Discussion 1: Impact of Unmet Expectations on Employee Attitudes
Annals of “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati Fascicle I. Economics and Applied Informatics
Years XXV – no1/2019 ISSN-L 1584-0409 ISSN-Online 2344-441X
www.eia.feaa.ugal.ro
DOI https://doi.org/10.35219/eai1584040911
Employees’ Expectation and Organizational Silence Oluwatoyin Frederick IDOWU
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Accepted March 2019 Available online April 2019
Aim: The study investigated the relationship between employees’ expectation (EE) and organizational silence (OS). Design/Methodology: A survey of one hundred and eight (108) working class Professional Master Students was carried out eliciting responses through a self- constructed instrument that has Cronbach alpha of 0.864 and 0.825 reliability values for employees’ expectation and organizational silence respectively. Both Pearson product moment correlation and multiple regressions statistics were used to test the stated research hypotheses. Findings: It was found that employees’ expectations have a strong positive and statistically significant relationship with organization silence. The indices of employee expectations: employee control (EC), employee ownership (EO) and employee appreciation (EA) separately correlate positively and significantly with organization silence. The study also showed that they are strong predictors of organizational silence except employee control that is somewhat a weak predictor. In combination however, employee expectation is a strong, positive and significant predictor of organizational silence. The influence of employees’ expectations of control, appreciation and ownership explained 30.5% of organization silence. Conclusion/recommendation: The study established that the types of organization silence are not limited to the three existing one of quiescent, acquiescent and pro-social but also include accrual benefits. Also, the motives for organization silence of resignation, fear and other-oriented, were extended to include self-oriented benefits. Research implications: Organization scholars, business owners and researchers should seek for the expectations of the employees as they contribute to change and work related improvement in the quest to stem the tide of silence behaviour climate in business organization.
© 2019 EAI. All rights reserved.
JEL Classification M11, G12 Keywords: Employees’ expectation, Organization silence, Employee control, Employee ownership, Employee appreciation
1. Introduction
People as the most precious asset of an organization become so if they bring their creativity, knowledge, innovation and ideas to bear on the organizations’ work related improvement. Employees’ expression and demonstration of these values bring about rapid and positive changes that suggest success and survival. Organization success and survival require that workers respond to environmental challenges committedly (Entezari, 2014), positively and expressively. However workers can remain with an organization for a considerable long period, carry out their obligations without necessarily carrying the burdens of the organization. The demand of the ever changing world of work, and its attendant hyper-competition require that organization keeps in its stable employees that would be responsive to the challenges of the environment through the expression of their opinions, ideas, and knowledge sharing. (Nikmaram, Yamchi, Shojaii, Zahrani& Alvani, 2012; Seyyed & Arezoo, 2014; Entezari, 2014).
In spite of the importance of employees as the platform of change and their significance to the success and survival of the organization, they may individually and collectively deliberately withhold their opinion on work related improvement or change. This is employees silence (ES). When the silence climate pervades the whole organization it becomes organizational silence (OS). However, the two are used interchangeably and in most cases referred to as organizational silence .Organization silence is the motivation or the powerful forces that engender withholding of information, ideas, or not expressing opinions on potential work related improvement or change (Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003)
Employees, individually and collectively are in possession of institutional knowledge. They are to bring this to bear on the work related improvement for organization competiveness growth and survival. Experientially, employees are continually motivated to withhold their opinions, ideas or information that can bring about changes that lead to work related improvement. This is as a result of disengaged behaviour, fear of reprisal and protecting others mistakes including the mistakes of the organization. Such situations suggest
Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos. E-mail address: idowoluwatoyin@gmail.com
94
