PINDER & HARLOS Employee Silence

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/224767277
Employee Silence: Quiescence and Acquiescence as

Responses to Perceived Injustice
Chapter in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management · December 2001

DOI: 10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20007-3
CITATIONS READS
716 11,686
2 authors, including:
Karen Harlos
The University of Winnipeg
50 PUBLICATIONS 1,500 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Supervisor and worker perspectives on workplace accommodations for mental health View project
Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Karen Harlos on 24 February 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EMPLOYEE SILENCE:
QUIESCENCE AND ACQUIESCENCE
AS RESPONSES TO PERCEIVED
INJUSTICE
Craig C. Pinder and Karen P. Harlos
ABSTRACT
Although employee silence is pervasive in organizations, its study has been
neglected for a variety of reasons, including the assumption that it is a
unitary concept meaning little more than inactive endorsement. We review
disparate literatures to reveal additional meanings and conceptual
complexities related to silence to stimulate its study in work organizations.
We develop the concept of employee silence and introduce two attendant
forms (i.e. quiescence and acquiescence) along with their behavioral,
affective, and cognitive components. We also offer a model that explains
why some mistreated employees become silent, how some break their
silence, and what organizational contexts produce and reinforce employee
silence. Implications of the model for human resource management as well
as for future research are discussed.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 20, pages 331-369.
Copyright © 2001 by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All fights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 0-7623-0840-0
331
332 CRAIG C. PINDER AND KAREN P. HARLOS
INTRODUCTION
It happened at my first big [military] gathering. Half of us were privates. We were 18 and
so were not allowed to have alcohol, but tons of alcohol had been brought in by the course
officers. At one point, one of the officers grabbed me and threw me over his shoulder. He
brought me into a little kitchenette off the main hall while privates guarded the two doors
at the front and the back. At first it seemed like a game. He was laughing and all the other
guys were laughing - but when he threw me down on the floor I didn't think it was a joke
any more. I gave him a shot to the face - I was yelling at him to get off and I yelled rape.
Then he pulled up my top and pulled down my pants. It was a complete sexual assault. It
was intercourse (O'Hara, 1998a, p. 16).
Private Elaine Smith (pseudonym)
In the spring o f 1998, the Canadian public was shocked by the publication in
a respected national news magazine of allegations from former and still-enlisted
soldiers (almost all female) that they had been harassed and, in some cases,
raped by superior officers (Branswell, 1998a; Geddes, 1998). Once made public,
the original 13 allegations snowballed into 24 in the subsequent issue, along
with countless second-hand stories of abuse at military bases across the country.
Together, the number and gravity of these allegations triggered rounds of denials
and counter-charges from the military high command (O'Hara, 1998a) and other
soldiers, both retired and still in uniform (Maclean's, 1998). The military
eventually established a special unit to investigate and to instigate counseling
and redress for victims.
In North America, stories of abuse of women in the military are not new
(see Francke, 1997). 1 These Canadian allegations were presaged by the noto-
rious Tailhook incident in the U.S. Air Force (Caproni & Finley, 1997; Office
of the Inspector General, 1993), and the widely publicized harassment of women
cadets at the Citadel (Carlson, 1995). In addition, research suggests that sexual
harassment (Stockdale, 1996) and other forms of interactional injustice (i.e.
mistreatment during informal, everyday interactions with bosses; see Harlos
& Pinder, 1999) affect employees across many positions, organizations, and
industries, although frequency estimates of workplace mistreatment almost
certainly underestimate actual rates. Fear of reprisal 2 is the most likely
explanation for victims' failures to report their mistreatment (Hotelling, 1991;
Morrison & Milliken, 2000), especially among women (Rudman, Borgida &
Robertson, 1995).
Yet, as recent cases in the Canadian military show, some victims do speak
out about their mistreatment to people who can effect change and bring relief.
Often, however, they hold their silence for several years. In some organizations,
employees' long-held silences are explained by codes of silence, organizational
norms and practices that block disclosures of abuse. Codes of silence can be
Employee Silence 333
both maintained and broken by perpetrators, witnesses (Caproni & Finley, 1997;
Schmitt, 1992), and sometimes victims (O'Hara, 1998b) through public reve-
lations. In recent theoretical work, Morrison and Milliken (2000) developed the
concept of climates of silence to explain how norms in organizations influence
some victims of abuse to keep quiet, often forever. Surprisingly, with some
exceptions (e.g. Cohen, 1990; Morrison & Milliken, 2000), injustice-induced
silence is theoretically undeveloped and empirically unexamined in organiza-
tional research given its persistence and pervasiveness. Why do some employees
stay silent while others break their silence? More fundamentally, what individual
and situational factors are associated with silence in organizations?
Purpose and Boundaries
In this paper, we explore the causes, forms, and meanings of silence, drawing
on research and theory from a variety of disciplines and literatures, both
organizational and alternate. We find that silence concepts comprise two broad
categories: acoustic and pragmatic. In both categories, we discover three
main themes about silence: (1) it is a ubiquitous topic that rarely garners
much agreement among scholars, (2) it is usually studied by comparing it to
concepts presumed to be its opposite, and (3) the contexts within which silence
occurs (if it occurs) are crucial for interpreting its meaning and significance.
Within the category of pragmatic silence, we focus on the importance of
interactive and socio-cultural forms, using what is learned as a foundation
for our exploration of employee silence in organizational settings. In particular,
we provide evidence from wide-ranging literatures that silence can be an
act of communication in itself, involving a range of cognitions, emotions, or
intentions such as endorsement or objection. To further our argument that it
is a behavior in organizations, we introduce two forms of silence, quiescence
and acquiescence, illustrating and distinguishing between them as we develop
a process model to explain how employee silence is instigated, maintained and,
in some cases, broken. Finally, we explore the implications of our analysis for
human resource management research, theory and practice.
Throughout our analysis, we limit our discussion to employee silence as a
response to injustice rather than to its causal role as a strategic form of commu-
nication intended to affect others. Space constraints preclude us from developing
an extended treatment of employee silence in benign or positive circumstances,
whether as an antecedent or consequence of behavior in organizations. Finally,
although we make recurrent reference to the events that occurred in the Canadian
military (e.g. the quotation at the beginning of this paper), we do not imply
that those events provide sufficient evidence for a formal grounded theory of
injustice and silence. Rather, our repeated use of this one case is for convenience
and illustrative purposes only. We begin by introducing and discussing our
definition of employee silence.
Definition of Employee Silence
We suggest that individual-level silence encompasses a range of feelings,

thoughts, and actions, based on the premise, prevalent in nontraditional litera-
tures but rare in organizational writings, that silence is a form of communication
(cf. Tannen, 1985). Indeed, " . . . the deepest fears and most intense joys are
w o r d l e s s . . . Silence is the language of all strong passions: love, anger, surprise,
fear" (Flesch, 1957 as cited in Bruneau, 1973, p. 34). Accordingly, we conceive
of employee silence as a multifaceted concept that includes, but is not limited
to, lack of speech or formal voice; in fact, it may occur in the midst of sound
or language. Hence, we argue that employee silence can occur simultaneously
with either sound or speech: it is not necessarily the opposite of either.
Interestingly, recent research on sleep and its relation to wakefulness is
analogous to our view of the paradoxical relationship between silence and sound
or speech, as Seabrook (1999, p. 65) reports:
For many years, sleep was thought to be the opposite of wakefulness - rest for the mind.
But the prevailing trend in neurological studies of sleeping brains is toward an active-mind
theory of sleep. In sleep, there is only a 20% decrease from waking neural activity.
The parallel for silence is clear: like sleep, silence is an active (if covert) process.
Yet, unlike sleep, its paradoxical and elusive nature is not readily conducive to
reductionist, physical study.
Specifically, we define employee silence as the withholding of any form of
genuine expression about the individual's behavioral, cognitive and~or affective
evaluations of his or her organizational circumstances to persons who are
perceived to be capable of effecting change or redress. By our definition, any
communication that: (1) does not reflect a desire to alter circumstances, or
that (2) is not directed to persons perceived as capable of ameliorating those
circumstances does not comprise an attempt to break silence.
Features and Implications of our Definition

