The employee intentional retention of opinions, ideas and information in an organization is known as [600158]

ABSTRACT

The employee intentional retention of opinions, ideas and information in an organization is known as
employee silence. Recent studies have noted the complexity and importance of studying employee
silence as an autonomous and distinct construct from others like voice, loyalty or neglect. As an
multidimensional construct we identified Dyne, Ang and Botero (2003) and Knoll and Dick (2013)
measures as the ones more used to measure this construct although they reflect different approached
to it. The present study aims to compare those measures and relate them with turnover intentions in
order to define which scale presents a better fit and reflects the nature of employee silence as a
multidimensional construct. We analyzed data collected from a survey completed by 303 participants.
Dyne et al. (2003) proposal presented more consistent results and the results suggested that employee
silence is a bidimensional construct. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are
discussed.
Keywords: Employee Silence; Turnover Intentions; Measur

1

The Employee Silence in Organizations: A contribution to it measure

Abstract
The employee intentional retention of opinions, ideas and information in an
organization is known as employee silence . Recent studies have noted the complexity and
importance of studying employee silence as an autonomous and distinct construct from others
like voice, loyalty or neglect. As an multidimensional construct we identified Dyne, Ang and
Botero (2003) and Knoll and Dick (2013) measures as the ones more used to measure this
construct although they reflect different approached to it. The present study aims to compare
those measures and relate them with turnover intentions in order to define which scale
presents a better fit and reflects the nature of employee silence as a multidimensional
construct. We analyzed data collected from a survey completed by 303 participants. Dyne et
al. (2003) proposal present ed more consistent results and the results s uggest ed that employee
silence is a bidimensional construct . Theoretical and practical implications of these findings
are discussed.
Keyw ords: Employee Silence; Turnover Intentions; Measure ; Dyne, Ang and Botero
(2003); Knoll and Dick (2013)

Introduction
The intentional retention of information by an employee in an organization is known
as employee silence (Dyne, Ang and Botero, 2003; Brinsfield, 2013 ), and its study has been
increasing, with a growing tendency to study this phenomenon as independent from other
constructs (Knoll and Dick, 2013; Brinsfield, 2014) . More classical approaches have been

2

used to study employee silence in a direct association with other constructs such as voice,
loyalty or whistleblowing (e.g., Hirschman, 1970; Farrell, 1983) . This development of the
topic has been characterized to a great er extent by more conceptual approaches ( e.g., Dyne et
al., 2003; Knoll, Wegge, Unterrainer , Silva and Jønsson , 2016 ), with a lower incidence of
empirical studies that consider the construct internal nature ( e.g., Knoll and Dick, 2013;
Hsiung and Yang, 2015 ). This apparent imbalance between conceptual and empirical studies
may be explained by the difficulty in measuring the intention of the employee to remain silent
and / or the ability to effectively retain important information . It can be said that , historically ,
silence has been understood as the opposite of the voice or as a manifestation of loyalty or
negligence, with the tendency to analyse these constructs to understand the motives of the
silence of collaborators (Knoll et al, 2016) . However, in line with recent approaches, there has
already been an effort to try to measure and analyse the nature of silence as an autonomous,
independent, co mplex and multidimensional construct (e.g., Dyne et al, 2003; Knoll and Dick,
2013) .
In this attempt to understand the specific motives for silence, some studies proposed
scales that measured the nature and multidimensionality of the construct (e.g., Dyne et al,
2003; Knoll and Dick, 2013) . We identified the existence of different models explaining the
silence, more specifically , two studies that proposed a scale to measure employee silence as a
multidimensional and autonomous construct . The first scale was suggested by Van Dyne et al .
(2003) , where the authors proposed a theoretical model that characterize d silence as a three –
factors construct ( acquiescent , defensive and prosocial) and then propose d an instrument that
reflect ed these three components . The authors did not validate empirically the proposed scale.
Nevertheless, this scale has already been used in different studies (e.g., Deni z, Noyan and
Ertosan, 2013; Rhee, Dedahanov and Lee, 2014 ; Sabino, 2015; Acaray and Akturan , 2015;
Fatima, Ilyas, Rehman and Inram, 2017 ) with different results ; thus, we conclude a need to re-

3

evaluate it. The second scale was proposed by Knoll and Dick (2003) and consider s the
studies of Pinder and Harlos (2001), which conceptualized employee silence as a
bidimensional concept , and Van Dyne et al. (2003) prosocial silence and add a fourth
dimensi on, which the authors called opportunist silence . The authors publish ed the article
with the proposal and validation of the sc ale, relating it to the turnover intentions construct
among other constructs . Although the work of Knoll and Dick (2003) presents an empirical
validation of the proposed scale , as well as a fourth dimension of silence, there has been a
greater predominance of the use of the scale of Dyne et al. (2003) .
The present article aims to 1) compare the psychometric qualities of the scales of Dyne
et al. (2003) and of Knoll and Dick (2013) of employee silence , 2) study each scale as a
predictor of turnover intentio ns, and 3) identify the scale that best aggregates an
understanding of the nature of the construct, both conceptually and empirically .

Employee Silence
The behaviour of individuals in organizations has been a topic of study at different
levels ( e.g., Hirschman, 1970; Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin, 2003). More particularly,
phenomena based on how individuals communicate with one another in the context of work
stand out. Since the 2000 s, the study of employee communication has reached a new level
with the development of studies on silence as an independent construct. Up to this point ,
silence was understood as a facet of other constructs , such as voice, loyalty or neglect. To
mark these phases of construct development, Brinsfield, Edwards and Greenberg (200 9)
proposed a state -of-the-art analysis based on three distinct phases, each of which mirrors a
specific theoretical orientation for understanding the origin and nature of the silence .

