European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF
ORGANIZATIONAL SILENCE IN
HIERARCHICAL ORGANIZATIONS: TURKISH
NATIONAL POLICE CASE
Hasan Karaca
Turkish National Police Academy, Turkey
Abstract
As being the main ingredient of organizations, employees possess
information, experience, institutional knowledge, and ideas about their
organizations. They also encounter many problems at the all stages of their
work. Although it is expected from them to report the problems or share the
solutions and information they have, they sometimes choose to remain silent.
Understanding the employees’ perspectives are very important for better
understanding the reasons they behave in an undesired manner. This study is
aimed at determining what reasons that negatively affect employees’
decisions speak up and the extent they feel the given reasons lead them to
remain silent. The research showed that administrative and organizational
reasons are the most effective reasons impacting employee silence.
Reassuring trust from executives by ensuring spaces for employees’ vocal
participation and rebuilding the communication bridges between managers
and subordinates will help increase the performance and efficiency of the
organization as a result.
Keywords: Organizational silence, employee silence, employee remain
silent questionnaire, whistle-blowing, Turkish National Police
Introduction
Employees in an organization are the main source of critical factors for
change, production, innovation, and learning, as well as organizational
success and productivity. Although most of the employees have some vital
thoughts and ideas about the organization, they prefer to remain silent.
Organizations, in today’s rapidly changing world, need employees to
constantly share their ideas, beliefs, knowledge, and experiences freely (Liu
et. al, 2009). Even if, an employee seems to be perceived as an example of
loyalty and commitment within the organization when silent, recent research
indicates that a climate of silence in organization causes an inability to
38
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
achieve the expected benefits of employees’ job satisfaction and loyalty
(Aylsworth, 2008).
Cakici (2008) believes it is worthy to work on situations of employees
who are aware of the issues which are essential for organizational
development, but are reluctant to share them with the top executives. Modern
managerial approach has been offering plenty of chances for information
flow and communication in the form of evaluation meetings, suggestion and
complaint mechanisms, face-to-face meetings, and open-door policies within
the organization. But having some fears such as being labeled as a potential
complainant, losing colleagues’ trust and respect, exposure to the loss of the
relationship with the institution, losing the job, or risking promotion
constrain the flow of information and communication between employees
and top executives. Thus, employees choose to remain silent (Cakici, 2008).
Ethics determines the acceptable rules of public-personnel management
and enhances the importance of accountability in public administration.
Besides, it identifies the limits of personal behaviors and ensures its
applicability. Franklin et al. (2004) mention that due to inadequate ethical
arrangements; the sense of trust has been declining in public administration.
This is also the result of the mutual relation between these arrangements and
the desired behavioral change and not ensuring a professional development.
In this regard, scientists think that honesty would play a key role on
rebuilding trust in the organizational environment.
Kocberber (2008) mentions that, day to day, relations have been
changing in organizational culture. In addition to many written professional
values, organizational culture requires employees to have more
complementary unwritten ones. However, an ethical approach is expected to
contribute morally to organizational culture, for some reason, common moral
understanding which houses both evil and wrong is mostly dominant.
Relationships between managers and their subordinates are different in
hierarchical organizations. Moberg (1994) cites that this relationship is
widespread with moral hazards. In organizations where democracy and
autonomy are cherished, managers and subordinates may experience
conflicts about how to treat each other. Managers anticipate absolute support
and devotion from their subordinates. Mutually, subordinates expect to be
supported in conflicts and to be esteemed by their managers.
Organizational Silence
Organizational silence, as an important concept, has been mostly
discussed in public administration literature only recently (Tangirala &
Ramanujam, 2008; Cakici, 2008; Ozdemir & Sarioglu Ugur, 2013).
Morrison and Milliken (2000) define organizational silence as a typically
collective act of employees consciously not sharing their knowledge, beliefs,
thoughts, ideas, and experiences with the management about the issues for
39
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
their work or to improve their working environment. Pinder and Harlos
(2001) delineate organizational silence as a reaction of employees; although
they are normally able to bring and sustain change to workplace, they remain
reluctant to share their behavioral, cognitive, or emotional assessments on
workplace related issues.
