Van Dyne et al. (2003) define silence as an employee's motivation to withhold or express ideas, information and opinions about work‐related improvements.
Employees typically remain silent about conflicts with co-workers, disagreements about organizational decisions, potential weaknesses in work processes, illegal or dangerous behaviors, and individual/personal grievances.
Their silence keeps management from receiving critical information that would allow their organizations to improve or address problems before they have adverse effects.
Or, employees might not feel like they possess enough power to speak up and voice their opinions; this notion is of particular significance when the organization is structured and set up as a hierarchy or bureaucracy.
This kind of organization is very susceptible to employee silence because there is almost no person-to-person communication, and it is very easy to ignore or misinterpret things like email.
According to the Handbook of Organizational Justice, "a culture of injustice in organizations, be it distributive, procedural, or interactional (what we would call interpersonal), can lead to employee silence.
"[4] In other words, "if the organizational norm is an unjust environment such as one that is characterized by intense supervisory control, suppression of conflict, ambiguous reporting structures, and poorly conducted performance reviews, employees will choose not to exercise voice and will therefore not receive the benefits available to those that do express opinions and ideas.
[6] In some cases subordinates don't want to appear as though they are going against their supervisors, as they may view the employees' input as criticism of their practices, and be fired.
Avoiding problems or looking for "quick fixes" only makes things worse and causes employees to feel that there is no hope for resolution.
Employees can feel less powerful as a result of hearing dominant opinions and perceptions; these practices can encourage silence naturally.
There are distinct organizational groupings or divisions, such as masculine or feminine, subordinate or dominant, manager or employee, that can influence silence.
In organizations, there is evidence that employees are especially uncomfortable conveying information about potential problems or issues to those above them (Milliken et al. 2003).
Willman, P. et al. (2006) present evidence that any hierarchical organization tends to support what its leaders already think is true more than it challenges them to think differently.
Donaghey, J. et al. (2011) suggest ways in which management, through agenda-setting and institutional structures, can perpetuate silence over a range of issues, thereby arranging employees out of the voice process.
Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) conducted research on nurses in Midwestern hospitals to study employee silence in health care.
With lives at stake every day, the notion of employee silence in such an industry is a particularly devastating one due to its potential implications.
The research also found that nurses were less silent when they identified with their workgroup, felt proud of and attached to their jobs, and perceived a high level of fairness in the workplace.
It is clear when employees feel they don't have a stake, a personal investment, in an organization, they will choose to remain silent.
They should[clarification needed] create a comfortable, open space or environment where employees do not feel intimidated or threatened by either internal or external circumstances.
Managers can also increase employee pride in their professions by giving constructive feedback after projects are completed and by engaging in constant training to continually enhance performance.
When this occurs, employees will feel like they truly do matter in an organization; they will become active players and voice their concerns freely and without fear.
They will more positively identify with their organizations, thus bringing the whole idea of employee identity, communication and job satisfaction full circle.
In his article “Get Talking”, author Chris Penttila says, “employee silence is killing innovation and perpetuating poorly planned projects that lead to defective products, low morale and a damaged bottom line”.
In the book Moose on the Table by Jim Clemmer, Pete, the main character, develops these types of health problems.
Moose on the Table by author Jim Clemmer is a useful tool in studying what can actually happen when employee silence is a problem in the workplace.
He formulates the metaphor using a character named Pete, who begins to see imaginary moose in his place of work that represent all the problems that aren't being addressed and have gotten larger over time.
[12] In order to establish procedural justice climates, managers need to ensure that their decisions are “ethical, consistent over time, based on accurate information, allow room for employees to contribute input, are correctable, and are free of bias.
[13] When trying to avoid employee silence, managers and leaders also need to know “how to facilitate varying opinions in a way that allows healthy discussion to develop towards consensus or best solutions”.
[14] The article suggests: In a podcast entitled "Under New Management", Joel Brockner, a professor of business at Columbia University, talks about the importance of the "interpersonal component of procedural fairness called 'interactional justice.
It would be interesting to discover if job titles play a part in employee silence or it's just a matter of analyzing each individual situation or event.