Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs*

Abstract

 Employees often have ideas, information, and opinions for constructive ways to improve work and work organizations. Sometimes these employees exercise voice and express their ideas, information, and opinions; and other times they engage in silence and withhold their ideas, information, and opinions. On the surface, expressing and withholding behaviours might appear to be polar opposites because silence implies not speaking while voice implies speaking up on important issues and problems in organizations. Challenging this simplistic notion, this paper presents a conceptual framework suggesting that employee silence and voice are best conceptualized as separate, multidimensional constructs. Based on employee motives, we differentiate three types of silence (Acquiescent Silence, Defensive Silence, and ProSocial Silence) and three parallel types of voice (Acquiescent Voice, Defensive Voice, and ProSocial Voice) where withholding important information is not simply the absence of voice. Building on this conceptual framework, we further propose that silence and voice have differential consequences to employees in work organizations. Based on fundamental differences in the overt behavioural cues provided by silence and voice, we present a series of propositions predicting that silence is more ambiguous than voice, observers are more likely to misattribute employee motives for silence than for voice, and misattributions for motives behind silence will lead to more incongruent consequences (both positive and negative) for employees (than for voice). We conclude by discussing implications for future research and for managers.

Do not say a word! Conceptualizing employee silence in a long-term crisis context

“…These would be shaped by previous experiences or knowledge of colleagues' experiences, as well as their own evaluation of the economic situation with particular reference to their own job safety or insecurity. Therefore, the climate of silence concept (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) is relevant because it relates to 'widely shared perceptions among employees that speaking up about problems or issues is futile and/or dangerous' (p. 708), as well as the defensive silence concept which is based on a fear of extrinsic consequences associated with speaking up (Brinsfield, 2013;Detert & Edmondson, 2011;Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003;Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003). In addition, a climate of fear has been widely recorded as an underlying reason for employee silence on different types of work issues (e.g.…”

“…Therefore, we would expect that in an economic crisis context employees would feel that the situation is beyond their control and hence resign from speaking up (or be passively silent) as discussed by the ineffectual silence and acquiescent silence concepts (Morrison & Milliken, 2000;Pinder & Harlos, 2001;Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003).…”

“…At the first phase of the research, employees discussed fear as defensive silence (Brinsfield, 2013;Detert & Edmondson, 2011;Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003;Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003) caused by a fear of the extrinsic consequences associated with speaking up. For example, our interviewees discussed how the fear of being labeled a 'troublemaker' and the consequences this would bring inhibited their voice at work.…”

The Relationship between Prosocial Voice and the Patient Safety Culture in the Saudi Public Hospitals

“…Prosocial voice refers to a specific category of proactive and upward-directed workplace communication behaviour that is geared towards enhancing as opposed to criticizing a situation (Van Dyne et al, 2003). It is described as an interesting construct focused on by both researchers and practitioners because of its upward-directed communication of work-related ideas, information/feedback that may encourage collaborative work environment and facilitate the effectiveness of the organization (Burris et al, 2008;Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).…”

“…An employee employing PSV is encouraged to relay knowledge, information and feedback in order to facilitate positive changes in the workplace, by maximizing work processes regardless of protests from other employees (Van Dyne et al, 2003). Organizations generally benefit from the employees' discussion and report of crucial issues.…”