4

First Phase – From 1970 to 1980
The first phase of silence studies st arted with Hirschman ’s (1970) ExitVoiceLoyalty
(EVL ) model and lasted until the 1980s. Other theories appeared to identif y silence in a very
superficial way ( e.g., Rosen and Tesser, 1970; Bruneau, 1973 and Noelle -Neumann, 1974).
In 1970, Hirschman analysed the type of individuals' responses when a given situation
caused their satisfaction to decline . This analysis showed two alternative answers. Either
individuals chose to break the relationship that caused dissatisfaction – exit – or they chose to
try to solve it through a pro -social response that the author called voice. The author also
studied another possible answer, of a more subjective and difficult conceptualization – loyalty
– which corresponds to believing that the relatio nship will improve naturally without taking
measures to change it. The model proposed by Hirschman (1970) , called the EVL model, is
actual ly still used i n different research areas (Donaghey and Cullinane, 2011; Dowding and
John, 2012 ). Concerning his approach to silence, t he author does not deepen what silence is
but subordinate s it to loyalty. Later, Rusbult and Farrell (1983) adapted this approach by
proposing an orthogonal two -axis, constructive / destructive and passive / active model and
four resp onses – the EVLN (ExitVoiceLoyaltyNeglect) Model – composed of the three
responses presented above and a fourth, neglect , which is associated with silence, and this
construct can be understood as passive (retention of information) but with a more destructi ve
nature. Knoll et al. (2016) revisited this more traditionalist conception by positioning silence
as a strategy that can assume different conceptions starting from the notion that the individual
can be destructive / passive, destructive / active or constructive / passive. In the same year ,
Monzani, Braun and Dick (2016) adopted this perspective , identifying neglect, exit and
loyalty as forms of silence .

5

Second Phase – From 1980 to 2000
The second phase of silence studies is characterized by the emergence of a set of
studies that b egin to address silence in a more independent way, but not as a totally
autonomous concept.
Graham and Keeley (1992) propose an orthogonal model , where one of the axes refers
to the maint enance or alteration of the status quo. Silence is then noted as the individual's
effort to maintain the status quo in a situation of permanence or exit from the organization.
The approach of Kolarska and Aldrich (1980) is also based on the individual's de cision to use
or not use the exit strategy followed by the voice strategy. In this case, silence is understood
as 'staying in silence' , associated with Hirschman's loyalty (1970) , or with the 'quiet exit' ,
parallel to Graham and Keelly's (1992) exit.
Other redundant constructs, such as whistleblowing (Miceli, Near and Dworkin , 2008 )
or organizational citizenship , as a phenomenon of information protection and employee
tolerance in their relationship with the organization, may be indicative of silence, later
developed as prosocial silence (Dyne et al., 2003) or adhesion silence (Sabino, 2015).
Third Phase – From 2000
The third phase is where silence becomes understood as an autonomous construct and
independent of the voice, loyalty and other already identified constructs. It is the phase that
seeks to perceive the nature of the construct per se, its antecedents and consequents. In this
sense, Knoll et al. (2016) advances with a conceptual proposal of a comprehensive model of
antecedents and co nsequent s of silence and / or voice. The importance of studying this
construct autonomously is noted by the publication of three special issues that looked for a

6

better understanding of employee silence ( e.g., Journal of Management Studies, 2003; Human
Relations, 2010; Human Resource Management, 2011). It should be noted that since 2000 ,
authors have started to distinguish organizational and employee silence. Thus, organizational
silence is understood as a collective phenomenon of i nformation retention (Morrison and
Milliken, 2000), while employee silence, a perspective adopted in this article, has a more
individual orientation in relation to the organization based on the individual who deliberately
and consciously chooses to retain opinions, ideas, and information ( e.g., Pinder & Harlos
2001, Van Dyne et al., 2003). However, in 2016 , Knoll et al. noted that for a better
understanding of the theme, a multi -level approach to silence could help us understand its
nature in the sense that silence occurs at di fferent levels (organizational, team, and
individual) , so all the levels and how they relate should be tak en into account .
The aim of the present paper is to create a better understanding of employee silence .
Thus, it is important to identify some authors who present proposals of conceptualizations o f
the nature of this construct.
Pinder and Harlos (2001) present ed a conceptual study where they consider employee
silence as a dual construct , emphasizing that its two -dimensions do not mean that silence is
positive or negative but that silence has two distinct faces, one oriented to fear -based silence
(silence q uiescence) and another for the resignation -based silence (silence a cquiescence).
Additionally, Wang and Hsieh (2013) note that employee silence can be bidimensional , not in
the line of Pinder and Harlos (2001) but as beneficial or detrim ental to organizations.
Later, Dyne et al. (2003) presented a conceptual study and proposed a scale to measure
employee silence components , where they study voice and silence, defining the latter as the
individual's decision to retain important information for the organization. For Dyne et al .
(2003) , this decision can be motivated by three distinct factors or motives . If the indiv idual's

7

motive is resignation and the general nature of behaviour is more passive, then there is an
acquiescent silence. If the general nature of behaviour is active and wants to protect himself,
then the silence will be defensive in nature (defensive sile nce). On the other hand, if the
individual's main motivation is cooperation with the organization, then his silence will be
based on cooperation (prosocial silence) . The authors proposed a scale that reflected the three –
dimensional nature of the construct but did not apply it empirically. Other reseachers later
applied that scale or adapted it to their research motives .
In the line of Dyne et al. (2003), Knoll and Dick (2013) also presented a proposal
where they consider this construct to be multidimensional, composed of 4 dimensions. The
first two refer to Pinder and Harlos ’ (2001) proposal , the third refers to the proso cial silence
of Dyne et al. (2003) , and a fourth dimension was added , which they call opportunistic
silence . For Knoll and Dick (2013) opportunistic silence is based on the retention of
information motivated by the maintenance of the status quo and his own individual earnings.
Knoll and Dick (2013) present ed two distinct studies, the first concerning scale development
and the second scale validation.
Taking into account that the scale of Dyne et al. (2003) and the scale of Knoll and
Dick (2013) allow us to identify and measure the different natures of employee silence , and
because they are the most used scales , we decided to compar e them in order to identify the
one that has a better empirical an d theoretical fit.