that employees do not bring their professional and institutional expertise and knowledge to bear on change and developmental issues of the organisation. The motivation to do so has been attributed to three factors: (1). resignation /passive silence (2) defensive/acquiescent silence and (3) other-oriented/pro-social silence. More and more organizations management are aware of the devastating effects of climate of silence in their organisations. Mechanisms for breaking it, like suggestion box, participative management practice, employees’ involvement, open communication and democratization strategies, are put in place (Karaca, 2013)), yet the climate of silence continually pervades organisation: suggesting that the motive of silence required reviewing and extension. The role of employees’ expectation arising from psychological contract comes to play. Employment relationship relates to mutual expectation and obligations that are unwritten and lie outside the normal contract (HR Zone, 2008). The relational psychological contract is social in nature and not economic. Employees value being valued and appreciated rather than impersonal reward. Non satisfaction of relational psychological contract leads to breakdown in employee involvement, commitment, satisfaction and withdrawal from participating in change and work related issues (organization silence) (HR Zone, 2008). Frustration of employees’ expectations on accruable benefits such as control, appreciation and ownership may lead to negative consequences. Such consequences include not getting involved in new projects; breakdown of trust between employees and management; less of employees’ commitment, satisfaction and; high turnover intention (HR Zone, 2008; Blickle & Witzki, 2006). 1.1 Statement of the Problem
The awareness of the climate of silence by organisation management and the mechanisms set up to attenuate it have not brought about required and desirable results (Brinsfield, 2009). Modern management approaches which embrace information flow and communication through meetings, suggestion and complaint schemes, face to face meetings and open door policies have not brought about desired amount of voice. That is, employees are not getting involved and are not showing concerns for work related change and improvement. Employees: either individually or in groups (department, unit or section) continues to voluntarily or involuntarily withhold and are reluctant to share information, volunteer ideas and opinions that can bring about work related improvement and change. Employees are not giving information on new projects and schemes, are not showing concern on the work improvement issues (Brinsfield, 2009) or do so haphazardly.
Existing motives for silence (quiescent, acquiescent and pro-social) are extraneous and other- oriented. Organization members can refrain from suggestion that leads to organization improvement as a result of the negative and un-gratifying experience from management as a result of volunteering such information in the past. Thus, employees remain passive as a result of bosses’ reprisal, and the drive to protect the self, the group and others including the organization in situation of whistle blowing (Morrison & Milliken, 2001, Van Dyne Ang & Botero, 2002). The motives do not consider accruals to individual, and the groups (unit/departments) in terms of benefits from their contribution to organizational change, as a motive for employees’ silence. That is, not mutually benefiting as expected from the past contribution may stifle future contributions by the employees. The psychological contract (employees’ expectation on their contributions to organization improvement) is critical to silence behaviour.
Lack of consideration of employees’ expectation may account for the prevalence of silence among employees in spite of established mechanisms by organization management to encourage their contribution towards work related improvement .People who can contribute to change and development are not doing so (Seyyed & Arezoo, 2014) or have a low response to critical issue that the organisation is facing, or do not show concern when in position to (Brinsfield, 2009). This is in spite of encouragement proffered to organisation members through information mechanisms to contribute to organisation issues bothering on improvement. This could be attributed to previous outcome of contributing to change that are not mutually beneficial to the management, the unit and the individual. Lack of mutual benefit from contributions towards organisational improvement may stifle suggestion of ideas information and opinions and lead to lack of show of concern by the employee, organisation’s unit and departmental members. Naturally, employees have their expectations from their contributions towards work improvement, beyond their work schedule that is ordinarily rewarded. Employees’ expectations such as control of outcomes of contributions; appreciation for contribution; ownership of and reward for contributing to work related improvement beyond normal work schedules.
The mutual benefit perspective has not been explored as a motive or powerful force in engendering employee and organisational silence. Extant works on silence have been other oriented (the establishment and colleagues) not considering individual employee’s benefits that can lead to collective sense making (CSM) and bonding and their resolve not to participate, volunteer information, ideas, suggestion or show concern in work related change and organisational improvement. The refusal to participate could be as a result of lack of mutual benefits arising from the past employees’ induced change and development. The impact of this has not been researched. This can be attributed to the fact that knowledge in the area of organizational/employee silence in terms of its conceptualization, multidimensionality and underlying motives is still cumulating
95
(Brinsfield, 2009). Therefore, this study attempts to investigate the influence of employees’ expectations among working postgraduate students of Lagos State University Nigeria. 1.2. Objectives of the Study
The study aims at examining the influence of employees’ expectation of accruing benefits from their contribution to work related change and improvement on organizational silence
1. To examine if there is any significant relationship between employees’ expectations from their
contribution to work improvement and organisational silence?
