be 18 years of age or older, and be able to read and understand this page. Your participation in this study involves completing a survey that will take approximately 10 to 20 minutes. We would like you to complete the survey in one session, so please make sure you have the time before proceeding with the survey. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate, agree to participate and then stop, or you may skip any question you do not want to answer without penalty.
Reasons to Participate. In return for your participation, you will be entered into a random drawing for a prize of one of five $50 cash cards (approximately 400 employees received this invitation to participate). You will also have our gratitude and the knowledge that you are helping to advance our understanding of why employees may remain silent at work concerning important issues.
Confidentiality of Your Responses. The survey and your answers will be stored in a secure location and your individual responses will only be seen by the research team. No specific answers provided by you or any other individual participant will be shared with your employer. Any reports provided to your employer will be summaries of how large groups of employees answered.
Before proceeding to the survey, please read the following consent information.
370
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
I consent to my participation in this research being conducted by Professor Roy J. Lewicki (Principal Investigator), and Mr. Chad Brinsfield (Co-Investigator) of the Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University.
The purpose of the study, the procedures that will be followed, and the amount of time it will take have been explained to me. I know that I can choose not to participate without penalty to me. If I agree to participate, I can skip any question I do not want to answer and I can withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I can contact study principal investigator Dr. Roy J. Lewicki (614-292-0258; [email protected]) or co-investigator Chad Brinsfield (614-578-7888; [email protected]) if I have any further questions about this research. If I have questions about my rights as a research participant in this study or if I want to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, I may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251.
I have read and understand this page, I am 18 years of age or older, and I am currently employed. I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study and I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
If you disagree with any of the above statements and do not wish to participate, simply return this survey to your administrator. Do the same should you wish to discontinue your participation once you have begun. If you agree to all of the above statements please continue with the survey.
371
Please provide your e-mail address for entry into the drawing for the cash prize: ______Note: If you do not wish to provide your e-mail address, but are still willing to take the survey without participating in the random drawing, please leave this space blank and proceed with the survey.
INSTRUCTIONS This survey is aimed at better understanding the different reasons employees have for intentionally remaining silent at work, rather than speaking up, in response to important work related issues, situations, events, concerns, or ideas they may have. Please read each question carefully and answer each question honestly. There are no right or wrong answers, we are interested in your personal experiences. Remember that all your responses will be kept confidential.
1. Please circle the number corresponding to the extent to which you have (within the past year) intentionally remained silent at work, rather than spoken up, concerning important issues, situations, events, concerns, or ideas you have had.
1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often
At work, employees may intentionally remain silent (rather than speak up) about important issues, situations, events, concerns, or ideas they have. The reasons employees may have for intentionally remaining silent are potentially quite varied. For each of the following reasons for intentionally remaining silent please circle the number that best describes your typical behavior at your current job (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
2. I frequently remain silent at work to avoid conflict. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
3. I frequently remain silent at work due to negative experiences I’ve had with speaking up. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I frequently remain silent at work because I was instructed not to speak up. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
372
5. I frequently remain silent at work to protect myself from harm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
6. I frequently remain silent at work due to fear of retaliation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I frequently remain silent at work to avoid experiencing negative emotions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I frequently remain silent at work to avoid embarrassing myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I frequently remain silent at work to protect another person from harm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I frequently remain silent at work to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I frequently remain silent at work to protect my organization from harm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I frequently remain silent at work to protect my relationship with another individual. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. I frequently remain silent at work because I am unsure what to say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. I frequently remain silent at work to protect my image or reputation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not want to be viewed as causing problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not want to appear incompetent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not have the authority to correct the situation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
373
18. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not think it will do any good to speak up. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
19. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not think it is worth the effort to speak up. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. I frequently remain silent at work because I expect someone else to speak up. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. I frequently remain silent at work to purposefully harm another individual. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. I frequently remain silent at work to purposefully harm the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. I frequently remain silent at work because management is not open to other’s views, opinions, or ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. I frequently remain silent at work because I am intimidated by management. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. I frequently remain silent at work due to bad management practices. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. I frequently remain silent at work to gain a personal advantage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. I frequently remain silent at work because I do not care what happens. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
374
Next, for the following items, please circle the number which best corresponds to the extent to which the item describes your experience at work.
The following items refer to the procedures used to determine the rewards/outcomes you receive at work.