Dyne et al.’s (2003) Measure
As already identified, Dyne et al. (2003) proposed a measure that reflected the three –
factor nature of employee silence, as presented below (see Figure 1 ). It should be noted that

8

the authors approach silence and voice as autonomous but parallel constructs ; thus, they
consider that they have identical structures – defensive, acquiescent and prosocial.
Insert Figure 1 Around Here
For employee silence, t he authors proposed a scale composed of 15 items – 5 for each
dimension, as shown in the following table (see Table 1 ).
Insert Table 1 Around Here
The authors proposed a rating scale of 7 items. The Dyne et al. ’s (2003) employee
silence scale has been widely used and adapted according to the research objectives proposed
by different r esearchers.
Rhee et al. ( 2014) used the scale of Dyne et al. (2003) in a study on relationships
among power distance, collectivism, punishment, and a multidimensional construct of sile nce.
The three dimensions of the employee silence scale show ed a good Cronbach ’s  and
composite reliability (CR) – acquiescent silence (  = .84; CR = .722), defensive silence (  =
.81; CR = .778), and prosocial silence (  = .80; CR = .758 ). The correlations between
employee silence factors were not significant.
In 2015, Sabino carried out a study on the mediating role of employee silence in the
relationship between organizational commitment and exit, voice and neglect based on Dyne et
al.’s (2003) proposal . The results showed a two -dimensional struct ure, which the author
named rejection silence (acquiescent silence and defensive silence) and adhesion silence
(prosocial silence). The two silences , rejection silence (  = .83; CR = .99) and adhesion
silence ( = .72; CR = .98) , present a negative and significant correlation ( r = -25, p<.01 ).
Additionally, in 2015 , Acaray and Akturan used the scale of Dyne et al. (2003) in their
study on the relationship between employee silence and organizational citizenship behaviours .

9

The internal consisten ce was considered good for the three types of employee silence –
acquiescent silence (  = .84), defensive silence (  = .79) and prosocial silence (  = .72). The
results also showed a high correlation (r = .63 , p <.01) between acquiescent silence and
defensiv e silence , which may be indicative of Sabino's (2015) dimension of rejection silen ce.
Some authors , such as Deniz, Noyan and Ertosan (2013) or Fatima, Ilyas, Rehman and
Inram (2017) , have chosen to adapt the initial and three -dimensional Dyne et al. (2003 )
proposal. Deniz et al. (2013) studied t he relationship between e mployee silence and
organizational commitment , having adapted the initial Dyne et al. (2003) scale and added a
fourth dimension , which they called protective silence (Briensfield , Edwards and Greenberg ,
2009; Alarpasan, 2010). The results reveal ed moderate correlations between the dimensions
of silence as well as internal consistence : defensive silence ( = .79), a cquiescent silence ( =
.87), prosocial s ilence ( = .81) and p rotective silence ( =. 61). Although the correlations
between factors were significant , they were not high. Fatima et al. (2017) developed a study
about the relation between o stracism and employee silence and used items of defensive
silence ( = .96; CR = .85) and a cquiescent silence ( = .97; CR = .86) from Dyne et al.
(2003) an d added 5 items related to d iffident silence ( = .87; CR = .84) , proposed by
Brinsfield (2013). It should be noted that the correlation between defensive silence and
acquiescent silence is very high and significant (r = .94, p <.01) similar to rejection sil ence as
proposed by Sabino (2015).
Dedahanov and Rhee (2015) have chosen to use only the dimensions of silence that
negatively influence organizations using defensive silence ( = .85; CR = .77) and
acquiescent s ilence ( = .84; CR = .75) used by Dyne et al . (2003) (r = .07, p <.05).
In a study of the cross -level effects of procedural justice climate on employee silence,
Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) adapted five items from Dyne et al .’s (2003) employee

10

silence scale in a 5 -point rating scale and considered silence as a unidimensional construct
(= .82). Two studies based on Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) were identified. In 2016,
Huang and Huang studied the interactional justice and empl oyee s ilence moderated by the
procedural justice and a ffect, obtaining an internal consistence of .83. He, Peng, Zhao and
Estay (2017) analysed the compulsory citizenship behaviour as an antecedent of employee
silence. The authors used a moderated and m ediation model based on moral disengagement
and supervisor -subordinate guanxi v iews, obtaining an  of .87. Additionally, Elçi, Erdilek,
Alpkanc and Șenerd (2014) studied the mediating role of mobbing in the relationship between
organizational silence and turnover i ntentions , starting from the initial proposal of Dyne et al.
(2003) but treating the construct as unidimensional . The authors concluded that silence
precedes turnover intentions.

Knoll and Dick (2013) Measure
In 2013, Knoll and Dick proposed a scale based on the conceptualizations of Pinder
and Harlos (2001) and Dyne et al. (2003) and added a fourth dimension , which they called
opportunistic silence based on "with holding of information to achieve advantages for
themselv es" (Knoll & Dick, 2002, p.351). They carried out two studies in the university
context ( working student s). In the first study , they developed and proposed a measure to
capture the distinctness of each form of employee silence. In the second study , they validated
that measure and analysed the values concerning their antecedents, correlates and
consequences. Concerning the measures develop ed in the study , 1 of the authors propose d an
instrument composed of 20 statements , which are presented below (see table 2) , in a rating
scale of 7 points (1=totally disagree and 7= totally agree) .
Insert Table 2 Around Here