2. To investigate if any significant relationship exists between employees’ control, ownership, appreciation and organisational silence?
3. To find out if there is significant influence of employees’ control, ownership and appreciation on organisational silence?
1.3. Research Question
1. Is there any significant relationship between employees’ expectations and organisational silence?
2. Does any significant relationship exist between employees’ control, ownership appreciation and
organisational silence?
3. To what extent do employees’ control, ownership and appreciation influence organisational silence?
1.4. Research Hypotheses H1 There is no significant relationship between employees’ expectation and organisational silence. H2 There is no significant relationship between employees’ control, ownership and appreciation on organisational silence. H3 There is no significant influence of employees’ control, ownership and appreciation on organizational silence. 2. Literature review
Employees’ expectations arise from their psychological contract which is a set of unwritten expectations that exist between individual employees and their employers, (Armstrong, 2009; Wikipedia, 2008; Blickle & Witzki, 2006). It has been reported that employee expectation correlates with, high involvement climate, learning and development, turnover intention and commitment. Lack of fairness, equity and consistency in the treatment of employees’ expectation may result in silence behaviour .Trust, turnover, inability to demonstrate employee competence are other negative consequences of not meeting employees expectation (Armstrong, 2009; Wikepedia, 2008; HR Zone, 2008). The expectations influence what each party will do or not do and how it will be done .
Employees often negotiate the contract, and a breach is responded to negatively by reduced loyalty, commitment and organization citizenships behaviour that may diminish organization success. Organization silence is not mentioned from the literature as being a consequence of employees’ expectation. However, loyalty is a characteristic of organization citizenship. Not being loyal to the cause of the organization (organization silence) is a behaviour arising from frustration of previous expectations from employees’ contributions to work related issue. Hence employee expectation as an unwritten contract between the management and employees would impact organizational silence. Relational expectations are numerous., Therefore management must explore what these unwritten expectations are.
Organization silence has been variously conceived (Brinsfield, 2009). The centrality of all the definitions is that: silence behaviour has a motive or many motives oriented towards specific purpose; it is deliberate; it is conscious and dynamic (Brinsfield, 2009; Yildiz, 2013; Megenci, 2015; Dasci & Cemaloglu, 2016; Van Dyne, et al, 2003; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Tangirala and Ramanujan (2008) definition according to Brinsfield, (2009) meet all these criteria. They defined organizational silence as intentional withholding of concerns, information or opinions by employees concerning important situations, issues or events relating to their job or organization.
Three motives were identified with three types of silence for organization silence: disengaged/passivity, defensive or fear of reprisal and other-oriented. Brinsfield, (2009) argued that motives for silence behaviour among employees give meaning to and differentiate various dimensions of employee silence. She also found that the existing motives and organization silence types are not exhaustive as silence has its target and specific motives.
Silence behaviour has been correlated organizational outcomes of commitment (Deniz, Noyan & Ertozan, 2013), satisfaction and turnover intention (Nikmaram et al 2012).
2.2 Empirical Review
Deniz, et al (2013) found that organisation silence remain even when management proudly speak of empowerment and development of more open lines of communication. Employees keep their thoughts to themselves and refrain from writing; are present at work, yet their minds are elsewhere (a phenomenon of
96
presenteesm); demonstrate negative attitudes and ignore contributing to project that bring about organisation success. This was corroborated by Karaca (2013) findings that modern management embraces open communication yet, silence climate still prevails in organisations. Lack of trust and fear of being labelled continue to constrain the flow of information. The two studies did not provide solution to or find out why the openness and democratization in voice as well as information flow still produce the climate of silence in organisations. This is suggesting that the established motivation for silence and the behaviours emanating therefrom have not been fully exhausted.