28. To what extent have you been able to express your views and feelings concerning those procedures? 1 2 3 4 5 to a small extent to a less extent to a moderate to more of an to a large extent extent extent
29. To what extent have you had influence over the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures? 1 2 3 4 5
30. To what extent have those procedures been applied consistently? 1 2 3 4 5
31. To what extent have those procedures been free of bias? 1 2 3 4 5
32. To what extent have those procedures been based on accurate information? 1 2 3 4 5
33. To what extent have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures? 1 2 3 4 5
34. To what extent have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards? 1 2 3 4 5
375
Next, the following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:
35. To what extent has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner? 1 2 3 4 5 to a small extent to a less extent to a moderate to more of an to a large extent extent extent
36. To what extent has (he/she) treated you with dignity? 1 2 3 4 5
37. To what extent has (he/she) treated you with respect? 1 2 3 4 5
38. To what extent has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or comments? 1 2 3 4 5
Next, please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statements concerning your direct supervisor at your current job.
39. If I had my way, I wouldn’t let my supervisor have any influence over issues that are important to me. ® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
40. I would be willing to let my supervisor have complete control over my future in this company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41. I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on my supervisor. ® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. I would be comfortable giving my supervisor a task or problem which was critical to me, even if I could not monitor his/her actions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43. I would tell my supervisor about mistakes I’ve made on the job, even if they could damage my reputation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
376
44. I would share my opinion about sensitive issues with my supervisor even if my opinion were unpopular. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
45. I am afraid of what my supervisor might do to me at work. ® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46. If my supervisor asked why a problem happened, I would speak freely even if I were partly to blame. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
47. If someone questioned my supervisor’s motives, I would give my supervisor the benefit of the doubt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48. If my supervisor asked me for something, I would respond without thinking about whether it might be held against me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Next, please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statements concerning the top management team at your current employer.
49. If I had my way, I wouldn’t let top management have any influence over issues that are important to me. ® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
50. I would be willing to let top management have complete control over my future in this company. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
51. I really wish I had a good way to keep an eye on top management. ® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
52. I would be comfortable giving top management a task or problem which was critical to me, even if I could not monitor (its) actions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
377
53. I would tell top management about mistakes I’ve made on the job, even if they could damage my reputation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
54. I would share my opinion about sensitive issues with top management even if my opinion were unpopular. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
55. I am afraid of what top management might do to me at work. ® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
56. If top management asked why a problem happened, I would speak freely even if I were partly to blame. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
57. If someone questioned top management’s motives, I would give top management the benefit of the doubt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
58. If top management asked me for something, I would respond without thinking about whether it might be held against me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Next, Please indicate the extent to which you have engaged in each of the following at work in the past 12 months.
In the past 12 months how often have you…….
59……Had thoughts of being absent? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Once in a Now and Never Sometimes Often Constantly Always While Then
60……Chat with co-workers about nonwork topics? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
61……Left your workstation for unnecessary reasons? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
62……Spent time daydreaming? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 378
63……Spent work time on personal matters? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Once in a Now and Never Sometimes Often Constantly Always While Then
64……Put less effort into job than should have? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
65……Had thoughts of leaving current job? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
66……Let others do your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Next, please indicate the extent of your agreement with the following statements concerning your current job.
67. All in all, I am satisfied with my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Neither Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree nor Agree Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Disagree
68. In general, I don’t like my job ® 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
69. In general I like working here 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Next, please read the following statements and circle the answer that best matches what you think.
70. How committed are you to your employer? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at All Slightly Moderately Quite a bit Extremely
71. To what extent do you care about your employer? 1 2 3 4 5
72. How dedicated are you to your employer? 1 2 3 4 5
379
73. To what extent have you chosen to be committed to your employer? 1 2 3 4 5
74. How responsible do you feel for your employer? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at All Slightly Moderately Quite a bit Extremely
75. To what extent do you feel bound to your employer? 1 2 3 4 5
Next, please circle the response which best describes you.
76. If employed, how long have you worked for your current employer? (If not currently employed, please select “Not Applicable.”) 1. Less than 6 months 2. 6 months – 2 years 3. 3-5 years 4. 6-10 years 5. 11-15 years 6. 16 years or longer 7. Not applicable
77. Which of the following categories best describes your current job? 1. Executive/Management 2. Technical/Professional 3. Sales/Marketing 4. Administrative/Clerical 5. Customer Service (e.g., restaurant server) 6. Skilled Crafts 7. Laborer 8. Student 9. Not applicable
78. Which of the following includes your current age? 1. 18-24 2. 25-34 3. 35-44 4. 45-54 5. 55-64 6. 65 or older
79. What is your biological sex? 1. Female 2. Male 380
80. Which of the following best describes your ethnic background? 1. Asian 2. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 3. Black / African-American (Not of Hispanic origin) 4. Hispanic / Latino 5. American Indian / Alaskan Native 6. White (Not of Hispanic origin) 7. Other
81. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 1. Some high school 2. High school diploma or GED 3. Some college 4. College degree 5. Some graduate work 6. Masters degree 7. Doctoral degree 8. Other professional degree (e.g., J.D., M.D.)
SURVEY IS COMPLETE. THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN OUR RESEARCH STUDY!
381