11

They conducted EFA followed by the CFA to obtain a structure composed of four
dimensions presenting a good fit (CFI = .95; RMSEA = .87). Other models were tested as
one-dimensional, two -dimensional and three -dimensional , but they presented worse fits. No
reliability values are presented for study 1. The authors present the final items (bold in the
table 2) and test ed the final model in study 2. In the second study , silence was analysed ,
taking into account its antecedents , correlates and consequents. The authors did not present
the CFA results , but rather , Cronbach ’s  for each dimension – defensive silence ( = .89),
acquiescent silence ( = .88), prosocial s ilence (= .82) and opportunistic s ilence ( = .80).
There is also a high correlation between d efensive silence and acquiescent s ilence (r=.61, p
<.01) and between defensive silence and opportunistic silence (r=.55, p <.01) . These results
are in the line of Sabino (2015), Rhee et al., (2014) and Fatima (2017). Additionally, the
correlation s between the dimensions of silence are always positive, unlike in studies such as
Sabino (2015) , which identify a negative correlation between defensive silence or a cquiescent
silence and prosocial s ilence. The authors also concluded , "we predicted acquiescent silence
and quiescent silence to be positively related to turnover intentions. As can be seen i n Table 2,
this assumption is confi rmed by our data. Surprisingly, both pros ocial and opportunistic
silence s were positively related to turnover intention, too." (Knoll & Dick, 2013, p. 357).
Additionally, also in 2013, the authors re -applied the scale and obtained different results in
relation to the correlations between the dimensions. The Cronbach ’s  results remain similar –
defensive s ilence ( = .90), a cquiescent silence ( = .89), prosocial s ilence ( = .89) and
opportunistic silence ( = .74). The correlation between defensive s ilence and acquiescent
silence is not high (r =.47, p <.01) , nor is that between d efensive silence and opportunistic
silence (r = .44, p <.01). In terms of participants, there are n o major changes , since they are
both "employees enrolled in a distance education psychology programme at a German
university" (Knoll and Dick, 2013 a, p.353).

12

No further studies using the approach proposed by Knoll and Dick (2013) were identified.
Therefore, the present study aims to compare the psychometric results of the two scales
studied here as well as their antecedence in relation to turnover intention.

Method
Sample and Procedure
Like Knoll and Dick ’s (2013, 2013b) studies , the present survey data were also
collected from students, in this case, several higher education organizations in Portugal. The
sample comprised 303 students who studied social sciences . Two-wave panel designs involve
assessing the different measures (2 employee silen ce scales plus the t urnover intentions) on
the same group of respondents at two points in time. At time 1, paper and pencil survey s with
Knoll & Dick (2013) employee silence scale and Bozeman & Perrewé (2001) turnover
intention s cale were distributed , and later at time 2 , we distributed a second paper and pencil
survey with the Dyne et al. (2003) employee silence scale and control variables. We took
several procedural precautions recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff
(2003) to minimize com mon method biases. To increase respondent candidness, we presented
the respondents with detailed information about the precautions taken to ensure
confidentiality of their individual responses. To decrease respondent evaluation apprehension,
in the instruct ions, we explicitly assured the respondents that there were no right or wrong
answers to the measures in the survey.
The m ean age was 23.7 (SD=.86) , ranging from 18 to 75 years. Seven ty percent were
woman. Forty pe rcent of the participants were working , and thirty percent were studying for
their Master ’s Degree.

13

Measures
Participants responded to all items using a 7 -point Likert scale from 1 ( totally
disagree ) to 7 ( totally agree ).
Employee Silence. We used the 15 -item scale developed by Dyne et al. (2003) to assess the
three forms of employee silence (defensive silence, a cquiescent silence and pros ocial silence)
and the 20 -item scale developed by Knoll and Dick (2013) in study 1 to assess the f our forms
of employee silence (defensive s ilence, acquiescent silence, prosocial silence and
opportunistic silence)
Turnover Intentions. It was noted that turnover intention is identified as a consequence of
silence (Knoll et al. , 2016), and has been studied r elated to the two scales compared herein
(Knoll & Dick, 2013; Elçi et al., 2014), so we chose to use this construct to measure the
influence of employee silence on turnover intentions. We used a 4 -item unidimensional scale
developed by Bozeman and Perrewé (2001).

Results
Two different statistical software packages were used to analyse our data: SPSS 22
and LISREL 9.3. This phase has undergone a diversified set of steps , and it is important to
emphasize the flexibility in the options for a deeper analysi s of the factorial structure of the
two scales under study, as well as the turnover intentions.
We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to test different variations of the
forms of employee silence with empirically distinct dimensions. The tested models underwent
a set of revision s determined by theoretical and statistical criteria (Hair, Black, Babin,

14

Anderson, a nd Tatham, 2006; Salgueiro, 2012 ; Maroco, 2010). Regarding the first criterion,
we opted to t est models whose dimensions could be supported theoretically and substantively.
Regarding the statistical criteria, the analysis of the models considered the indicators of
goodness of fit (RMSEA≤0.7; GFI ≥0.9; CFI≥0.9; ϰ² / df≤3; < model AIC). The analysis also
considered the elimination of items that had factor loadings lower than 0.6, with high
modification rates (Ha ir et al., 2006; Salgueiro, 2012 ; Maroco, 2010). In addition, since the
present study has an exploratory design , we conducted explorat ory fact or analyses (AFE) for
the employee silence measures , with a maximum likelihood estimation ( maximu m likelihood)
with oblique rotation Promax. The same criteria for eliminating items were adopted.
After identif ying the final model for the two employee silence measures, it is also
important to compare their reliability and discriminant validity. The reliability of
measurement refers to how well the items for one construct mo ve together ( Hair et al., 2006 ).
Reliabilit y is typically tested using two distinct indicators and their reference values:
Cronbach’s alpha ( ≥ .70) and composite reliability (CR≥ .70) are considered highly (Hair et
al., 2006). Discriminant validity is defined as the extent to which a construct is distinct from
other constructs (Hair et al., 2006). Discriminant validity can be demonstrated with the
average variance extracted (AVE ≥ .50).