Remaining silent creates negative consequences both for employees and
the organization. Remaining silent from the perspective of the organization
means not benefitting from the intellectual contributions of employees,
problems not being identified, feedback not provided, information not
obtained directly, and solutions to problems remaining inadequate. All the
ingredients to impede effective decision-making, as well as constraining
development, change, and performance enhancement (Morrison & Milliken
2000; Premeaux 2001). From the perspective of the employees, by remaining
silent, they are burdened with articulating problems in the workplace
themselves. It can also impact commitment, trust, job satisfaction, and lead
to a tendency of job resignation. In addition, it will be very hard to remain
silent for employees on the issues, especially, if they feel competent in the
matter. As a result, they feel demoralized, stressful, and unappreciated
(Detert & Edmondson 2005; Milliken & Morrison 2003).
Park and Keil (2009) examine this silence in three dimensions. Firstly,
silence can be intentional. Employees remain silent even if they are aware of
the problem and know of a better solution. Secondly, silence can be defense
mechanism. Employees can remain silent in order to protect their personal
interests or not to openly contradict others. Lastly, silence can be a collective
decision of employees; a collective reaction of not sharing ideas, thoughts, or
knowledge with others.
Bowen and Blackmon (2003), claim that by remaining silent in an
organization it not only limits knowledge sharing, collective brainstorming,
problem identification, and possible solutions to workplace-related issues,
but it can also generate new problems the more widespread and repetitive it
becomes. Ellis and Dyne (2009) advise that this behavior needs to be stopped
before it becomes endemically cultural and destructive to the organization.
Organizational silence can negatively affect the harvesting of
institutional knowledge, evolution, and development. The possibility of
being excluding when speaking up may cause employees to stop
communicating and giving feedback to their supervisors. Combined with a
failure to intellectually support employees will lead to ineffective
organizational decisions (Kahveci, 2010: 10).
In his book - The Elephant in the Room- Zerubavel (2006) narrates the
story of the Emperor's new clothes. Nobody likes them but no one dares to
say it to him. Zerubavel hypothesizes that there is a sort of agreement to keep
things silent in most levels of society. He feels that his argument relates to
40
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
families, organizations, both public and private, and government. Zerubavel
argues that there are rules of denial that teach people to ignore the truth, even
though it is very apparent. Often because of the rank one holds in his or her
organization they are forced into silence. Sometimes silence and denial seem
the best options. If this kind of silence and denial settle in an organization
combined with the possibility of losing employment for speaking out, it can
make it difficult for employees when determining their ethical choices. Thus,
Zerubavel (2006) states that silence is most often associated with a group
dynamic. It takes more than one person to ignore the "elephant."
Ironically, it can be really hard to speak out or remain silent when seeing
a wrongdoing in the working environment. Generally, in case of any
wrongdoing, executives expect employees to disclose the situation to them.
But, an employee wants to be safe about the reactions of organization
authorities when speaking out on any problem. This disclosure is called
whistle-blowing. Near and Miceli (1985) define whistle-blowing as ‘‘the
disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral,
or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or
organizations that may be able to effect action’’ (p. 4). Even if an employee
observes a situation that needs to be reported, only very few decide to blow
the whistle. There are some certain circumstances that employees depends
upon when reporting the activity. Firstly, the activity should be perceived to
be serious. Secondly, whistleblower should be aware of how to report it.
Then, reporting should be effectual and there should be action to cease the
wrongdoing. Finally, a whistleblower wants to be sure about the
consequences of this reporting, both personally and financially (Near &
Miceli, 1985)
Bolt (1990) wrote a play named A Man for All Seasons about ethical
decisions made by the main character, Sir Thomas More – a scholar and a
statesman-. More is placed in a situation where he must make an ethical
choice. He is told by the King of England to approve of the king's divorce
from his brother's widow but does not believe that a divorce should be
allowed. Instead of speaking out against the king, More chose to remain
silent, hoping that his life would be spared. But he went to his death refusing
to speak on behalf or against the king's request.
Bolt's play relates very well to the argument made by Zerubavel in The
Elephant in the Room. Everyone in the play notices the "elephant." The
king wants the church to bend in his favor, yet More refuses to speak on the
subject. He feels as if he is upholding his morals, as long he remains silent.
More hopes that his silence will keep the king happy. As the king is More’s
superior, he feels the pressure to do as the king wishes. Ultimately, because
More cannot support the king he is put to death for his silence. This speaks
greatly to all of those subordinates put in the position of becoming the
41
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
whistleblower. They may be figuratively put to death if they choose to speak
out against their employer. They also may be implicated if they choose to
remain silent.