Deniz et al (2013) noted Brinsfeild (2009) as saying that assessment tools used to empirically investigate silence has not addressed current concept of employees’ silence. Disengaged behaviour is still prevalence among employees (Deniz et al, 2013). They found a correlation between organisation silence and employee commitment which also vary between groups within an organisation. Also found was a negative relationship between defensive silence and affective commitment. Relationship between commitment and other type of silence was not found. This suggests that the situation of employees’ group can account for the nature of their sile nce. Disregardful behaviour leading to employee exits from the organization was found by Nikmaram et al (2012) as another reason for silence. Management attitudes and behaviours through institutional arrangement can entrench a moment of silence and lack of employee participation in organisational efforts thereby, creating barriers for performance, effectiveness and commitment.
Nikmaram et.al (2012) found variation in reaction of the level/status of officer in broadness of silence and climate of silence including silence behaviour. This suggests that silence depends on the status of the employee and perhaps less among those who do not expect much rewards/ sanctions from internal superior.
Power distance index was found by Umar and Hassan (2013) to be related to employee silence in Nigeria. Talking to a superior above the immediate boss is perceived by Nigerian employee as evil and immoral and may likely cause hatred, enmity and suspicion. Their finding does not consider the quest for assertiveness inherent in different individuals or the differential generational expectations to make impact on the organizational decisions and efforts. Karaca (2013) study of command community reinforces the power distance dimension of silence. In a study of police in Turkish hierarchical organisation, he found administrative and organizational factors to be potent reasons for employee silence. Gazmeh, Farmani and Sedaghat (2014) study relate silence to administrators not paying attention to employees who are consistently itching to propose and making suggestions that can solve organisational issues. Good communication opportunities would not evoke voice in such situation
Brinsfield (2009) in her seminal work pointed out that the extant motives for silence: quiescent (disengaged behaviour), acquiescent (self-protection) and pro-social (other oriented), are not exhaustive. The validity of the instruments used by the original authors is also questionable as they were left for third party to validate in the latters’ use of the instruments in their studies. However, researchers (Deniz, et, al, 2013; Bagheri, et al 2012;, Gazmeh, et. al,2014; Umar& Hassan, 2013; Karaca, 2013 ) extensively relied on these initial instruments developed initially by Milliken & Morrison (2000; 2003), Pinders & Harlos (20 01), and extended by Van Dyne, et al, (2003) without searching for other motives of silence in organization. Other researchers’ works have been on the normative assumptions that silence is part of organization climate and they therefore prescribed solutions without necessarily and systematically seeking for the motives of employees’ silence so as to make the suggested solutions effective in attenuating the climate of silence in organization (Yildiz, 2013;, Akbarian, Ansari, Sharem & Keshtiaray, 2013).
2.3. Theoretical Framework
Control theory as developed by Carver and Scheier (1982) provided the orientation for the study. The theory follows the general cybernetics framework of motivated human behaviour (Brainsfield, 2008) It posits that discrepancy reduction feedback log is important in the building block of human action. Six elements form the loop (1) input functions, (2) reference value (3) comparator, (4) output function, (5) impact on environment and disturbance (Carver & Scheier, 1982).
According to the theory action is stimulated by a stimulus input factor, a perception that prompt a comparison of the current state of affairs with the desired state using a process of comparator. If the perceived situation between what is and what ought to be vary from the preferred reference value, a discrepant is produced. The actor will make some efforts to reduce the discrepancy in some forms of behavioural process. The environment is impacted upon in the process of reducing the discrepancy. The consequent impact on the environment coupled with forces external to the system (disturbances) serve as a feedback input to another iteration of this process (Carver & Scheier, 1982).
Providing orientation for this study, employee can withhold ideas information and opinions that can bring about change and improvement in their organization if accruing benefits will not be valued. A discrepancy between the preferred reference value and what accrued in similar situation in the past will result in disengaged behaviour to reduce the discrepancies as the framework below expatiate.