Dyne et al.’s (2003 ) Scale
We tested 4 different models that concerned the relation to the theory and to EFA. The
results are show n in table 3 .
Insert Table 3 Around Here

15

In Model 1 – the three -factor model – there is a high correlation between a cquiescent
silence and defensive s ilence (r = 1, p <.00) , which suggests that the two dimensions measure
the same thing (e.g., Rhee et al., 2014; Sabino, 2015; Fatima et al., 2017) . It was decided to
test Model 4 – the one -factor model (without prosocial items) – because the factor loadings of
prosocial s ilence items were < .05. The results suggest ed that the model that has the best fit is
Model 2 – the two -factor model . Rejection silence (RS) comprise s acquiescent and defensive
silence , and adhesion silence (AS) is composed of prosocial si lence items. Thus, the results
indicate the two -dimensionality of the construct (see figure 2 and table 4) .
Insert Figure 2 Around Here
The items that comprise the final Dyne et al. (2003) model are as follows :
Insert Table 4 Around Here
Knoll and Dick (2003) Scale
Five different models were tested, and the revised models were mainly justified because the
dimensions presented high correlations between them. The table 5 with the results is
presented below. The model that presents the best fit is Model 4 – the two -factor model ,
which, in line with the results obtained with the scale of Dyne et al. (2003) that identifies
employee silence as a two -dimensional constru ct, is composed of the components a cquiescent
silence and opportunistic silence, called r ejection silence (RS) , and a second composed of
prosocial silence called a dhesion silence (AS) .
Insert Table 5 Around Here
Although the correlation between dimensions is high, in this context , it is not
significant (p=.436) (see figure 3) .
Insert Figure 3 Around Here

16

The final items correspond to the model that best adjusts (see table 6) .
Insert Table 6 Around Here
Comparing the two -factor employee silence final model, as shown in tabl e 7, the
results between the two scales are very similar , although the Knoll and Dick (2013) rejection
silence Cronbach ’s  is lower than expected.
Insert Table 7 Around Here
Turnover Intentions
We conducted a CFA where the one factor -model indicated a perfect fit where the model is
saturated. Other reliability and discriminant validity are also parameters (=.77; CR=.98;
AVE=.98) (see figure 4) .
Insert Figure 4 Around Here
Employee Silence and Turnover Intentions
Table 8 presents an overview of the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations between
the two employee silence components from the two scales that we are comparing and turnover
intentions .
Insert Table 8 Around Here
Analyzing the descriptive analysis the results suggests low levels of turnover
intentions and silence. The results also indicate a significant correlation between the similar
dimensions in the two scales. Adhesion silence in the Dyne et al. ( 2003 ) and Knoll and Dick
(2013) scale is r = .195, p >.01. Rejection silence in the Dyne et al. (2003 ) and Knoll and Dick
(2013) scale is r=.495, p>.01. It is also important to note the positive and significant
correlation between the two factor s in the Knoll and Dick (2013) scale (r=.574, p>.01).

17

However th e correlation between the employee silence dimensions in Dyne et al. (2003) scale
is not significant. Concerning the associations between the forms of employee silence and the
turnover intentions , the results showed only a significant and negative correlat ion between the
adhesion silence and the turnover intentions (r= -.174, p>.01).
We used structural equation modelling (SEM) to test the effect of the two forms of employee
silence and the turnover intentions in each scale . Concerning the Dyne et al. (2003) scale, the
structural modal has a good fit (RMSEA=.066; GFI=.955; CFI=1; ϰ²/df= .9), and we found a
negative and significant effect of adhesion silence on the turnover intentions (path
coefficient= -.24, p>.01) , whereas the rejection silence does not have any effect on turnover
intentions (path coefficient=.06, p<.01) . When we use the Knoll and Dick (2003) employee
silence scale , the structural model has a better fit (RMSEA=.056; GFI=.96; CFI=1; ϰ²/df=.7) ,
although the resul ts do not confirm the influence of the two forms of employee silence and
turnover intentions (path coefficient SA -TI=-.05, p<.01; path coefficient RS -TI=.13, p<.01).

Discussion
The present study was based on the recent attention paid to employee silence as an
independent and autonomous construct of others, such as voice, loyalty or neglect , where
individuals decide to retain important information due to different motives. Thus , we tried to
revisit its theoretical conceptualization and practical applicabil ity with an analysis of the
theoretical and management implications. Two scales were identified to measure this
construct from a multidimensional point of view . The first was conceptually presented by
Dyne et al. (2003) , where the authors proposed a three -dimensional structure of silence. It is
the most -used scale to measure this construct ; however, it is not always used in a three -factor
construct because authors have adapted it, adding, removing or joining employee silence

18

dimensions. As a consequence, results appear more variable, and there is some difficulty in
understanding the nature of the construct. The second scale follows the conceptual studies of
Pinder and Harlos (2001) and Dyne et al. (2003) and proposes a f actorial structure composed
of four factors . It should be noted that although the scale is based on the conceptualization of
Dyne et al. (2003) , the items have very different characteristics. In addition, we identified that
while the authors developed and validated the measure and did not propose it from a
conceptual point of view, such as Dyne et al. (2003) did, there are very few empirically
studies that have opted to use this scale. In fact, we did not find any studies published by other
authors that used Knoll and Dick ’s (2003) measure.
Therefore, the present article aims to compare the two scales and adding value to the
employee silence construct, and proposing a more adjusted measure as well as a
conceptualization o f employee silence that reflects autonomous, complex nature and
independ ence.
The first aspect to highlight is still not related to the comparison of employee silence
measures but to the conceptualization of silence as a single or multidimensional construct.
Knoll and Dick (2013, p.350) note that "conceptualizing silence as a unidimensional concept
could ignore important differences in employee motivation to withhold critical information,
accompanying organizational circumstances , and consequences." The authors developed this
topic , emphasizing that the use of this construct as a unidimensional concept can be an
impediment to understand ing why and when employees choose to retain relevant information.
Additionally, other authors such as Dyne et al. (2003), Pinder and Harlos (2001) or
Briensfield et al. (2009) adopt this perspective. Empirically, both scales revealed lower fit s
when test ing one-factor models. This result is in line with the existing literature, where
employee silence should be considered as a multidimensional construct , revealing that