In security sector, particularly in police, silence takes a form of
remaining hesitant to disclose or ‘blow the whistle’ on the wrongdoing of
their colleagues although the potentially damaging affects that the
wrongdoing may have (Wright, 2010). This hesitance actually stems from
the police culture that consists of wisdom of mission, action, distrust,
pessimism, machismo, hesitation, conservatism, isolation and solidarity
(Reiner, 2000; Wright, 2010). Wright (2010) claims that isolation and
solidarity seem to be more dominant characteristics of the police culture
when compared the others.
In his book – Breaking the Blue Wall: One Man’s War against Police
Corruption - Hopson (2012) told his story by showing a high profile on
fighting against corruption when he was a new recruit in New Jersey Police
Department (NJPD). He witnessed his training officer’s illegal arrest and
made-up report about a citizen. He refused to testify in favor of his colleague
about the unlawful arrest. By persisting with his mission of exposing police
corruption, he uncovered proof of a secret group named Lords of Discipline
within NJPD. Instead of remaining silent, Hopson blew the whistle on that
group, which triggered the largest internal investigation in NJPD history.
Methodology
Organizational silence has kept its importance as a contemporary issue.
Furthermore, being main ingredients of organizations, employees possess a
lot of institutional knowledge, experience, and ideas about their work
environment. They also encounter problems at the all stages of their work.
Although it is expected from them to report the problems or share the
solutions and information they have, some prefer to remain silent. This paper
aims to identify the negative reasons affecting employees’ decisions and to
what extent these reasons lead them to remain silent.
In an earlier research, Cakici (2008) designed a survey that groups the
reasons why employees choose to remain silent at work. The questionnaire
consists of five groups of reasons: administrative and organizational reasons
(13 items), fears related to work (6 items), lack of experience (4 items), fear
of isolation (4 items), and fear of damaging relationships (3 items).
In this study, Cakıcı’s survey (2008) was conducted in a city police
department located in eastern Turkey in order to determine the reasons for
remaining silent in a hierarchical organization. The unit of analysis is every
single police officer in the city police department. The survey was manually
distributed to 700 police officers working in the city police department. 570
surveys were collected and an 81.4 % response rate was obtained.
42
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
The question of ¨to what extent do the following reasons affect you to
remain silent? ¨ was asked to each respondent. Responses are categorized
using a 5-point Likert Scale and ranged as, “Very ineffective” (coded 1),
“Ineffective” (coded 2), “Neither effective nor ineffective” (coded 3),
“Effective” (coded 4), and “Very effective” (coded 5) for each item.
Five demographic variables; gender, age group, education, length of
service, and position were utilized to get more details about the respondents.
SPSS.16 statistics software was used to analyze the data and get descriptive
and frequency statistics. Reliability analysis was conducted to show whether
the instruments utilized in this study are reliable and replicable. Cronbach’s
Alpha was calculated for the employees remain silent questionnaire and
obtained an Alpha score of 0.945.
Findings
Descriptive statistics used to describe some of the features of the
respondents who participated in the survey. Table-1 provides more detailed
information about the sample and the measures.
The data shows that almost all of the respondents (98.2 %) are male
police officers. Most of the respondents are in their twenties (72.1%) and one
fourth of them are in their thirties. Police officers’ training in Turkey for
high-school graduates is two years in Police Vocational Schools and they
earn an associate’s degree diploma at completion. In addition, there are also
Police Training Centers where students, who hold Bachelors’ Degrees in any
field, are trained for nine months to become a police officer (Ulkemen,
Karaca & Tasdoven, 2012). More than half of the respondents have
Associate’s Degree and 38.2% of them have their Bachelors’ or Masters
degree. 85.3% of the respondents are in the first ten years of their policing
career. Few of them (12.8%) passed over the first ten years. Almost all of the
respondents are unranked police officers (99.1%).
Table 1. Frequency distribution table of demographics
Variables
Measures
N
%
Gender
Female
10
1,8
Male
560
98,2
20–29
411
72,1
30–39
143
25,1
40–49
16
2,8
High School
41
7,2
Associate’s Degree
311
54,6
Age Group
Education
43
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
Bachelors’ and Up
218
38,2
1–10
486
85,3
11–20
73
12,8
21–30
11
1,9
Officer
565
99,1
Team Leader
4
0,7
Manager
1
0,2
Length of Service
Position
On the other hand, a frequency distribution table of the reasons of the
employees remain silent was generated according to the respondents’
answers (see Table 2 above). In order to determine what reasons affect
employees to remain silent at work. Reasons were grouped under five
factors: administrative and organizational reasons, fears related to work, lack
of experience, fear of isolation, and fear of damaging the relationships.