Here, we outline five key features and implications of our definition. First, we
propose that in contexts of injustice, silence (i.e. both as a concept itself and
in its relation to voice) is a dynamic process that moves and morphs in response
to a variety of individual and situational factors. To illustrate, we return to the
quotation from Private Elaine Smith that introduces this paper and observes
that she demanded that her assailant stop his attack, thereby expressing voice.
We argue that she also engaged in a period of silence following the attack (and
before she spoke to the media), indicated by her failure to express her discontent
to authorities whom she believed could effect change or enact her desire for
redress. Although attempts she might have made to seek redress from superior
officers or others in positions to alleviate her situation would constitute attempts
at voice, informing family members would not.
Second, our definition is concerned with the cognitive, emotional and behav-
ioral states of employees in relation to their own or others' circumstances when
those circumstances directly affect the individual in question. Therefore, our
concept of silence is intended to include the concept from Miceli and Near's
(1989) whistle-blowing research of "silent observers"; that is, people who are
quiet about others' actions that they perceive as unjust, illegal, or immoral.
Although we remain curious about people who do not voice by "blowing the
whistle," for the purposes of this paper, we are not concerned with the perspec-
tives of people who either report others' silence or who employ silence as an
offensive strategy or tactic in their own treatment of others (e.g. employing the
"silent treatment"). Instead, we are examining silence from the viewpoints of
victims or recipients of injustice, rather than those who may have perpetrated
injustices or third parties who might wish to observe either the injustice or the
resulting silence.
A third feature of our definition is that silence can be broken by any or all
of a range of communicative media or acts. Hence, a written letter or e-mail
message, an oral utterance, or even deliberately-expressed body language may
be used to communicate a desire to ameliorate unjust circumstances. Fourth,
our definition allows that a person may be silent in circumstances that are either
positive or negative without his or her conscious awareness. Our present interest,
however, is on employee silence as a response to situations of personally-
experienced injustice of which people are consciously aware. A final implication
of our definition is that it may continue to be difficult (perhaps, in some case,
impossible) for outside observers to register others' silence. Hence, research
into employee silence can be very challenging, requiring unconventional
methods.
In short, silence is a fascinating (if ineffable) phenomenon. Yet, as we see
in the following sections, it has attracted the interest and attention of many
scholars from many disciplines for many years. Indeed, the main library at the
University of Texas holds more than 700 books dealing with silence from a
wide range of disciplinary perspectives (Wilmer, 1996), revealing broadly-
conflicting views of it (see Jaworski, 1997) and its merit (e.g. "silence is golden"
vs. "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"). Shortly, we examine the role and
significance of the concept in a sample of these disparate disciplines, seeking

to find patterns that may enlighten, facilitate, or provide lessons for the study
of employee silence. We begin, however, with a brief summary of the history
of the concept in the organizational literature.
HIRSCHMAN'S LEGACY: RESPONSES TO

OBJECTIONABLE STATES OF AFFAIRS
Since their introduction by Hirschman (1970), the concepts of voice and silence
as responses to dissatisfaction have generated very different levels of interest
among organizational scholars. Hirschman's definition of voice (i.e. "any
attempt at all to change rather than escape from an objectionable state of affairs,"
p. 30) encompassed direct petitions, protests, and appeals to management or
other higher authorities, including efforts to mobilize public opinion. Since
Hirschman's (1970) book was published, studies have traditionally focused
on voice and exit as the two primary ways that employees respond to
dissatisfaction, including that induced by perceived mistreatment.
For example, when conceptualized as participation in decision-making, voice
significantly influences perceptions of procedural fairness and organizational
justice (Folger, 1977; Lind, Kanfer & Early, 1990; Sheppard, Lewicki & Minton,
1992). By contrast, individual-level silence has received little research attention,
probably, in part, because Hirschman (1970) devoted far less attention to silence
in his book than he devoted to exit and voice, electing not even to formally
define it. Instead, he framed silence as a passive but constructive response
synonymous with loyalty. According to Hirschman, although some dissatisfied,
loyal employees voice their complaints, others stay and "suffer in silence,
confident that things will soon get better" (1970, p. 38). Sometimes they do;
other times they do not.
Conflicting Views of Silence: Endorsement or Objection?
Since Hirschman (1970), the organizational sciences have generally continued

to equate silence with loyalty (e.g. Farrell, 1983), often implicitly assuming that
silence represents inaction (e.g. Rousseau, 1995) and endorsement of the status
quo. For example, employees who experience unfair treatment but do not file
formal complaints are commonly regarded as silent but consenting (e.g. Boroff,
1989). Whether their silence might reflect informal, covert dissent with behav-
ioral, affective, or cognitive elements is usually overlooked. Hence, silence
remains a neglected, albeit common, response of dissatisfied (e.g. Kolarska &

Aldrich, 1980; Spencer, 1986; Withey & Cooper, 1989) and unjustly treated
employees (Harlos, 1998).
Two notable exceptions to the historic neglect of silence are found in a
theoretical review by Cohen (1990) and a conceptual model of its structural
antecedents by Morrison and Milliken (2000). Cohen was probably the first to
reject the notion that silence necessarily implies endorsement and to explore its
origins among people who are unjustly treated or observing mistreatment. He
argued that silence not only may signify objection and dissent, but that it may
also result from a lack of information, an absence of voice opportunities, and
a belief that voicing would be futile or dangerous (see also Morrison & Milliken,
2000). According to Cohen, organizations have a vested interest in exclusive
interpretations of silence as endorsement; they benefit by substantiating their
claims of justice, even (indeed, especially) when justice claims are untrue.
Consistent with conceptualizations of silence as objection, Parker and August
(1997) proposed that some dissatisfied employees combine silence with exit, to
quit quietly in what they label principled turnover. Several Canadian soldiers'
accounts reflect this concept. For example, before the expos6 in Maclean's
magazine, Private Elaine Smith did not disclose her rape to anyone who could
effect change. Instead,
A couple of months later I went to another one of these parties and I saw another woman
go through the same thing. It was a different guy but he did the same thing: threw her over
his shoulder and walked her into that area and the guys blocked the door. I hate when I
get to this part of the story because I didn't do anything. I started to walk to that kitchen,
looked at the two guys guarding the door and I just stopped. I didn't do anything and that's
why I decided to quit the military that night .... I put in for a voluntary release the next
morning (O'Hara, 1998a, p. 16).
Marketing research also acknowledges silence as a form of objection. In one

study, two-thirds of dissatisfied customers remained silent about their dissatis-
faction, or they expressed negative opinions to other prospective customers
rather than complain to those providing the faulty goods or service (Stephens
& Gwinner, 1998; see also Richins, 1983; Singh, 1990). Notwithstanding these
exceptions, most organizational theorists and researchers adopt the traditional
definition of silence as lack of voice denoting endorsement. As a result, they
overlook much of its communicative significance and its behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive components.
A major explanation for the paucity of empirical research on employee
silence must be its paradoxical nature. Studying silence generally requires
speaking out, in one form or another. Yet, not all speaking out constitutes the
breaking of silence, nor even, possibly, an awareness of one's own prior states
of silence. Moreover, as we discuss shortly, silence can communicate (cf.
Tannen, 1995).
Among the few empirical studies explicitly examining employee silence,
weak construct validity of relevant measures is often a problem because of
failures to come to grips with the boundaries of the construct itself (see Schwab,
1980; Withey & Cooper, 1989). These limitations, in turn, partially account for
failures to predict or explain silent organizational behavior. Nevertheless, to
stimulate additional insights toward concept development and empirical research
on employee silence, we now review meanings of silence in literatures of
disciplines other than the organizational sciences with a view to promoting an
understanding of silence in organizational contexts.
FUNCTIONS, MEANINGS, AND FORMS OF SILENCE