19

individual silence can be explain ed in different ways. However, the question remains: If
employee silence is multidimensional , how it is composed? Which different silences exist?
In an attempt to answer the above questions , we compared Dyne et al. (2003) and
Knoll and Dick (2013) measures , and in a more superficial analysis , the results have
similarities, but it is important to highlight in what aspects the measures differ from each
other . Both the initial models and those proposed by t he authors did not present adequate fit s,
and an analysis on revised models was necessary for the two measures . From these analyses ,
for the two measures , a two -dimensional solution was reached that leads us to two different
forms of silence. These results are in line with Sabino ’s (2015) study , which used Dyne et
al.’s (2003) measure. The author reached to a two-factor structure that suggest s that silence
can be understood as the retention of important information to the organization that is
motivated by two factors. On the one hand, the destructive factor derives from the
relationships of individuals with their organizations. These factors may include resignation,
fear and self -submission to the organization or the defensive, acquiescent or opportunistic
motives that underlie the Dyne et al. (2003) and the Knoll and Dick (2013) silence.
Furthermore, in this case, a silent type of rejection from the individual to his organization is
encapsulated , so the author termed it, ‘rejection silence ’. The other component involves
factors that result in the approval and consent of individuals towards the organization and
work group. Thus, the individual opts to remain silent out of wanting to cooperate with the
organization , protect it or even because he is being prosocial . In this case, one is faced with
adhesion silence , which is potentially associated with phenomenons of groupthink.
The option for naming the two components of silence as adhesion and rejection silence
interr elates not only with their characteristics, as discussed above, but also with the
etymology of the chosen words. Thus, we chose two words that, in their origins, reflect the
nature of the respective conceptual silences. Hence, the rejection silence traces its origins to

20

the word REJECTION , from the Latin reicere , "shoot back", formed by re-, “back”, and
jacere , “play, throw”. Therefore, this rejection appears to mean "shoot back" within the scope
of the Portuguese saying , “throw behind our back ”, meaning the person does not care, wants
to forget, or does not want to face up to somethi ng. Meanwhile, the word adhesion comes
from the Latin ADHAERERE, " unite , join", formed by AD, “a”, and HAERERE, "Stick to,
unite, to stick together ”. In this sense, t his conveys the way in which individual s seek to stick
to the organization, to stay with it, or to belong to it. Theoretically , we found different
references to the potential employee silence bidimensionality. Pinder and Harlos (2001)
proposed two differen t forms of silence. Wang and Hsieh (2013) noted that employee silence
can be beneficial or harmful to organizations . Dedahanov and Rhee (2016) only studied
defensive and acquiescent silence because , in their sense , those are the forms that negatively
influence organizations , whereas prosocial silence positively influence s organizations.
Continuing the comparison of the measures , it is verified that in the scale of Dyne et
al. (2003) , the results suggest that the di mensions are not related , whereas the correlation table
presents a positive and significant association between the two types of silence in Knoll and
Dick (2013) proposal . Given that adhesion silence reflects the individual's identification with
the organization and that the rejection reflects denial , one would expect a non -significant or
negative correlation between dimensions. However, we found other studies where positive /
constructive and negative / destructive forms of silence have positive and significant
associations ( e.g., Deniz, 2013) . In face of these results this topic need further attention.
Concerning the relation with turnover intentions , the results of Dyne et al. ’s (2003)
measur e are more aligned with previous studies where there is an influence of silence, in this
case, adhesion silence with turnover intentions. Knoll and Dick ’s (2013) measure did not note
a significant effect of employee silence on turnover intentions.

21

In terms of participant feedback, the y identified Dyne et al. ’s (2003) measure as easier
to respond to, whereas participants identified difficulty in understanding some items of the
Knoll and Dick (2013) measure.
In light of these results , we propose the u se of the Dyne et al. ’s (2003) measure with a
two-factor structure that reflects the double forms of employee silence – a silence that reveals
the cooperation and protection of the individual from his/her organizations , and the other
employee silence that comprises individual rejection and fear of the consequences and
disengagement from his/her organization.
Limitations and Future Research
The present study also has limitations. The first one concerns the chosen sample.
Although Knoll and Dick (2003) also used students, a sample composed of full-time workers
could present us with other result s. Nonetheless, Sabino studied employee silence (Sabino,
2015) in a sample of private and public employee s and reached similar conclusions
concerning Dyne et al. ’s (2003) measure . In future research , we propose to validate the Dyne
et al. (2003) two-factor scale on working participants.
The different results found in the different studies referenced in the present paper
make it harder to establish the construct from a theoretical and empirical perspective. One
potential expla nation could be the impact of culture (Hofstede , 2001) , such as on the country
and / or organizatio n scale, on employee silence ; thus, we propose some future research about
this phenomenon.
Research and Practical Implications
Some research implications of the present study are a better knowledge of two
measures of employee silence and which scale could present researchers with more consistent

22

results in future studies. Some practical implications can also be derived from the present
study. From a managerial perspective, if managers understand that employee silence needs to
be taken into account and that it needs to be interpreted as intentional employee behaviour ,
this study could help them to notice that employees stay silent for two major reasons –
cooperation and rejection ; thus, they could act accordingly.