Table 2. Frequency distribution table of the reasons of the employees remain silent by factor
To what extent do
the following
reasons affect you
to remain silent?
Administrative and
organizational
Reasons
Fears related to
work
Lack of experience
Fear of isolation
Fear of damaging
the relationships
Very
Ineffective
Ineffective
Effective
Very
Effective
%
Neither
Effective
nor
Ineffective
%
%
%
%
3,8
7,9
14,0
35,1
39,2
12,2
13,1
15,8
26,3
32,7
22,5
11,8
17,2
12,2
20,5
15,2
22,3
32,1
17,6
28,8
12,6
13,5
16,8
29,1
27,9
Table 2 shows that respondents are mostly affected by administrative and
organizational reasons when remain silent (Very effective 39,2 % and
Effective 35,1 %). They believe that executives’ behaviors don’t encourage
the employees to speak up or the executives don’t feel necessary to hear
about employees’ ideas and opinions when solving the organizational
problems. After administrational and organizational reasons, respondents
choose fears related to work, fear of isolation, and fear of damaging the
relationships as having almost equal impacts on their silence. Interestingly,
respondents don’t think reasons originating from a lack of experience were
an effective factor for remaining silent.
44
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
In order to look at the specific reasons that lead to silence, Table 3 was
formed below. The frequency distribution table of reasons employees remain
silent by items shows that the reason of “Executives’ attitude of I know the
best” was the most effective one (Very effective 48,2 % and Effective 31,2
%) among thirty given reasons. It was followed by other reasons such as
“Executives appear interested in the so-called”, “I don’t trust my
executives”, “Employees who speak up are exposed to injustice and illtreatment”, and “The absence of a mechanism to explicitly speak up”.
However, according to the frequency distribution table of reasons employees
remain silent, the reason of “Worrying about personal ignorance and
inexperience to be understood” was the least effective one (Very ineffective
28,1 % and Ineffective 20,2 %). Some other reasons such as “Lack of
experience about speaking up” and “Problems or work related issues are not
my business, those are the executive’s concerns” were considered also less
effective in comparison.
Table 3. Frequency distribution table of the reasons of the employees remain silent by items
45
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
I- ADMINISTRATIVE &
ORGANIZATIONAL
REASONS
1- I don’t trust my executives
2- Executives appear to be
interested in but not
3- Executives don’t keep their
promises
4- Organizational culture
doesn’t support employees to
speak up
5- Executives don’t explicitly
support to speak up
6- Executives’ attitude of "I
know the best"
7- The absence of a mechanism
to explicitly speak up
8- The idea that executives will
not listen
9- Work / job requirements and
principles confirm the belief
that there is a discrepancy
between the executives and
employees
10- The belief of speaking up
isn’t beneficial
11- The rigidity of the
hierarchical (chain of command)
structure
12- Relations are distant
13- Employees who speak up
are exposed to injustice and illtreatment
1- Fear of losing employment
2- Fear of changing job location
or position
3- Belief of ill-treatment to
employee who reports a
problem
4- Fear of not being promoted
5- Fear of retaliation from
executives / coworkers
6- The idea of increasing the
workload
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
24
19
4,2
3,3
40
43
7,0
7,5
64
58
11,2
10,2
217
223
38,1
39,1
225
227
39,5
39,8
33
5,8
45
7,9
67
11,8
200
35,1
225
39,5
22
3,9
59
10,4
108
18,9
186
32,6
195
34,2
25
4,4
42
7,4
72
12,6
210
36,8
221
38,8
16
2,8
38
6,7
63
11,1
178
31,2
275
48,2
13
2,3
48
8,4
74
13,0
203
35,6
232
40,7
15
2,6
56
9,8
70
12,3
203
35,6
226
39,6
22
3,9
46
8,1
119
20,9
211
37,0
172
30,2
23
4,0
52
9,1
83
14,6
203
35,6
209
36,7
29
5,1
35
6,1
88
15,4
194
34
224
39,3
18
21
3,2
3,7
45
36
7,9
6,3
93
77
16,3
13,5
211
163
37,0
28,6
203
273
35,6
47,9
II. FEARS RELATED TO WORK
79 13,9 90 15,8 92 16,1
53
9,3
62 10,9 66 11,6
140
160
24,6
28,1
169
229
29,6
40,2
38
6,7
59
10,4
86
15,1
183
32,1
204
35,8
111
56
19,5
9,8
84
71
14,7
12,5
100
96
17,5
16,8
130
156
22,8
27,4
145
191
25,4
33,5
80
14,0
81
14,2
100
17,5
130
22,8
179
31,4
III. LACK OF EXPERIENCE
46
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
1- Lack of experience about