97
2.4. Conceptual Framework
Figure 1: Employees Expectations and Organisational Silence
Source: Author, 2018
The framework suggests the motives for organization silence which are employees’ expectations. Employees either individually or in groups have some expectations (control, ownership and appreciation) from the outcomes of their contributions, participations, suggestions, concerns and volunteering ideas, besides their regular work schedule, to work related change and improvement. The control could be in terms of running the project to which they have suggested or created. Ownership refers to attributing the change to the contributors. Appreciation could be tangible or intangible like reward and compensation, commendation or show of gratitude by the management to the employees, departments/units that brought about such work related change or improvement. The expectations can be in isolation and in many cases, integrated These employees’ expectations are subjected to evaluation. The situation is weighed in comparison to what obtains in other climes or reference organizations or department. A judgement is made of whether the treatment of their (employees’) expectation is preferred or not in comparison with what obtain with reference other. If valued treatment is preferred the employees continue to make their organizational knowledge to bear on organization improvement. If on the other hand the treatment is considered to have non-preferred value, the employees deliberately withdraw from participating, suggesting ideas, opinions or show concerns on work related improvement.
3. Research Methods
Survey research design was used in the study. This was executed using incidental sampling approach among one hundred and eight (108) students undergoing Professional Masters Postgraduate studies in Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations atLagos State University, Ojo campus, 2016/2017 session. The approach is justified by the fact that the population is active consists of working class groups, cutting across organizational types, different working status, easily accessible and more importantly, they can easily understand the issue under investigation and proffer honest response. It is also in line with the seminal study of Brinsfield (2009).
The data collection instrument was self-constructed measuring employees’ expectation using the dimensions of control, ownership and appreciation on their previous contributions (suggestion, concerns volunteering ideas, opinions and information) to work related improvement beyond regular work schedule. The instrument is in a 5 Likert-scale consisting of 12 items: Six (6) items each were used for independent variables and dependent variables respectively.
The instrument was given to management experts in the field for its face and content validity. It was also subjected to pilot study of 20 respondents. Cronbach alpha for the instrument shows 0.864 reliability value for employees’ expectation and 0.825 for organization silence. These show a strong reliability ratio to measure employees’ expectation and organization silence.
Questionnaire was distributed to the total one hundred and eight (108) students. All of them were returned. Nineteen (19) respondents were found not to be in paid formal employment. Seven (7) questionnaires were not properly filled and were discarded. Eighty-two (82) of them working in paid employment were found to be useful. These formed the basis of the analysis.
The collected data were analysed descriptively and inferentially. Descriptive statistic was used to analyse the respondents’ .bio data. Pearson product moment correlation statistics was used in testing hypotheses 1 and 2 to examine the relationships between the employees’ expectation dimensions of control, appreciation and ownership and organization silence. To further test for the influence of each of the employees’ expectation factors’ contribution to organization silence, multiple regression analysis was undertaken for hypothesis 3.
98
4. Results and Discussion of Findings
This section presents statistical results of the tested hypotheses and the discussion of results Table 1: Descriptive analysis of Bio data (N=82)
Variables
frequency Percentage
% Mean
Standard deviation
SEX: Male Female
53 29
64.6 35.4
1.35 0.481
ORGANISATIONAL TYPE: Food and beverages Education Banking and finance Other
8 41 4 29
9.8 50.0 4.9 35.4
2.66 1.068
DESIGNATION: Top management Middle level Low level cadre
22 42 18
26.8 57.2 22.0
1.95 0.701
LENGTH OF SERVICE: 1year -4years 5years -8years 9years -12years 13 years and above
7 21 21 33
8.5 25.6 25.6 40.2
2.98 1.006
Source: field survey, 2018
HYPOTHESIS ONE: There is no significant relationship between Employees’ expectation and Organisational Silence.
