RESEARCH PAPER
Adaptation of the Four Forms of Employee Silence Scale in a Polish sample
| 1 | Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland |
Submission date: 2017-02-18
Final revision date: 2017-04-05
Acceptance date: 2017-04-13
Online publication date: 2017-06-13
Publication date: 2017-12-01
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2017;5(4):303–312
KEYWORDS
silence in an organizationprocedural justicerelational contractquality of relationsemotional attitude
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background
Silence is understood as a decision not to speak up in situations of observed irregularities both in productivity and ethics. The study examined the validity of the Four Forms of Employee Silence Scale (FFESS) in the Polish population. The scale is a four-factor measure designed to capture differently motivated tendencies to be silent in organizations. The scale distinguishes acquiescent, quiescent, prosocial and opportunistic silence. Employee silence has been linked to many important individual outcomes: failure to react to ethical transgressions, stress and depression, and lower creativity and productivity.
Participants and procedure
A total of 1044 employees of various organizations working for at least six months at a given position provided the responses for the validation study.
Results
The results confirmed the superiority of the four-factor model shown by adequate fit indexes: The FFESS has adequate internal consistency at both the scale and item levels. The criterion-related validity of the scale was established by correlating four forms of silence with measures of emotional attitude toward organization, procedural justice, relational contract and turnover intention.
Conclusions
The four forms of employee silence are empirically distinct concepts in the Polish sample. The scale may be used as the measurement of individual differences. It can also serve as a tool for diagnosing a climate of silence in an organization.
Silence is understood as a decision not to speak up in situations of observed irregularities both in productivity and ethics. The study examined the validity of the Four Forms of Employee Silence Scale (FFESS) in the Polish population. The scale is a four-factor measure designed to capture differently motivated tendencies to be silent in organizations. The scale distinguishes acquiescent, quiescent, prosocial and opportunistic silence. Employee silence has been linked to many important individual outcomes: failure to react to ethical transgressions, stress and depression, and lower creativity and productivity.
Participants and procedure
A total of 1044 employees of various organizations working for at least six months at a given position provided the responses for the validation study.
Results
The results confirmed the superiority of the four-factor model shown by adequate fit indexes: The FFESS has adequate internal consistency at both the scale and item levels. The criterion-related validity of the scale was established by correlating four forms of silence with measures of emotional attitude toward organization, procedural justice, relational contract and turnover intention.
Conclusions
The four forms of employee silence are empirically distinct concepts in the Polish sample. The scale may be used as the measurement of individual differences. It can also serve as a tool for diagnosing a climate of silence in an organization.
REFERENCES (51)
1.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading. Mass: Addison Wesley.
2.
Barbier, M., Peters, S., & Hansez, I. (2009). Measuring Positive and Negative Occupational States (PNOSI): Structural Confirmation of a New Belgian Tool. Psychologica Belgica, 49, 227–247.
3.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
4.
Behery, M., Paton, R., & Hussain, R. (2012). Psychological contract and organizational commitment: The mediating effect of transformational leadership. Competitiveness Review, 22, 299–319.
5.
Bienefeld, N., & Grote, G. (2012). Silence that may kill: When aircrew members don’t speak up and why. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 2, 1–10.
6.
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
7.
Brinsfield, C. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 671–697.
8.
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.
9.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
10.
Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., Mayer, D. M., & Gregory, J. B. (2012). Breaking rules for the right reasons? An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 21–42.
11.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 461–488.
12.
Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2011). Re‐conceptualising employee silence: Problems and prognosis. Work, Employment and Society, 25, 51–67.
13.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
14.
Fast, N. J., Burris, E. R., & Bartel, C. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1013–1034.
15.
Fivush, R. (2010). Speaking silence: The social construction of silence in autobiographical and cultural narratives. Memory, 18, 88–98.
16.
Hagedoorn, M., van Yperen, N., van de Vliert, E., & Buunk, B. (1999). Employees’ reactions to problematic events: A circumplex structure of five categories of responses, and the role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 309–321.
17.
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (vol. 3: The interpersonal context, pp. 28–84). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
18.
Hays-Thomas, R. (2003). The Last page: Learning by breaking the silence. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 6, 120–122.
19.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equations Modeling, 6, 1–55.
20.
International Test Commission (2005). Guidelines for Translating and Adaptating Tests. Retrieved from http: //www.intestcom.org.
21.
Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. J. (2005). Power, voice and hierarchy: Exploring the antecedents of speaking up in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 9, 93–103.
22.
Jurek, P., & Adamska, K. (in press). Skala Emocjonalnego Nastawienia wobec Organizacji (SENO) – konstrukcja i właściwości psychometryczne narzędzia [Positive and Negative Organizational Attitudes Scale: designing and psychometric properties]. Psychologia Społeczna.
23.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163–193.
24.
Klammer, J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Barclay, L. (2001). Speaking up in the Canadian military: The role of voice, being heard, and generation in predicting civic virtue. Canadian Journal of Behavioral.
26.
Knoll, M., & von Dick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle…? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 349–362.
27.
Lee, F. (1993). Being polite and keeping MUM: how bad news is communicated in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1124–1149.
28.
Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., & Leiva, P. I. (2015). Negative core affect and employee silence: How differences in activation, cognitive rumination, and problem-solving demands matter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1887–1898.
29.
Maynes, T. D., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2014). Speaking more broadly: An examination of the nature, antecedents, and consequences of an expanded set of employee voice behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 87–112.
30.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). Choosing to stay silent at work: What employees don’t speak about and why. Journal of Management Inquiry, 40, 1453–1476.
31.
Morrison, W. E. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32, 5–28.
32.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employees voice behavior. Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373–412.
33.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197.
34.
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.
35.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., van Dyne, L., & Wong, S. F. (2009). Measuring motives for silence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
36.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633–662.
37.
Perlow, L. A., & Repenning, N. P. (2009). The dynamics of silencing conflict. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 195–223.
38.
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.
39.
R Development Core Team (2012). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http: //www.R-project.org/.
40.
Retowski, S., & Chwiałkowska-Sinica, A. (2004). Achievement Motivation and Locus of Control as Determinants of Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect Behaviors within Organization. European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS).
41.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 2, 1–36.
42.
Raeder, S., Wittekind, A., Inauen, A., & Grote, G. (2009). Testing a psychological contract measure in a Swiss employment context. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 68, 177–178.
43.
Retowski, S., & Adamska, K. (2015). Adaptation of the Organizational Justice Scale of Jason Colquitt in a Polish sample. Unpublished manuscript.
44.
Rothwell, G. R., & Baldwin, J. N. (2007). Ethical climate theory, whistle-blowing, and the code of silence in police agencies in the state of Georgia. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 341–361.
45.
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contract in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 655–663.
47.
Tangirala, S., Kamdar, D., Venkataramani, V., & Parke, M. R. (2013). Doing right versus getting ahead: the effects of duty and achievement orientations on employees’ voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1040–1050.
48.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employees silence on critical work issues: the cross level effect of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 37–68.
49.
Vakola, M., & Bourades, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organizational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27, 441–458.
50.
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.
51.
Yu, K. Y. T. (2009). Affective influences in Person-Environment Fit Theory: Exploring the role of Affect as both cause and outcome of P-E fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1210–1226.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.