speaking up
2- Problems or work-related
issues are not my business,
those are the executive’s
concerns
3- Worrying about personal
ignorance and inexperience to
be understood
4- Lack of authority
111
19,5
115
20,2
121
21,2
128
22,5
95
16,7
120
21,1
95
16,7
130
22,8
128
22,5
97
17,0
160
28,1
115
20,2
107
18,8
111
19,5
77
13,5
21,2 66 11,6 110 19,3
IV. FEAR OF ISOLATION
58 10,2 74 13,0 86 15,1
140
24,6
133
23,3
31,6
172
30,2
29,6
133
23,3
34,9
190
33,3
32,3
161
28,2
32,1
129
22,6
27,5
27,7
162
186
28,4
32,6
121
1-Fear of being viewed or
180
labeled negatively
2-Fear of loss of trust and
87 15,3 86 15,1 95 16,7 169
respect
3- Expecting negative reactions
51
8,9
50
8,8
80 14,0 199
from executives when received
negative feedback
4- Fear of being known as a
72 12,6 68 11,9 85 14,9 184
problem maker
V. FEAR OF DAMAGING THE RELATIONSHIPS
1-Fear of damaging the
78 13,7 83 14,6 97 17,0 183
relationships
2-Fear of losing support
68 11,9 85 14,9 98 17,2 157
3- Fear of losing executives’
70 12,3 63 11,1 93 16,3 158
satisfaction
Discussion and Conclusion
Employees are an irrevocable ingredient of an organization since they
possess information, experience, institutional knowledge, and ideas related to
their work. Although it is expected from them to inform executives any
work-related problems and organization-based issues, time to time, they
choose to remain silent. At this stage, employees’ preferences are very
important to understand what reasons force them behave in an undesired
manner.
In this study, most of the participating respondents felt that the common
reasons for employee silence are derived from administrational and
organizational factors. They think that their ignorance, being reluctant, or not
to speak up about work-related problems and organization-based issues are
because of executives’ attitudes and behaviors. It is important to highlight
the results of this study are consistent with the results of Cakici’s (2008)
study on the reasons employees remain silent. She concluded that the most
common reason for choosing to remain silent is "administrational and
organizational reasons ".
The study showed that, executives’ behaviors could have negative impact
on employees expressing themselves. Conversely, it is expected from
47
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
executives to be seen as role models for subordinates at the workplace. They
are also required to be trusted in doing the right thing and to demonstrate
high standards of ethical and moral conduct (Bass and Avolio, 1994).
Effective communication and team-work between managers and
employees can only be achieved by trust. Trust lessens operational risk and
costs; it also raises employee commitment and productivity (Krot &
Lewicka, 2012). Trust generates added value in an organization, increases
flow of information, and knowledge construction. Trust also enriches
relationships, interaction, and cooperation (Connell et. al, 2003). Thus, being
dependable is the most crucial thing for a manager. If employees don’t trust
their manager, it will be difficult to speak up when issue arise.
Cakici (2008) asserts that the managers hold the key role on employee
silence since they determine the policies and organizational decisions. They
have the power to establish an internal mechanism in order to remove any
administrative and organizational reasons for employee silence allowing
employees to speak up explicitly. Redmond et al. (1993) cite that as
executive attitude is correlated to subordinate self-efficacy, it can have a
positive impact on subordinate productivity in problem-solving conditions.
For that reason, executive-subordinate relationships grow in significance
when subordinates seek active participation in collective solutions to
problems. When this happens, subordinates will have increased trust in the
institution and their managers.
Panahi et al. (2012) mention that establishing an appropriate reward
system for creative ideas and facilitating development and skill-building
training can break employee silence in organizations. Additionally,
reorientation of rules, dissemination of collaborative studies, re-structuring
the harvesting of institutional knowledge and programs aimed at improving
human resources management for executives are very important in
minimizing the employee silence. Reassuring trust and rebuilding the
communication bridges will help to increase the performance of an
organization.