Jensen (1973) proposed that silence serves five dualistic functions: (1) it both
brings people together and pushes them apart; (2) it can both harm and heal
people; (3) it provides and hides information; (4) it signals deep thought and/or
no thought; and (5) it can convey both assent and dissent. Our analysis draws
largely on the last three functions for their intuitive and, to a lesser degree,
empirical relevance within contexts of workplace injustice (see Harlos, 1998).
In addition to serving multiple functions, silence has multiple meanings.
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary identifies five distinct but related meanings of
silence: (1) the state or fact of keeping silent; a refraining from speech or from
making noise; (2) the absence of any sound or noise; (3) a withholding of
knowledge or omission of mention; (4) failure to communicate or write; and
(5) oblivion or obscurity.
Sobkowiak (1997) proposed a useful distinction, one which we adopt here,
to integrate these multiple meanings by regarding silence as an acoustic (i.e.
sound-based) or pragmatic (i.e. speech-related) phenomenon) Acoustically,
silence is rooted in the physical domain as an absence of sound waves. Pragmatic
silences, however, are rooted in the human domain and usually reflect an absence
of speech for instrumental or strategic purposes. For example, some people
intentionally withhold speech when they perceive danger in voicing (see
Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Sobkowiak argued that the first of Webster's
five definitions of silence is both acoustic and pragmatic (see also Jaworski,
1993). The remaining definitions are either exclusively acoustic (i.e. the second)
or pragmatic (i.e. the latter three definitions). We now examine acoustic and
pragmatic silences more closely.
Acoustic Silence: The Absence of Sound
Three recurrent issues dominate the literature that defines silence acoustically:
(1) a tendency to describe silence by juxtaposing it with its conceptual opposite,
sound; (2) the importance of context for understanding the meaning of any
particular silence; and, most fundamentally (3) questions as to whether acoustic
silence is even possible! Early disputants of its very existence included Cage
(1961), who claimed that "there is no such thing as absolute silence, something
is always happening that makes a sound" (cited by Bruneau, 1973, p. 17).
Likewise, Muldoon argued that "under normal conditions, an absolute silent
realm does not exist . . . To make an environment entirely soundless is
technically difficult and remains relatively achievable only under laboratory
conditions" (1996, p. 283).
In contrast, others maintain that acoustic silence is possible but only in
relation to sound. Sontag explains:
Silence never ceases to imply its opposite and depend on its presence.., so one must
acknowledge a surrounding environment of sound or language in order to recognize silence.
... any given silence has its identity as a stretch of time being perforated by sound
(1969, p. 11).
Like Sontag, many theorists have argued that silence is inexorably bound to
sound. For example, Saville-Troike (1985) observed that silence in industrialized
societies is rarely free of noise from construction, appliances, traffic, barking
dogs, and other background sounds which ordinarily seem insignificant until
made salient (or silenced). Moreover, Saville-Troike pointed to the Tantra in
Hindu religion and its descriptions of sound arising from four different parts
of the human body, although only that from the mouth is audible.
These contradictions and controversies (see Jaworski, 1993) have prompted
some scholars to label silence a "slippery concept" that may be better understood
by conceptual integration between it and sound:
... it seems futile to continually insist on pitting silence against what we think to be its
opposite, namely, what we hear and listen to. Is silence ever the ideal and the total other
of sound? Does silence not lie somewhere on the scale that marks the entire range of sonic
perceptions in the life-world? (Muldoon, 1996, p. 277)
Thus, Muldoon and others argued that to learn about silence we must uncover
relationships between the auditory qualities of silence, orality, and surrounding
contexts. The paradoxical notion that sound is required to understand acoustic
silence we label as the integrationist view. As we see next, this view dominates
the literatures on both acoustic and pragmatic silences.
Pragmatic Silence: The Absence of Speech
Whereas sound is the putative opposite of acoustic silence, speech is typically

cast as the contrasting concept for pragmatic silence (see Dauenhauer, 1980),
hence an integrationist view underlies much of this literature as well. In other
words, many scholars in this tradition believe that the boundaries between the
concepts are indistinct, and that the human mind can accommodate speech and
silence simultaneously (e.g. McCarthy, 1983; Wiggins, 1983). Hence, Sontag
(1969) suggested that the communicative significance of Harpo Marx's mute-
ness derived from his positioning as the silent one surrounded by manic talkers,
especially his brother Groucho. Similarly, the playwright Harold Pinter (1964),
as cited in Hollis (1970, p. 15) posited that
the speech we hear is an indication of that which we don't hear. It is a necessary avoid-
ance, a violent, sly, anguished or mocking smoke screen which keeps the other in its place
. . . we communicate only too well, in our silence, in what is unsaid.
This quotation illustrates both communication (whether with oneself or others)

in general, and self-protection (consistent with fear of reprisal as a key deter-
minant of silence) in particular, as key strategies behind pragmatic silence.
Bruneau (1973) further explained that "there appear to be.levels of commu-
nicative functioning associated with imposed silence.., even when not speaking
aloud, man carries on a continuous interior monologue" (p. 17). In the same
vein, an editorial in the American Journal of Psychotherapy asserted that silence
is a state during which we "commune with ourselves" (1993, p. 167). Other
studies explore pragmatic silences as communication devices in political protest
(Bruneau), symbolic expression (Ehrenhaus, 1988), and even reverence for God
(Szuchewycz, 1997).
Finally, Bruneau (1973) outlined three forms of pragmatic silence that can
communicate either assent or dissent: psycholinguistic, interactive, and socio-
cultural silences. Psycholinguistic silences, rooted in semiotics, comprise pauses
and rapid, unintentional junctures in speech (e.g. the use of "uhs"). Interactive
silence refers to longer-held pauses in conversation that often contain inferences,
judgments, and affect. In contrast, socio-cultural silence reflects group and
organization-level pauses that are often highly formalized. In the following
sections, we draw heavily on the concepts of interactive and socio-cultural
varieties of pragmatic silence for their relevance to individual and organizational-
level functioning. (Because we believe that psycho-linguistic silence has limited
relevance to employee silence, we do not examine it further.)
FORMS AND FEATURES OF PRAGMATIC SILENCE
The Literature on Interactive Silence
As a form of pragmatic silence, interactive silence is often strategic and inten-

tional. It can allow us to exert control over others by commanding attention
(e.g. when typically talkative people suddenly become silent), or by creating
ambiguity in interpersonal exchanges that compels others to question their
previous judgments and possibly alter relationships (Bruneau, 1973). Interactive
silences can be constructive or destructive (cf. Jensen, 1973). Their dualistic
nature is evidenced in their capacity to act as rewards or punishments by
elevating or diminishing the status of the person receiving the silence (Watts,
1997). In this sense, interactive silence can signify both approval and disfavor.
Among its negative potentialities, Bruneau (1973) regards silent insults as one
of the most powerful punishments levied against subordinates by authority
figures. Similarly, Yiannis' (1998) review of insults includes being ignored and
kept waiting, both of which arguably involve silence or the perception of "silent
treatment" by others. Interactive silence can also signal prejudice: we may be
unwilling or unable to speak to people whom we are biased against or revulsed
by (Houck & Gass, 1997; Saunders, 1985). Even when there are no harmful
intentions, interactive silences can be deleterious: "if [they] become too long,
interpersonal relationships are strained, uncertain, and perhaps threatened or
(sic)beyond repair" (Bruneau, 1973, p. 29).
On the positive side, interactive silence allows opportunities for self-
evaluation or self-revelation (American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1993). It also
facilitates decision-making by giving people time to consider what others'
unusual utterances may mean, or to interpret the significance of ambiguous or
threatening circumstances (Bruneau, 1973). As Kahn observed, it provides
the possibility of choosing what to do first or next... Non-speaking gives man [sic] the
power to enclose or disclose himself. He is free to make himself known or not, and this
is, in the existentialist sense, an active attitude (1958, pp. 204-205).
Interactive silences, therefore, allow people to make inferences about verbal

exchanges, including judgments about another's character, motives, and person-
ality. For example, interactive silence is a common reaction when we meet
someone whom we perceive as different. In the face of such uncertainty, we
can "buy time" to contemplate greetings or other social gambits using interactive
silence (Sifianou, 1997).
Contextual Factors Affecting Interactive Silences