Table 1: Results of bi-variate correlation between Individual Employees Expectation and Organisational Silence with descriptive analysis
Variables N Means Std. Deviation R p
Individual Employees Expectations 82 2.65 .62
Organisational Silence 82 2.49 .67 .55* .00
*p is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed). Results in table 1 above show a relationship between individual employee’s expectation and
organisational silence among the selected respondents. The result found that the relationship was strong, positive and statistically significant (r=.55, p=.00). The null hypothesis which states that, there is no significant relationship between employee expectations and organisational silence was rejected while the alternate was accepted. This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05. HYPOTHESIS TWO: There is no significant relationship between Employees’ Control, Ownership and Appreciation and organisational silence. H2 (a) : There is no significant relationship between Employees’ control and Organisational Silence. Table 2: Results of bi-variate correlation between Individual Employees Control and Organisational Silence with descriptive analysis Variables N Means Std. Deviation r p
Individual Employees Control 82 2.81 .74
Organisational Silence 82 2.49 .67 .26* .02
*p is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Results in table 2 above show a relationship between individual employee’s control and organisational silence among the selected respondents. The result found that the relationship was positive and statistically significant (r=.26, p=.02). The null hypothesis which states that, there is no significant relationship between employee control and organisational silence was rejected while the alternate was accepted. This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05.
99
H 2 b: There is no significant relationship between Employees’ Appreciation and Organisational Silence.
Table 3: Results of bi-variate correlation between Individual Employees Appreciation and Organisational Silence with descriptive analysis
Variables N Means Std. Deviation r p
Individual Employees Appreciation 82 2.40 .74
Organisational Silence 82 2.49 .67 .51* .00
*p is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed). Results in table 3 above show a relationship between individual employee’s appreciation and organisationa l silence among the selected respondents. The result found that the relationship was strong, positive and statistically significant (r=.51, p=.00). The null hypothesis which states that, there is no significant relationship between employee control and organisational silence was rejected while the alternate was accepted. This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05. H 2 c: There is no significant relationship between Employees’ Ownership and Organisational Silence.
Table 4: Results of bi-variate correlation between Individual Employees Ownership and Organisational Silence with descriptive analysis
Variables N Means Std. Deviation r p
Individual Employees Ownership 82 2.81 .70
Organisational Silence 82 2.49 .67 .39* .00
*p is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed). Results in table 4 above show a relationship between individual employee’s ownership and organisational silence among the selected respondents. The result found that the relationship was strong, positive and statistically significant (r=.39, p=.00). The null hypothesis which states that, there is no significant relationship between employee ownership and organisational silence was rejected while the alternate was accepted. This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05.
HYPOYTHESIS THREE: There is no significant influence of Employees Control, Appreciation and Ownership on Organisational Silence. Tables 5, 6 & 7: Results of multiple regression analyses on the influence of employee’s expectations (control, appreciation and ownership) on organisational silence.
Table 5: Model Summary
Model Summary of regression analysis
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 .552a .305 .278 .565
a. Predictors: (Constant), OWN (ownership), CNT (control), APP
(appreciation).
Table 6: ANOVA of regression analysis
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 10.923 3 3.641 11.403 .000b
Residual 24.905 78 .319
Total 35.828 81
a. Dependent Variable: OS (Organisational silence)
b. Predictors: (Constant), OWN (ownership), CNT (control), APP (appreciation)
100
Table 7: Coefficients of regression analysis
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .971 .308 3.153 .002
CNT .011 .095 .012 .114 .909
APP .394 .105 .417 3.761 .000
OWN .194 .091 .223 2.136 .036
a. Dependent Variable: Organisational Silence
Table 5, 6 and 7 above presents the result of the multiple regression that were calculated to predict the influence of employees expectation dimensions namely control, appreciation and ownership on organizational silence. A significant regression coefficient was found (F (3, 78) = 11.40, p = .00), with R2 of .30. This presupposes that 30.5% of organisational silence was explained by employees’ expectations (ownership, control and appreciation). This implies that 69.5% of the variance was explained by other variables outside the employees’ expectation indices. The rest of the variance (69.5%) may be accounted for by earlier hypothesized variables like resignation/quiescent silence, defensive/acquiescent silence and other – oriented/pro-social silence and others not yet mentioned in the literature. Similarly, of the three major indices of employees expectations to explain organisational silence, appreciation (β = .417, p value < .05, t = 3.761) is the most predictor of organisational silence in the study. This was followed by employees ownership (β = .224, p value < .05, t = 2.136), however, employees control (β = .012, p value > .05, t = .114) does not predict organisational silence in the study. This is because p value is greater than .05 which is an indication of
insignificance level while the β (.012) show a weak relationship to organisational silence.
