Negative core affect and employee silence: How differences in activation, cognitive rumination, and problem-solving demands matter.

Abstract

Employees can help to improve organizational performance by sharing ideas, suggestions, or concerns about practices, but sometimes they keep silent because of the experience of negative affect. Drawing and expanding on this stream of research, this article builds a theoretical rationale based on core affect and cognitive appraisal theories to describe how differences in affect activation and boundary conditions associated with cognitive rumination and cognitive problem-solving demands can explain employee silence. Results of a diary study conducted with professionals from diverse organizations indicated that within-person low-activated negative core affect increased employee silence when, as an invariant factor, cognitive rumination was high. Furthermore, within-person high-activated negative core affect decreased employee silence when, as an invariant factor, cognitive problem-solving demand was high. Thus, organizations should manage conditions to reduce experiences of low-activated negative core affect because these feelings increase silence in individuals high in rumination. In turn, effective management of experiences of high-activated negative core affect can reduce silence for individuals working under high problem-solving demand situations.

Power Imbalance and Employee Silence: The Role of Abusive Leadership, Power Distance Orientation, and Perceived Organisational Politics

“…Such self‐censorship can account for employee silence. A combination of affective (e.g., depression) and cognitive (e.g., rumination) states can also increase employee silence (Madrid et al, ). Morrison et al () and Knoll and Van Dick () indicated that subordinates’ sense of power (i.e., powerlessness) and personal authenticity explained their tendency to withhold input to resolve work problems.…”

“…Yet, as Morrison () concluded, prior research has mostly focused on the conditions encouraging employees to speak up rather than factors that suppress their willingness to share potentially useful information (e.g., Liang, Farh, & Farh, ; Morrison, Wheeler‐Smith, & Kamdar, ; Tangirala & Ramanujam, ; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, ). Among the few empirical studies of employee silence, investigation has taken a largely individual perspective involving factors such as affect and belief (Detert & Edmondson, ; Madrid, Patterson, & Leiva, ). The dearth of research in the latter area is unfortunate not just because of organisational tragedies due to employee silence.…”

Adaptation of the Four Forms of Employee Silence Scale in a Polish sample

“…The arguments for conceptualizing silence as a multidimensional construct and not the simple oppositions of voice are theoretical and also based on studies. There are small correlations between silence and voice (Madrid et al, 2015). Both are acknowledged as a kind of proactive behavior (Parker & Collins, 2010).…”

“…Withholding ideas and information can also be part of the broader organizational context. Sharing knowledge with colleagues or teammates as part of creativity and innovation endeavors is limited when employees experience generalized negative affective states, which is the case in high job demands such as workload or ambiguity (Madrid, Patterson, & Leiva, 2015). The importance of affective factors was also underlined by Perlow and Williams (2003, who showed that silence generates feelings of humiliation and anger and these limit creativity and undermine productivity.…”

The Influence of the ROK Army Junior Leader’s Relationship Conflict and Fear of Negative Evaluation on Defensive Silence

“…; Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003), 관련 된 연구들이 국내외에서 꾸준히 이루어지고 있다(박현선, 정현선, 박동건, 2015;Madrid, Patterson, & Leiva, 2015 (정현선, 박동건, 2013;Pinder & Harlos, 2001;Van Dyne et al, 2003 (이다원, 이선희, 한민, 2014;Jehn, 1995 (Jehn, 1997;Wall & Nolan, 1986) (Pinder & Harlos, 2001;Van Dyne et al, 2003).…”