The context within which interactive silence occurs affects its meaning. From
an integrationist view, speech itself is an obvious contextual factor. As Tyler
(1978, p. 15) summarized,
what is not said.., is often more importantthan what is said. Choosingto be inexplicitor
silent in a contextappropriateto explicitnessand speechcan be a way of saying something
far too importantfor speech itself.
Social scientific theory and research on pluralistic ignorance (Miller &

McFarlane, 1987), conformity (Asch, 1951), emotional labor (Hochschild,
1983), principled organizational dissent (Graham, 1986), bystander effects
(Latane & Darley, 1968), and whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1989) also
demonstrate the importance of various contextual factors on whether, why, and
how people hold their silence or break it. Two contextual factors of special
interest to us, particularly in light of the Canadian military, are power differ-
ences between perpetrators and victims of injustice and the gender of persons
involved.
Power. Empirical research supports the role of power and related concepts (i.e.
dominance, authority) in sexual harassment (see Stockdale, 1996) and interac-
tional injustice (Harlos & Pinder, 1999). However, there is little direct empirical
evidence of links between power and silence in organizations. Instead, theory
and research tend to rely on power concepts to explain perpetrators' behavior
(e.g. strong needs for personal power) or demographic characteristics of victims
that may impel their power-related motives (e.g. young, unmarried, women of
color; see Stockdale, 1996). However, there is theoretical support for the notion
that people's perceptions of unequal power relations affect employee silence
(cf. Morrison & Milliken, 2000).
For our purpose, Scott's (1990) socio-cultural treatise on power dependence4
is significant for explaining silence, as the military examples cited in this article
also illustrate. Scott argued that there are public transcripts (i.e. voice) and
hidden transcripts (i.e. silence) among dominant and subordinate groups. When
power is exercised, both transcripts are produced. Of particular interest to us
are the gaps between subordinates' hidden and public transcripts: Scott interprets
these as perceived dependency. Thus, an employee whose public transcript is
smiling submission but whose hidden transcript is rife with rage and fantasies
of aggression against her supervisor has a large transcript gap, indicating
her profound powerlessness. Scott's conceptualization of hidden transcripts
implies that employee silence is a distinct behavior with cognitive and emotional
elements.
Power dependence also underlies a silence strategy that we call tactical

joking 5 to intentionally defuse what is perceived as an unsafe situation (Harlos,
1998). Private Tracey Constable kept silent after her attack by a military base
doctor. Instead of disclosing to someone who could effect change, she used
tactical joking: "I tried to laugh it off. He was a captain and a doctor - he
had all this authority and who was I, a little private" (O'Hara, 1998, p. 16).
Together, these results lead us to suggest that power dependence arising from
hierarchical levels increases both the frequency and duration of injustice-induced
silence. Research on asymmetrical power relations associated with hierarchies
supports our view, suggesting that differences in information, opportunities
and resources contribute to asymmetries and power dependence (Kanter, 1977;
Maneiro, 1986).
Gender. Besides power, gender is important for extended interactive silence. On

the basis of a study of same and mixed-gender work groups, Molseed (1989)
reported four types of silence: nonsequiturs, withdrawal, supportive, and inex-
pressive silences. Females were more likely to use supportive silences, indicated
by nodding heads and smiling to encourage collaboration, whereas males tended
to use inexpressive silences (e.g. failure to respond to requested information) and
nonsequiturs to compete with or dominate others. Other research indicates that
females are more silent in the presence of males (Tannen, 1990). To explain these
and other findings, Lips (1994) draws on gender-based socialization and sexual
stereotyping as sources for habits of silence and self-doubt among women.
Combining power and gender. Feminist scholarship traditionally has contended

that gender and power are inseparable (e.g. Davis, Leijenaar & Oldersma, 1991).
Here, we focus on research (feminist and otherwise) in linguistics and domestic
abuse for insights into the dual roles of power and gender in social relations.
Some linguistics studies, for example, suggest that the language differences
between dominant and subordinate groups can reflect the effects of both gender
and power because imbalances in social power and status can create gender-
related language differences (e.g. Lind & O'Barr, 1979 as cited in White, 1990).
Consistent with this research stream, we argue that, when combined, these
factors foster silence. As Bezdek claimed, " . . . wherever social power is
unequal, so is expressive power" (1992, pp. 568-569). Indeed, most Canadian
soldiers " . . . were assaulted when they were most vulnerable, as raw recruits
or recently minted privates in their late teens or early 20s - away from home
for the first time, newly instilled with fear of rank" (O'Hara, 1998a, p. 18),
further supporting the combined effects of power and gender in explaining both
mistreatment and silence. Private Tracey Constable illustrates this in her reasons
for not reporting her sexual attack by a military doctor: "Being a private and
being a female . . . I knew no one would even listen to me" (O'Hara, 1998d,
p. 17). Research on domestic abuse sheds further light on how power and gender
combine with injustice and silent behavior. For example, studies demonstrate
that unequal power, together with the extremity of intermittent mistreatment,
are key determinants of women's emotional attachments to abusive partners
(e.g. Dutton & Painter, 1993). Additionally, domestic abuse research examines
the psychological consequences of abuse among victims. Common findings
refer to a range of cognitive and emotional symptoms, including shame, lowered
self-esteem and self-blame (see Cleveland & McNamara, 1996; Gutek & Koss,
1993), experienced both while victims are silent as well as after they have
broken their silence. Together, these findings confirm the important roles of
both gender and power as contextual factors affecting employee silence.
The Literature on Socio-cultural Silence
Linguistic theorists have argued that socio-cultural silence results from institu-
tional prohibitions and cultural norms concerning verbal behavior effected
through individual-level silence. For example, institutional or religious authori-
ties such as judges and deities commonly offer (i.e. "you have the right to remain
silent") or require (i.e. "silence in the court") silence of individuals, producing
socio-cultural silences (see Szuchewycz, 1997). Norms for socio-cultural silence
exist both among common members of a culture as well as between common
members and authority figures (cf. Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Socio-cultural
silence frequently functions as a control device (like interactive silence) through
socialization practices and norms that are reinforced by authority figures who
employ silence to ignore subordinates and reduce both others' access and their
own accountability (Bruneau, 1973). Just as the dynamics of interactive silence
offered insights into micro-level aspects of employee silence, so socio-cultural
silence prompts macro-level considerations of employee silence. In particular,
we regard codes of silence (i.e. defined earlier as organizational norms and
practices that block disclosures of abuse) as a narrow example of socio-cultural
silence, "the characteristic manner in which entire social and cultural orders
refrain from speech and manipulate both psycholinguistic and interactive
silences" (Bruneau, 1973, p. 36).
Contextual Considerations Affecting Socio-cultural Silence