References
Acaray, A. and Akturan, A. 2015. “The Relationship between Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour and Organizational Silence”. Procedia: Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 207: 472 – 482
Bozeman, D. and Perrewé, P. 2001. “The effect of item content overlap on
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire –turnover cognitions relationships”. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86 (1): 161-173.
Brinsfield, C. 2013. “Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and
development of measures ”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34: 671 –697
Brinsfield, C. 2014. “Employee voice and silence in organizational behavior”. In
Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T., Freeman, R. (eds). Handbook of Research on
Employee Voice. EE. USA
Brinsfield , C. T., Edwards, M. S., and Greenberg, J. 2009. “Voice and silence in
organizations: Historical review and current conceptualizations”. In J. Greenberg & M. S.
Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations, Bingley, UK: Emerald
Group.
Dedahanov , A. and Rhee, J. 2015. “Examining the relationships among trust, silence
and organizational commitment”. Magement Decision, 53(8): 1843 -1857

23

Deniz, N.; Noyan, A. and Ertosan, O. 2013. “The Relationship between Employee
Silence and Organizational Commitmen t in a Private Healthcare Company”. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences , 99: 691 – 700
Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N. 2011. “Reconceptualising employee silence: problems and
prognosis”. Work, Employment and Society, 25(1): 51 –67
Dowding, K., John, P. 2 012. Exits, Voices and Social Investment: Citizens' Reaction
to Public Services. Cambridge University Press
Dyne, L, Ang, S. e Botero, I. C. 2003. “Conceptualizing employee silence and
employee voice as multidimensional constructs”. Journal of Management S tudies, 40 (6):
1359 -1392
Elçi, M.; Erdilek, M.; Alpkanc, L. and Șenerd, I. 2014. “The Mediating Role of
Mobbing on the Relationship between Organizational Silence and Turnover Intention”.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150: 455 – 464
Farrell, D. 1983. “Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job satisfaction: A
multidimensional scaling study”. Academy of Management Journal, 26 (4): 596 – 607
Farrell, D., Rusbult, C. 1992. “Exploring the exit, voice loyalty, and neglect typology:
The i nfluence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size”. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5 (3): 201 -218
Fatima, T.; Ilyas, M.; Rehman, C. and Inram, M. 2017. “Empirical Investigation of
Relationship between Workplace Ostra cism and Employee Silence: A Test of Mediating
Effects of Self -Esteem and Meaningful Existence in Context of Public Sector Universities in
Punjab”. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1): 111 -128
Graham, J. W., and Keeley, M. 1992. “Hirschman's loyalty c onstruct”. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5 (3): 191 -200

24

Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms,
Organizations and States . Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.: Harvard University Press
Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., and Tatham, R. 2006. Multivariate data
analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, USA: Prentice -Hall
He, P.; Peng, Z.; Zhao, H. and Estay, C. 2017. “How and When Compulsory
Citizenship Behavior Leads to Employee Silence: A Moderated Me diation Model Based on
Moral Disengagement and Supervisor –Subordinate Guanxi Views”. Journal of Business
Ethics, DOI 10.1007/s10551 -017-3550 -2
Hofstede, G (2001). Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Bahaviors,
Institutions and Organizations Across N ations. Sage Publications
Hsiung, H. and Yang, K. 2015. “Employee behavioral options in problematic working
conditions: response pattern analysis”. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23(9): 1888 -1907
Huang, L. and Huang, W. 2016. “Inte ractional justice and employee silence: the roles
of procedural justice and affect”. Social Behavior and Personality, 44(5): 837 –852
Knoll, M; Wegge, J.; Unterrainer , C.; Silva, S.; Jønsson , T. 2016. “Is our knowledge
of voice and silence in organizatio ns growing? Building bridges and (re)discovering
opportunities”. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(3 -4): 161 –194
Knoll, M., Dick, R. 2013a. “Do I Hear the Whistle…? A First Attempt to Measure
Fous Forms of Employee Silence and Their Corre lates”. Journal of Business Ethics, (113):
349–362
Knoll, M., Dick, R. 2013b. “Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the
moderating effect of organizational identification”. The Journal of Positive Psychology:
Dedicated to furthering resea rch and promoting good practice, 8(4): 346 -360

25

Kolarska, L., Aldrich, H. 1980. “Exit, voice, and silence: Consumers´and
managers´responses to organizational decline”. Organization Studies, 1 (1): 41 -58
Maroco, J. 2010. Análise de Equações Estruturais: Fund amentos Teóricos, Software e
Aplicações, Report Number, Pêro Pinheiro
Miceli, M. Near, J. and Dworkin, T. 1998. “Word to the Wise: How Managers and
Policy -Makers can encourage Employees to Report Wrongdoing”. Journal of Business
Ethics, 86: 379 –396
Monzan i, L.; Braun, S. and Dick, R. 2016. “It takes two to tango: The interactive
effect of authentic leadership and organizational identification on employee silence
intentions”. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(3 -4): 246 –266
Morrison, E., Mill iken, F. 2000. “Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and
Development in a Pluralistic World”. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 706 -725
Pinder, C., Harlos, K. 2001. “Employee Silence: Quiescence and Acquiescence as
responses to perceived inju stice”. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
20: 331 – 369
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., Podsakoff, N. 2003. “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies”.
Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(5): 879 –903
Rhee, J.; Dedahanov, A. and Lee, D. 2014. “Relationships among power distance,
collectivism, punishment and acquiescent, defensive, or prosocial silence”. Social Behavior
and Personality, 42(5): 705 -720
Sabino, A. 2015 , Comprometimento Organizacional e Estratégias Comportamentais: da
Abordagem Clássica ao papel mediador do Silêncio. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
ISCSP – Lisbon University, Lisbon
Salgueiro, M. 2012. Modelos com Equações Estruturais. Edições SPE. Por to