4.1. Discussion of Findings
The study found that significant relationship exists between employees’ expectations and organizational silence. The three indices of employees’ expectation correlate with organization silence positively and significantly. The result found that the relationship was strong, positive and statistically significant (r=.55, p=.00). The influence of employees’ expectations of control, appreciation and ownership explained 30.5% of organization silence. This corroborate the finding of Brinsfield (2009) that there are many motives of silence behaviour, orientation as there are many types of organizational silence than the quiescent, acquiescent and pro-social types; passive and proactive orientation; and resignation, self- protection and other-oriented motives. All of which are purposive to check mostly reprisal. The findings revealed that employees’ expectations explain partly and strongly organization silence and a new type of organization silence can emerge therefrom.
Employees’ expectation of some level of control over the outcomes of their contribution to work related change and improvement was found to be a predictor of organizational silence. The result showed that the relationship was positive and statistically significant (r=.26, p=.02); the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05. However, the contribution of control when regressed on organization silence indicated a weak predictor and contributor to organizational silence. Employee’s control (β = .012, p value > .05, t = .114) does not predict organisational silence in the study. This is because p value is greater than .05 which is an indication of insignificance level while the β (.012) show a weak relationship to organisational silence. This can be explained by the fact that the motive for silence behaviour of employees is situational, specific and could change as situations change as found by Brinsfield (2009). The motive could be weak at a time and be strong at another. Nonetheless employees control has some degree of relationship with organization silence
Expectation of being appreciated by management for their contribution to work related improvement was found to be a predictor of organization silence. The result showed that the relationship was strong, positive and statistically significant (r=.51, p=.00); the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05. Employees’ expectation of appreciation for their contribution to organization improvement is a strong predictor of organization silence. At (β = .417, p value < .05, t = 3.761), it is the strongest predictor of organisational silence in the study. This can be explained by motivational theory of individual needs; like need for belongingness, organization citizenship and more importantly, the control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982) that stipulate input factor for behaviour. Appreciation is a preferred value (Carver& Scheier, 1982). When it is lacking, silence behaviour is strongly likely to follow. It is generally believed that individual
101
strongly desires appreciation of their efforts as employees’ psychological contract dictates (Armstrong, 2009; HR Zone, 2008). Appreciation engenders a sense of organization citizenship behaviour.
Employees’ ownership of the outcomes of their contribution to work related improvement has strong, positive and statistically significant relationship with organization silence at (r=.39, p=.00). This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05. It also has a strong predictor of organization silence (β = .224, p value < .05, t = 2.136), Humans wants to be part of what they created. When this is lacking it becomes an un-preferred value (Carver & Scheier, 1982). When the situation is compared with reference other, employees deliberately withdraws from participating in projects or will not show concerns on issues that do not border on regular work schedule. 5. Conclusions
In contributing to work related change and improvements employees expect certain benefits to accrue in terms of control, appreciation and ownership of the outcomes of the contributions. The study found that when these accrual benefits (AC) are not satisfied by the management of the organization, a non- preferred value of the situation becomes widespread among the employees. More importantly when the treatment is compared with what obtains in other climes referred to as reference others within or outside the industry. A climate of silence follows the frustration of accrual benefits. Employees are likely to deliberately and purposively withdraw from making suggestions, volunteering opinions, information and ideas, or not show concerns for and committedly participate in new projects that can transform the organization when it is not part of their regular work schedule. 5.1. Recommendation, contribution to knowledge and suggestions for future studies
In finding solutions to the climate of organization silence, organization management in both the public and private sectors should systematically identify the reasons for organization silence among their employees. Identify the expectations of the employees from their contributions and concerns for change and organization improvement, to motivate them to continually bring their organizational knowledge, skills and ability to bear on organizational change and improvement .Organization management, business owners and consultants should note that organization silence is beyond resignation to inability to influence anything by the employees (passivity/apathy) fear of reprisal (defensive), the need to protect others’ wrong doing or that of the organization (other oriented, whistle blowing) and the issue of power distance culture as demonstrated more in Africa and Asian countries (the boss know best and should take all decisions (Umar & Hassan, 2013). Attention should be paid to employees’ expectations (self-oriented) as potent factor in motivating organization silence.