Similar to the way it plays a key role in the understanding of interactive silence,
context is also critical in our interpretation of socio-cultural silence (Saville-
Troike, 1985). For example, differences among cultural groups in their propensity
to speak with strangers can cause stereotyping and negative attributions about
individuals whose interpersonal styles are unfamiliar (see Scollon, 1985; Houck
& Gass, 1997; Sajavaara & Lehtonen, 1997). These differences in cultural
expectations can prompt some to regard taciturn people as polite whereas others
consider them rude (Sifianou, 1997). Saunders (1985) showed that in some
cultures the deliberate use of noise and silence may be stylized strategies people
employ when there is ambivalence about the expression of emotion. Among some
Italians, for example, he noted that the more serious the potential for interpersonal
conflict, the more likely they will select silence over verbal expression. As well,
Saville-Troike noted that:
Utterances are also commonlycompletedin silence when the topic is a particularly delicate
one or the word which would be used is taboo, or when the situation is emotionallyloaded
and the speakeris 'at a loss' for words. The Japaneseterm haragei 'wordlesscommunication'
captures the essence of this latter type of silence (1985, p. 7).
ORGANIZATIONAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE SILENCE
Earlier we considered the critical role of context in interpretations of employee

silence. In this section, we argue that contextual factors can also be powerful
causes of employee silence, particularly among unjustly-treated individuals. In
fact, there has been intermittent interest in social science for many years directed
at how features of context can be characterized as moral (or immoral), just (or
unjust) (cf. Victor & Cullen, 1988), or politically charged (cf. Ferris, Russ &
Fandt, 1989; Victor & Cullen, 1988), influencing the morality of participants'
responses and their decisions to exit, express voice or remain silent. Hence, our
focus here shifts from silence as a noun or adjective (e.g. the state of being
silent) to silence as a verb implying action (e.g. being silenced), prompting us
to explore questions about whether and how certain organizational settings
generate and sustain employee silence. In so doing, we draw on three different
but related concepts: (1) cultures of injustice; (2) climates of silence; and (3)
the deaf ear syndrome.
How Organizations Produce Employee Silence
Recently, an inductive investigation by Harlos (1999) of employees from 33

different organizations across 12 industries found that some organizations have
cultures of injustice, a nomothetic concept developed to reflect shared meanings
among mistreated employees of what working within unjust employment
relationships is like. Specifically, from employees' descriptions, she identified
six dimensions that capture common elements of such workplaces. Together,

the dimensions depict conditions of intense supervisory control, strong suppres-
sion of conflict, valuing of job relations over human relations, and emphasis
on production through competitive individualism.
Conducting empirical studies of individuals across several organizations at
the same time allows researchers to identify influences from organizational
factors (Rousseau & House, 1994). Findings from Harlos' (1999) study revealed
both structural and procedural correlates of unjust cultures. Structural correlates
included ambiguous hierarchies of authority (i.e. unclear reporting structures;
Weber, 1947), high centralization (i.e. decision-making authority placed at the
top of the organizational hierarchy; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings & Turner, 1968),
and low formalization (i.e. minimal standardization of jobs and their protocols;
Pugh et al., 1968), whereas procedural correlates included authoritarian manage-
ment styles, poor communication, poorly-conducted performance reviews, and
haphazard decision-making (consistent with the concept of organized anarchy;
Cohen, March & Olsen, 1972).
In a related vein, Morrison and Milliken (2000) defined a climate of silence
as any organizational context that is " . . . characterized by two shared beliefs:
(a) that speaking up about problems in the organization is not worth the effort,
and (b) that voicing one's opinions and concerns is dangerous." They identify
a complex array of organizational and contextual factors that may create and
foster climates of silence. These factors, including patterns of organizational
policies and structures, demographic characteristics, belief structures of top
management teams, and processes of collective sense-making and communica-
tion, are incorporated in a model explaining how lower-level employees become
disillusioned and/or fearful about speaking out.
Similarly, preliminary studies have examined organizational failures to
respond to employees' harassment complaints (Peirce, Smolinski & Rosen,
1998) or to broader injustice complaints (Harlos, 2000). Such organizational
inaction, termed the deaf ear syndrome by Peirce et al. (1998), can result in
substantial costs from litigation, decreased productivity, and increased turnover.
Thus, the deaf ear syndrome functions as an organizational norm that discour-
ages employees' direct and open expression of their discontent.
Interestingly, despite their unique points of emphasis, the concepts of cultures
of injustice, climates of silence, and the deaf ear syndrome each suggest
that some organizational contexts systemically and routinely (perhaps even
predictably) generate injustices while fostering an atmosphere that discourages
unjustly-treated individuals from breaking their silence to improve their situa-
tions. Further theoretical and empirical work is needed, however, to more closely
examine the similarities and differences among these concepts.
The Role of Organizational Context in the Case of the Canadian Military

A fertile setting for the further study of the role of organizational contexts
in producing employee silence appears to be the Canadian (or any country's)
military. Although precise mechanisms or processes by which silence is created
remain unclear, published accounts confirm the fundamental role of context
with revelations that several soldiers' silences were due in part to their beliefs
that the abuse inflicted upon them was simply "the way things are," an unfor-
tunate but fixed feature of the organizational context. Indeed, despite his anger
at his sister's rape, Private Elaine Smith's brother told her "this is what happens
to women who come into the military. He told me to accept it and get over it"
(O'Hara, 1998, p. 16). In withholding knowledge of her rape from those who
could effect change, she recalled "I thought: 'Well, this is the hazing for women
- something I've gone through and won't go through again' " (O'Hara, p. 16).
Others reported deeply-held beliefs about the futility of informing their superiors
because of the traditional failure of military organizations to take soldiers'
complaints of mistreatment seriously, or to deal with them effectively (O'Hara,
1998b, 1998d; see also Frankle, 1997; Lenney, 1949; O'Day, 1974).
FORMS OF EMPLOYEE SILENT BEHAVIOR
To this point, we have shown that silence is not a unitary concept, and that it
can be caused and maintained by a variety of factors. Moreover, its multiple
forms can have multiple meanings, depending on the context(s) within which
it occurs. In particular, in contexts of injustice, silence can reflect anything but
inactive endorsement, as the literature review and military examples indicate.
Rather, silence can be associated with substantive (if covert) feelings of fear,
depression, and anger, attitudes of low self-esteem and suicidal thoughts and
actions (O'Hara, 1998a). Conceptual development of silence is challenging,
however, in part because of its conflicting yet simultaneous valuations as both
positive and negative (see Tannen, 1985) that result in unavoidable subjectivity
and ambiguity. But, according to Tannen, the determining factor in people's
evaluations of silence as a good or bad thing is whether they feel something
should be said. When people feel something should be said, silence is experi-
enced as uncomfortable and is perceived as omission.
Following Tannen (1985), we believe that people's evaluations of whether
something should be said is pivotal to understanding employee silence.
Furthermore, we suggest that people's views of the circumstances surrounding
their silence affects not only whether they feel that something should be said
but also whether something can be said. Thus, our attention at this stage of
concept development is not focused on silence as positive or negative per se,
348 C R A I G C. P I N D E R A N D K A R E N P. H A R L O S
but on people's degree of acceptance of organizational events and conditions

that produce and reinforce silent organizational behavior within contexts of
injustice. Some people, for example, are silent while preparing themselves, with
only the slightest provocation or opportunity, to break their silence. Others who
are silent are much less close to expressing voice, and are less vigilant for
opportunities to do so. Still others accept events and conditions that they find
unjust for long periods of time while being minimally aware of their own
silence, of alternatives to their circumstances, or of alternatives to their silent
responses. Like Tannen (1985), we regard each of these silences as omissions
that reflect different underlying evaluations of whether something should and/or
can be said.
We introduce two forms of employee silence to capture what we regard as
the pivotal variations of people's silences in unjust work settings: employee
quiescence and acquiescence.6 We distinguish between these two forms of
employee silence in relation to their properties along eight dimensions:
voluntariness, consciousness, acceptance, stress level, awareness of alternatives,
propensity to voice, propensity to exit, and dominant emotions.
Employee Quiescence
Further to our preliminary definition of employee silence introduced earlier (i.e.