26

Tangirala, S., Ramanujam, R. 2008. “Employee Silence on critical work issues: The cross
level effects of precedural justice climate”. Personnel Psychology, 61(1): 37 -68
Wang, Y., Hsieh, H. 2014. “Employees' reactions to psychological contract breach: A
moderated mediation analysis”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85: 57 –66

27

Figure 1 – Dyne, Ang and Botero (2003) Employee Silence and Voice Model

28

Table 1 – Dyne et al. (2003) Employee Silence Scale
Acquiescent Silence
This employee is unwilling to speak up with suggestions for change because he/she is
disengaged.
This employee passively withholds ideas, based on resignation.
This employee passively keeps ideas about solutions to problems to him/her self.
This empl oyee keeps any ideas for improvement to him/her self because he/she has low self
efficacy to make a difference.
This employee withholds ideas about how to improve the work around here, based on being
disengaged.
Defensive Silence
This employee does not speak up and suggest ideas for change, based on fear.
This employee withholds relevant information due to fear.
This employee omits pertinent facts in order to protect him/her self.
This employee avoids expressing ideas for improvements, due to self -protection.
This employee withholds his/her solutions to problems because he/she is motivated by fear.
Prosocial Silence
This employee withholds confidential information, based on cooperation.
This employee protects proprietary information in order to benefit the organization.
This employee withstands pressure from others to tell organizational secrets.
This employee refuses to divulge information that might harm the organization.
This employee protects confidential organizational information appropriately, based on
concern for the organization.

29

Table 2 – Knoll and Dick (2013) Employee Silence Scale
I keep myself silent at work
Defensive Silence
…because of fear of negative consequences
…because I fear disadvantages from speaking up
…to not make me vulnerable in the face of colleagues or superiors
…to avoid conflicts
…because I didn’t want to be viewed as a troublemaker
Prosocial Silence
…because others say nothing, too
…because I do not want to hurt the feelings of colleagues or superiors
…because I do not want to embarrass others
…because I do not want others to get into trouble
…because I didn’t want to damage relationships to colleagues or superiors
Oportunistic Silence
…to not give away my knowledge advantage
…because of concerns that others could take an advantage of my ideas
…because I wanted others to experience the effects from their mistakes
…because my superiors do not deserve my involvement
…because that would mean having to do avoidable additional work
Acquiescent Silence
…because I will not find a sympathetic ear, anyway
…because my superiors are not open to proposals, concerns, or the like
…because nothing will change, anyway

30

…because it is not expected from me to get involved
…because of bad experiences I’ve had with speaking up on critical issues in the past

31

Table 3 – Dyne et al.’s (2003) CFA
RMSEA GFI CFI ϰ²/df AIC Model
Model 1 – Three -Factor Model .112 .85 .92 2.6 3155.86
Model 2 – Two-Factor Model
(Acquiescent /Defensive Silence and
Prosocial Silence) .06 .97 .99 1.3 1321.33
Model 3 – One-Factor Model .15 .72 .81 4.9 3474.3
Model 4 – One-Factor Model (without
Prosocial items) .14 .91 .97 3.2 1211

32

Figure 2 – Dyne et al.’s (2003) Final Model

33

Table 4 – Dyne et al.’s (2003) Final Itens
Rejection Silence (RS)
This employee passively keeps ideas about solutions to problems to him/her self.
This employee keeps any ideas for improvement to him/her self because he/she has low self
efficacy to make a difference.
This employee withholds relevant information due to fear.
This employee avoids expressing ideas for improvements, due to self -protection.
Adhesion Silence (AS)
This employee protects proprietary information in order to benefit the organization.
This employee refuses to divulge information that might harm the organization.
This employee protects confidential organizational information appropriately, based on
concern for the organization.

34

Table 5 – Knoll and Dick (2003) CFA
RMSEA GFI CFI ϰ²/df AIC Model
Model 1 – Initial Model (20 Items; Four –
Factors) .123 .83 .93 2.9 2717.27
Model 2 – Knoll e Dick Final Model (12
Items; Four -Factors) .10 .86 .95 2.2 2791.27
Model3 – Three -Factors Model .09 .85 .97 1.6 2905.24
Model 4 – Two-Factors Model .05 .97 1 1 1433.41
Model 5 – One-Factor Model .125 .97 .93 2.9 2390.44

35

Figure 3 – Knoll and Dick (2013) Final Model

36

Table 6 – Knoll and Dick (2013) Final Items
I keep myself silent at work
Adhesion Silence (AS)
because I don't want to hurt colleagues or supervisors' feelings
because I don't want to hurt my relationship with colleagues
because I don't want to hurt my relationship with supervisors
Rejection Silence (RS)
because I'm afraid others take advantage of my ideas
because that means additional work
because nothing will change anyways
because my involvement is not expected

37

Table 7 – Comparing Dyne et al. (2003) and Knoll and Dick (2013) Cronbach , composite
reability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE)
Dyne et al. (2003)
Final Model Knoll & Dick (2013)
Final Model
Adesion
Silence Rejection
Silence Adesion
Silence Rejection
Silence
Cronbach  0,76 0,81 0,74 0,67
CR 0,97 0,98 0,98 0,97
AVE 0,57 0,84 0,61 0,56

38

Figure 4 – Turnover Intentions Final Model

39

Table 8 – Constructs Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. TI 1.58 1.2 1
2. AS_Dyne et al. (2003) 2.84 1.15 -.174** 1
3. RS_ Dyne et al. (2003) 1.91 1.01 .004 .096 1
4. AS_Knoll and Dick (2013) 1.93 1.13 .013 .195** .390** 1
5. RS_ Knoll and Dick (2013) 1.62 .79 .036 .102 .492** .574** 1
** Correlations is significant at the .01 level (2 -tailed); TI=Turnover Intentions;
AS=Adhesion Silence; RS=Rejection Silence