References:
Aylsworth, J. 2008. Change in the workplace: Organizational silence can be
dangerous. Organizational Physiology Examiner. Retrieved May 26, 2013
from
http://www.examiner.com/article/change-the-workplaceorganizational-silence-can-be-dangerous
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B.J. 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
48
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
Bowen, F., Blackmon K. 2003. Spirals of silence: the dynamic effects of
diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6),
1393-1417.
Bolt, R. 1990. A man for all seasons. New York: Vintage International.
Cakici, A. 2008. A research on issues, causes and perceptional results of
silence at organizations, Cukurova University Journal of Social Science,
17(1), 117- 134.
Connell, J., Ferres, N., Travaglione, A., 2003. Engendering trust in manager:
Subordinate relationships: Predictors and outcomes, Personnel Review,
32(5), 569-590.
Detert, J.R., Edmondson, A.C. 2005. No exit, no voice: The bind of risky
voice opportunities in organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings,
1-6.
Retrieved
May
22,
2013
from
http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2005/1/O1.4.short
Ellis, J. B., Dyne, L.V. 2009. Voice and silence as observers’ reactions to
defensive voice: Prediction based on communication competence theory, pp.
37-61. In Greenberg,M.S. Edwards (Ed.). Voice and Silence in
organizations.
Franklin, A., Van Blijswijk, J.A.M., Van Breukelen, R.C.J., Raadschelders,
J.C.N., Slump, P. 2004. Beyond ethical codes: the management of integrity
in the Netherlands tax and customs administration. Public Administration
Review. 64 (6), 718-727.
Hopson, J. 2012. Breaking the blue wall: One man’s war against police
corruption. Bloomington: IN, WestBow Press
Kahveci, G. 2010. Relationships between organizational commitment and
organizational silence in elementary schools (Unpublished Master Thesis),
Firat University, Elazig,
Kocberber, Seyit 2008. Audit ethics in Turkey and in the world. Journal of
Comptroller, 68, 65–90
Krot, K., Lewicka, D. 2012. The importance of trust in manager-employee
relationship.
International
Journal
of
Electronic
Business
Management, 10(3), 224-233.
Liu, D., Wu, J., Ma, J. 2009. Organizational silence: A survey on employees
working in a telecommunication company. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, IEEE Conference Publications, 1647 - 1651
Moberg, D.J. 1994. An ethical analysis of hierarchical relations in
organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 205-220
Morrison, E. W., Milliken, F. J. 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to
change and development in a pluralistic world.
The Academy of
Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.
49
European Scientific Journal August 2013 edition vol.9, No.23 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431
Morrison, E. W., Milliken, F. J. 2003. Speaking up, remaining silent: The
dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management
Studies, 40 (6), 1353-1358.
Near, J. P., Miceli, M. P. 1985. Organizational dissidence: The case of
whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.
Ozdemir, L., Sarioglu Ugur, S. 2013. The evaluation employees’
organizational voice and silence perceptions in terms of demographic
characteristics: A study in public and private sector. 27 (1), 257-281.
Panahi, B., Veiseh, S., Divkhar, S., Kamari, F. 2012. An empirical analysis
on influencing factors on organizational silence and its relationship with
employee’s organizational commitment. Management Science Letters, 2,
735–744.
Park, C. W., Keil, M. 2009. Organizational silence and whistle-blowing on
IT projects: An integrated model. Decision Sciences, 40 (4): 901-919.
Pinder, C. C., Harlos, K. P. 2001. Employee silence: quiescence and
acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and
Human Research Management, 20: 331-369.
Premeaux, S.F. 2001. Breaking the silence: toward an understanding of
speaking up in the workplace, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge.
Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D., Teach, R. 1993. Putting creativity to
work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 55 (1), 120-151.
Reiner, R. 2000. Politics of the police. Oxford University Press.
Tangirala, S., Ramanujam, R. 2008. Employee silence on critical work
issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel
Psychology, 61(1), 37- 68.
Ulkemen, S., Karaca, H., Tasdoven, H. 2012. Promoting bureaucratic
professionalism in policing: Analyzing the Turkish Police Field Training
Program (PFTO) in the light of the US and Kosovo practices, pp.13-36. In
Lofca, I. and Ozgenturk, I. (Eds.) Contemporary issues in police training:
The practice in Balkan Countries.
Wright, B. 2010. Civilianizing the ‘blue code’? An examination of attitudes
to misconduct in the police extended family. International Journal of Police
Science & Management. 12(3), 339-356.
Zerubavel, E. 2006. The elephant in the room: Silence and denial in
everyday life. New York: NY, Oxford University Press.
50