the withholding of oral or written expression about employees' behavioral,
cognitive, and/or affective evaluations of their organizational circumstances to
persons who can effect change or redress), we propose employee quiescence as
one form of silence that represents deliberate omission. In contexts of workplace
injustice, it is an uncomfortable, conscious state that can be altered on one's own
or with others' assistance or provocation. A state of quiescence connotes
disagreement with one's circumstances, in effect suffering in silence while being
aware of existing alternatives to change the status quo, yet unwilling to explore
them. Nevertheless, quiescent employees are ready to break their silence to
change the circumstances that fostered or produced the silence. 7
By our definition, the Canadian soldiers who disclosed their mistreatment to
the media following the first set of published allegations were languishing
in states of quiescence immediately before the revelations and allegations
were made. Despite their prior lack of public protest, they did not accept their
organizational circumstances as fair or inevitable. Private Tracey Constable's
response (i.e. remaining silent for 11 years after being raised by a military
doctor) illustrates:
She [felt] . . . that she would not be believed by the military brass or by a system that often
favored rank over r e a s o n . . . Instead, Constable left the Forces with her secret, abandoning
EmployeeSilence 349
the career she loved. For more than a decade, Constable says, she 'rehearsed in my mind
a thousand times' how to tell someone what happened to her. But she kept silent - until
•.. she picked up the May 25 [1998] issue of Maclean's and cried as she read the heart-
breaking stories of women who claimed they had been sexually assaulted by military men
(O'Hara, 1998, p. 17).
During her protracted silence, Tracey was very much aware that her treatment
was unfair, and she remained ready for opportunities to break her silence to
those who could effect change or redress.
Some insight into long-held silences is provided by the spiral of silence
(Noelle-Neumann, 1974), a phenomenon by which we assess the degree of
public support an opinion enjoys before expressing that opinion. If we perceive
strong support, we feel more confident about the legitimacy of our view, and
are more willing to disclose it publicly. However, when public support is seen
as weak, we tend to view ourselves as a part of a "deviant minority," and we
perpetuate a downward spiral of silence to avoid further social isolation
(Kennamer, 1990). In the Canadian military, the first wave of public allegations
was evidence of public support for still-silent soldiers. It also challenged their
self-perceptions as a deviant minority and reduced the perceived risks of social
isolation from their own public disclosure, thereby encouraging soldiers to break
their silences. Once a few soldiers had spoken up, many others followed quickly.
Employee Acquiescence
In contrast, to be acquiescent is to submit (Webster's New International

Dictionary of the English Language, 1965), perhaps even to condone. 8 Employee
acquiescence thus implies a deeply-felt acceptance of organizational circum-
stances, a taking-for-granted of the situation and limited awareness that
alternatives exist. In unjust circumstances, acquiescence amounts to ignoring
existing alternatives and lacking a desire to seek any.
Acquiescence is a deeper state of silence than quiescence. It requires more
assistance or provocation to be broken than does quiescence. Acquiescent
employees are less conscious of their silence and are less ready or willing to
change than their quiescent counterparts. Like quiescence, it is uncomfortable
but its motivational capacity is weaker. People in deep acquiescence have given
up hope of improvement and become more or less oblivious to the importance
of external events that may provide grounds for hope and a possibility for
amelioration. It takes a lot more to motivate them into action (such as expressing
voice) than it does to motivate a quiescent employee to speak out or complain.
For example, we consider Canadian soldiers as acquiescent who continued to
withhold public knowledge of their mistreatment, having succumbed to a sense
of inevitability about their circumstances, despite the nation-wide attention and

support the Maclean's expos6 generated. We suggest that, to this day some
mistreated soldiers remain in states of acquiescence, discounting the merits of
speaking out and accepting their pain and humiliation as a natural, inevitable
part of military life.
Comparing Employee Quiescence and Acquiescence
Table 1 and Fig. 1 provide two vehicles for comparing employee quiescence
and employee acquiescence. Table 1 compares the two forms of silence in terms
of eight dimensions that characterize the phenomenological states involved as
well as the salience required of any external event to motivate the silent
employee to break his silence. For example, Table 1 indicates that quiescence
is a relatively voluntary and conscious state in which employees have not
accepted their "objectionable state of affairs" (Hirschman, 1970). Acceptance
of the status quo is comparatively low, stress levels are relatively high, and
employees are more likely to be aware of alternatives (or more willing to create
them or respond to them if alternatives arise). It takes far less provocation by
outside agents or subsequent organizational events to trigger attempts to express
voice or to exit the scene altogether. The dominant emotions of employees in
quiescence are fear, anger, cynicism, despair and possibly depression. The key
point is that they have not given up.
In contrast, acquiescent employees are silent more or less involuntarily, and
without conscious awareness of their state. Tolerance for the status quo is rela-
tively high; acquiescent employees have accepted their circumstances as normal,
Table 1. Dimensions of Quiescence and Acquiescence.

QU~SCENCE ACQU~SCENCE
VOLUNTARINESS Relatively voluntary Relativelyinvoluntary
CONSCIOU.S.NESS Conscious Less conscious
ACCEPTANCE Low Moderate to high
STRESS LEVEL Moderate to high Low to moderate
AWARENESS OF ALTERNATIVES Relativelyhigh Relatively low
PROPENSITY TO VOICE Relatively high Relatively low
PROPENSITY TO EXIT Relatively high Relatively low
DOMINANT EMOTIONS Fear, Anger, Despair, Resignation
Cynicism, Depression
<
~D
cy
~D
r.~
ca
¢D
0¢...
~D
r.~
0 0
~D
0
¢0 ,.d
t~
"- ' t~
0
,..4
or to be expected. Hence, stress levels are comparatively low and employees

are not highly motivated to seek or create new alternatives to their circum-
stances. Therefore, acquiescent employees are less likely to express voice or
quit than are quiescent employees. As suggested in Table 1, resignation is their
dominant affective state.
Figure 1 provides an alternative representation of the similarities and differ-
ences between quiescent and acquiesent states. The horizontal axis of Fig. 1
represents the salience and significance of the events or agents that are required
to motivate and enable employees in the two states to express voice, to break
their silence. The vertical axis represents the probability of such action. As
shown in Fig. 1, we hypothesize a negatively-accelerating relationship between
the salience of external events and the probability of the expression of voice
among quiescent individuals. Their awareness of the objectionability of their
circumstances keeps them relatively vigilent for cues from the environment that
a change in those circumstances is justified or possible. Hence, when Maclean's
magazine published preliminary allegations of abuse in the military, it did not
take long for quiescent soldiers to come forth and break their silence and a
snowball effect occurred.
By contrast, we hypothesize a positively-accelerating relationship between
event salience and the probability of voice among acquiescent employees.
Acquiescent individuals have accepted their circumstances as more-or-less
normal, and so are far less to become aroused to change those circumstances
when outside events occur to suggest that something is wrong. However, once
other people have spoken up in sufficient numbers, even acquiescent employees
may grow to consider the unacceptability of their circumstances. When that
occurs, as we hypothesize shortly, they may become quiescent and prepared to
take action.
AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF EMPLOYEE