The study contributed to knowledge as it serves as new perspective to the studying of organization silence. The study is one of the first, if not the first to look at employees’ expectations as predictors of organizational silence. A new motive of organizational silence: self-oriented motive has been added to the existing motives. Also, accrual benefits type of silence has been established with the corresponding scales for measuring employees’ expectations and the accrual benefit type of organizational silence.
It is suggested that researchers should explore other motives for silence behaviour in organization. It is also suggested that researchers should seek how employees’ expectations relate with various organization outcomes like satisfaction, turnover intention, performance and commitment.
References 1. Akbarian, A., Ansari, M.E., Sharem, A & Keshtiaray (2013). Effect of silence on employee performance. Management
Research Report, 3(3), 301-304. 2. Armstrong, M. (2009). Armsrong’s handbook of human resources. London: Kogan Page 3. Bagheri, G., Zarei, R., & Nik Aeen, M. (2012). Organizational silence. Ideal Type of Management, 1(1), 47-58. 4. Beheshtifar, M.,.Borhani, H. & Moghadam M.N. (2012). Destructive role of employee’s silence in organizational success.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(11), 275-282. 5. Blickle, G. & Witziki, A.(2006). New psychological contracts in the world of work: Economic citizens or victims of the
market; the situation in Germany. Society and Business Review, 3(2), 149-161. 6. Brinsfield, C.T. (2009). Employee silence: Investigation of dimensionality, measures and examination of related matters;
A Doctor of Philosophy degree dissertation: Ohio University. 7. Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2008). Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality- social, clinical, and
health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-135. 8. Dacsi, E. & Cemaloglu, (2016). The development of organizational silence scale: validity- reliability study. International
Journal of Human Science, 13(1), 33-44. 9. Deniz, N., Noyan, A., & Ertozun, O.G, (2013). The relationship between employee silence and organizational
commitment in a private health care company. Procedia- Social and Behaviour Science, 99, 691-700. 10. Entezari, A. (2014). Explain destructive role of organization silence and ways out of this matter. AENSI Journal of
Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(7), 857-862. 11. Garzmeh, M., Farmani, H.& Sedaghat, H, (2014). The relationship between organizational silence with silence
behaviour of employees. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4(S4), 4079-4084. 12. HR Zone (2008). Managing the ‘psychological contract’ Retrieved 25/08/2008.
102
13. Karaca, H. (2013). An exploratory study on the impact of organization silence in hierarchical organizations: Turkish national police case. European Scientific Journal, 9(23), 38-50.
14. Mengenci, C. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of organization fear and silence behaviour in Criena service sector from Turkey. International Business Research, 8(5), 223-230.
15. Morrison, W.E .& Millikens, E.J. (2000). Organization Silence: a barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 5(1) 706-725.
16. Morrison, W.E. & Millikens, E.J (2003).Speak up remain silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organization. Journal of Management Studies 40 (6) 1353-1358
17. Nikmaram, S., Yamchi, H.G,.Shojaii, S., Zahrani, M.A., Alvani, .M. (2012). Study on relationship between organization silence and commitment in Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(10), 1271-1277.
18. Pinder, C.C. &Harlos, K.P.(2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 30, 331- 369.
19. Seyyed, M.M. & Arezoo, M. (2014). The effect of perceived justice and organizational silence on organizational commitment. International Review of Management and Business Research, 3(1), 1773- 1780.
20. Tangirala, S. & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issue. The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37-68
21. Umar, M. & Hassan, Z.(2013). Antecedents and outcomes of voice and silence behaviours of employees of tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Procedia-Social and behavioural sciences, 97, 183-193.
22. Vakola M., & Bouradas, D. (2005).Antecedents and consequences of organization silence: An empirical investigation. Emerald Employees’ Relations, 27(5), 441-458).
23. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. & Botero, I. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multi dimensional construct. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1-34.
24. Yildiz, E. (2013). Enigma of silence in organization: what happens to whom and why. Beykert University Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 30-44.