SILENCE IN ORGANIZATIONS
In this section, we integrate the literatures reviewed with our concepts of

employee quiescence and acquiescence, offering a processual model of how
employees move into and out of states of silence in response to unjust treatment.
The model is developed and explained in Fig. 2.
Figure 2 indicates that organizational events or conditions act as catalysts for
the possible, eventual emergence of silence following a two-stage appraisal of
the events, similar to that proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). The primary
stage of appraisal involves a judgment of whether the event is unjust (see Arrow
1). We propose that employees' demographic characteristics such as cultural
~ •
~ • u
H e E c
%
0 e~ •
H ~m~ 0
~ o~ E
h~
0
C~
¢)
¢)
r~
~ om c
• • H E-~c o
~ eoe~
H • e~
m ~ ue~
~Q e~a.
I ~ o o
~c.J ,-1
• ° •
background and gender will influence the primary appraisal process (Arrow 2), 9
as will any prior direct or indirect experiences of workplace injustice (Arrow
3). If no injustice is perceived, the process stops. However, if injustice is
perceived, the second stage (or secondary appraisal process) is instigated (see
Arrow 4). The secondary level of appraisal involves employees' assessments
of whether circumstances can be ameliorated by the expression of voice. In
some cases, the employee will express concern, disagreement, or protest imme-
diately, even as the injustice is underway (Arrow 5). Any crying, protesting,
or begging by the women soldiers as they were being beaten or raped would
illustrate this preliminary form of voice. (Recall that the person to whom the
expression is addressed is key: the soldiers performing the attack were in a
position to stop it, so we define cries for cessation as voice behavior.) If the
injustice ends at this point, the process shown in Fig. 1 discontinues. If the
injustice continues or is completed, the victim may quit (Arrow 6), attempt
voice through official channels after-the-fact (Arrow 7), or become quiescent
(Arrow 8). Every time an individual attempts to seek relief or redress by
approaching someone in a position to provide them relief comprises an attempt
at voice (as shown by Arrow 7). Cases in which voice is attempted, and is
ignored or otherwise fails to bring amelioration or redress, can result in exit
behavior (Arrow 9) or extended quiescence (Arrow 10). In some cases, a quies-
cent employee such as Capt. Sandra Perron will quit and then express voice
(Branswell, 1998a) (See Arrow 11).
Individual Predispositions Toward Employee Silence
As Fig. 2 shows, we propose that several individual (Arrow 12) and situational
(Arrow 13) variables influence the secondary appraisal process, whereby
employees determine how they will respond to a perceived injustice. We argue
that theoretical and empirical explorations of employee silence must consider
the potential effects of enduring personality predispositions toward silence. We
focus on three traits: self-esteem, communication apprehension, and locus of
control.
Self-esteem, reflecting any number of dimensions of the self (e.g. physical,
social), is widely regarded in its aggregate as the overall evaluation of personal
worth that people make and maintain about themselves (Battle, 1990; Gardner
& Pierce, 1998; Locke et al., 1999). We propose that lower self-esteem leads
to employee silence in general and quiescence in particular. However, we
also recognize that abusive experiences can diminish self-esteem (see Cohen &
Roth, 1987; Foliano, 1995) (see Arrow 14). Additional support for situational
influences stems from research on organization-based self-esteem (Pierce,
Gardner, Cummings & Dunham, 1989), a trait describing employees' beliefs

about their personal worth as organizational members from their organizational
experiences and roles. Employees with high levels of organization-based self-
esteem feel valued at work and are described as motivated, capable, and
empowered (Gardner & Pierce, 1998). Findings from Pierce et al. (1989) suggest
that structural features of work environments can affect employees' sense of
organizational value: in particular, employees will develop low self-esteem in
mechanistic organizations emphasizing rigidity and control (see Arrow 15). We
note that these mechanistic features producing low-self-esteem are consistent
with work settings within cultures of injustice (Harlos, 1999) and climates of
silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000), as described earlier. As a final note, we
might expect generalized self-efficacy to be related to employee silence.
However, because self-esteem appears to account for much of its impact in field
studies (Gardner & Pierce, 1998), parsimony demands that self-efficacy not be
incorporated in our model.
The second trait, communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1970), refers to
a broad-based fear of communicating. People high in this trait " . . . anticipate
negative feelings and outcomes from communication, and will avoid commu-
nication, if possible, or suffer from a variety of anxiety-type feelings when
forced to communicate" (McCroskey, Daly & Sorenson, 1976, p. 376). In its
extreme form, it is severely debilitating and is believed to afflict 5-20% of
the population, according to one study (Bruskin Associates, 1973, cited by
McCroskey et al., 1976). Of particular interest to us are links with self-esteem:
people high in communication apprehension tend to be low in self-esteem
(McCroskey et al., 1976). Burgoon further hypothesized:
Research on conformityand persuasibilitydemonstratesthat the person with low self- esteem

is moreconforming,which may be due to individualswith low self-esteemhavingless faith in
their own opinions.... It should follow that such people will be unwilling to communicate
because they will expectothers to rejector criticizetheir communicationefforts(1976, p. 61).
Traditionally, communication anxiety is defined in terms of people's willingness

to express themselves orally. For our purposes, we expand its definition to
include non-oral channels through which employees can register injustice
complaints such as writing letters to authority figures or even the media.
Finally, locus of control is a personality trait reflecting people's varying
beliefs that what happens to them in life results either from personal charac-
teristics and effort or from circumstances beyond one's control (Rotter, 1966).
People who tend to believe that they are in control of what happens to them
are described as having an internal locus of control, whereas people who
typically believe that there is little to no relationship between their own effort
and what happens to them have an external locus of control (see Lefcourt, 1991,
for a review). We argue that externals are more likely to respond to unjust
events with quiescence rather than voice. Among our propositions, this is
admittedly the least supported by extant theory and empirical evidence: perhaps
internals will be silent, blaming themselves for their mistreatment because of
their assumption of personal control. However, in research on women's
reporting of harassment and self-blame, it is unclear whether failing to report
harassment (i.e. silence) leads to self-blame or whether self-blame leads to
silence (see Gutek & Koss, 1993). Regardless, our focus in terms of silence is
on the willingness to disclose to others who can effect change rather than self-
blame. In this sense, it seems reasonable to assume that people who see
themselves as in charge of their life will tend to forgo silence, opting instead
for the response that provides them with the greatest potential to effect change
(i.e. voice).
To summarize, we propose that employees with external loci of control, high
levels of communication apprehension, and low levels of self-esteem will be
more likely to respond with quiescence to events they perceive as unjust than
will employees with internal loci of control, low levels of communication
apprehension, and high levels of self-esteem (see Arrows 8 and 12).
Situational Factors as Causes of Employee Silence
Figure 2 indicates that three situational factors (i.e. cultures of injustice, the
deaf ear syndrome, and climates of silence) construed here as organizational
risk factors, may also predispose employees to silence in the face of mistreat-
ment, whether directly (see Arrows 8 and 13 in Fig. 2) or indirectly through
individual predispositions (as indicated earlier, see Arrows 8, 12 and 15). We
propose that employee quiescence (Arrow 8) and exit (Arrow 6) in response to
injustice are more likely when organizations have strong climates of silence,
cultures of injustice, deaf ears, limited voice channels, and when employees are
low in the organizational hierarchy.
Breaking Silence: Moving to Voice From Quiescence and Acquiescence
As Fig. 2 indicates, we propose that employees initially adopt quiescence when

experiencing injustice, if only for a short period. Furthermore, the individual
and situational variables identified here moderate the probability that quiescence
is adopted rather than voice or exit. Anger is believed to dominate states of
quiescence, along with fear of the consequences of voicing (Morrison &
Milliken, 2000), followed by feelings of cynicism and despair (see Table 1 and
Fig. 2). We also suggest that new events, which represent increased support or
additional opportunities to voice, can prompt both quiescent or acquiescent
employees to re-evaluate their circumstances and to move to voice from quies-
cence (whether directly or preceded by acquiescence). As we argued earlier,
however, we propose that such external events must be much more salient
and forceful to motivate acquiescent individuals to action than is the case with
quiescent individuals (see Fig. 1). In our military example, we regard the
first wave of published abuse allegations as such a "new event" that caused
other soldiers to re-evaluate perceived levels of public support and to recon-
sider the inevitability and acceptability of their own mistreatment. This
interpretation is supported by others who speculate that prior publication
of abuse in the U.S. military had inspired some Canadian soldiers to speak out
(O'Hara, 1999a). Regardless of their exact nature, we suggest that new events
(whether originating within or outside the organization) cause some silent
employees to undertake additional rounds of secondary appraisal (see Arrow
17). We hypothesize that the same demographic variables (Arrow 18), indi-
vidual predispositions (Arrow 19), and situational variables (Arrow 20) influence
the secondary appraisal processes by which acquiescent employees may return
to quiescence (Arrows 21 and 22), and thereafter express voice (Arrow 23),
exit (Arrow 24), voice followed by exit (Arrow 9), or exit followed by voice
(Arrow 11).
As indicated earlier, the spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1974) offers
insight into how silence is both maintained (i.e. staying in acquiescence or
quiescence) and broken (i.e. moving from quiescence to voice). According to
Noelle-Neumann, people stay silent in contexts of weak public support. When
public support seems strong, however, people disclose their views with greater
confidence and less fear. In the case of the Canadian military, despite national
concern and a public invitation from the Chief of Defense Staff (Canada's top
soldier) for all who had been mistreated during their service to speak out, the
process of breaking quiescence proved painful for many in part because of
officials' reported "bungling" of investigations (O'Hara, 1998d, p. 17). In all
probability, other victims of rape and abuse remain quiescent to this day, waiting
to see whether investigative procedures are improved, whether the organization
is sincere in its espoused commitment to redress, and whether public support
continues. Other soldiers, we propose, moved into acquiescence, the deeper
state of silence. Jean Sutherland, the mother of one Canadian soldier who was
abused, reported:
I fear that there are m a n y other victims out there w h o h a v e not spoken out yet . . . . M y one
big wish is for these people to have the c o u r a g e to do so - that is the only w a y to put an
end to all this violence ( O ' H a r a , 1998d, p. 21).
Thus, a key premise of our model is that to move into quiescence and become
ready to voice, acquiescent employees must consciously reject the inevitability
and acceptability of their unjust circumstances. The transition from acquiescence
to quiescence may be short, possibly instantaneous. In addition, the subsequent
transition to voice may be immediate, delayed or never occur. Regardless of
outcome, both moving into (Arrow 16) and out from (Arrow 22) acquiescence
entails a period of quiescent silence.
In some cases, however, acquiescence may last indefinitely until employees
quit the organization, having withheld knowledge of their mistreatment as if
nothing had ever happened to them (Arrow 25). Indeed, degrading or abusive
initiation rites suffered by some soldiers during their socialization may have
prompted them to accept such ritualized mistreatment as appropriate so that
they perpetrated similar abuse on other new recruits. Similarly, quiescence may
last for extended periods, even until the employee exits the organization for
other reasons (Arrow 24). This is most likely when opportunities for voice or
exit are restricted, or when dangers or costs of voicing or exiting are seen as
prohibitive (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Employees in extended quiescence
will be more uncomfortable than those in prolonged acquiescence because quies-
cence connotes a stronger awareness of their circumstances as unjust. Moreover,
we would expect quiescent employees to be angrier than acquiescent employees,
and therefore more motivated to take retributive action (overt or covert) in the
form of sabotage or interpersonal aggression, for example. For some individ-
uals, therefore, movement into acquiescence may be the most adaptive response;
developing beliefs that the world is cruel, that their organization is dysfunc-
tional, or that the injustices they have experienced are customary may make
them feel safer (see Arrow 16). Alternately, family, friends, counselors, or
colleagues may convince them that acceptance of reality underlying deeper
acquiescent silence will bring peace.
IMPLICATIONS OF EMPLOYEE SILENCE FOR

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The central concern for organizational researchers and practitioners arising from
our analysis is how best to understand and manage employee silence. Consistent
with our focus on "objectionable states of affairs" in employment relationships,
in this section we consider how organizations can discourage acquiescence and
quiescence as responses to perceived injustices. These considerations reflect an
underlying assumption that in negative contexts, employee silence is generally
undesirable, even potentially destructive. Although there may be occasions
within these contexts when silence is desirable (e.g. as a tactic for self-protection
amidst malevolent or hostile environments), we look at employees' withholding
of evaluations of their aversive organizational circumstances (from people who
can effect change) is harmful to themselves, to others, and/or their organizations
(cf. Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Additionally, our discussion here extends from
a positive view of conflict, reflecting beliefs that it is inevitable, constructive
(on balance), and based on mutual interests (Tjosvold, 1991). How, then, can
organizations encourage discontented or disaffected employees to break their
silences? We begin by reviewing recent research on organizational injustice,
then examining ways to manage silence by encouraging voice within contexts
of injustice.
The Range of Employees' Injustice Experiences
Previous inductive research suggests that a taxonomy reflecting four aspects of

employment relationships (i.e. relational, procedural, distributive and contextual)
exhaustively captures employees' experiences of injustice. This taxonomy and
its derivation are described in detail elsewhere (see Harlos & Pinder, 1999).
For the present purpose, we draw on the patterns identified in that research to
illustrate how employees' beliefs about their organizations' ability to respond
to their injustice perceptions prompt them to voice or remain silent.
One of the most interesting and important findings is that the pattern of inter-
actional injustice (i.e. mistreatment that occurs in the course of workplace
relations between employees and one or two authority figures with whom a
reporting relationship exists) emerged as a unique and substantive category of
injustice. Although others have previously acknowledged the role of inter-
personal treatment in justice research (Greenberg, 1990), to our knowledge
this is among the first findings to empirically demonstrate its predominance as
a stand-alone source of injustice perceptions rather than a secondary, social
aspect of procedural fairness (e.g. Bies & Moag, 1986). Two other patterns -
procedural and distributive injustices - more closely paralleled their justice-
based counterparts (cf. Sheppard et al., 1992), reflecting in the first instance
perceptions of unfairness from procedures involved in resource allocation
decisions and, in the second instance, actual decisions or outcomes perceived
as misallocations of resources. The fourth and final pattern identified (Harlos
& Pinder, 1999) was labelled systemic injustice to capture employees' pervasive
but diffuse perceptions of unfairness from larger organizational contexts within
which work relationships are enacted (i.e. interactional) and allocation decisions
are made (i.e. distributive) and/or implemented (i.e. procedural). This diversity
of issues behind the range of injustice perceptions, in turn, calls for breadth
and variety in ways that organizations respond to employees' complaints, as

we explain below.
Using Voice Systems to Listen to the Unspoken
Increasingly, organizations are introducing systems for employees to express

their suggestions, complaints, or concerns. Known in the organizational justice
literature as voice systems, there are many types: open door policies, grievance
procedures, and organizational ombudspersons. Findings suggest that voice
systems can increase employees' satisfaction and commitment (Sheppard,
Lewicki & Minton, 1992) while decreasing their propensities to unionize, quit
(Lind & Tyler, 1988), or launch lawsuits against their organizations. Voice
systems are effective because they provide employees with opportunities not
only to make suggestions for change before decisions are made (i.e. preventive
voice; Sheppard et al., 1992), but also to challenge objectionable decisions after
they have been made (i.e. remedial voice; Sheppard et al.). Given our focus on
negative contexts, our present concern is with remedial voice as employees seek
to challenge unfavorable interpersonal treatment, processes, decisions, or work
environments.
To date, most empirical studies in voice system research have focused on
written grievance procedures in unionized work settings (see Lewin, 1999). In
contrast, much less is known about more informal voice systems (e.g. media-
tion), despite their prevalence and increasing popularity. Rowe (1990), for
example, argued that designers of voice systems need to build in a range of
formal and informal options to meet the diverse needs of those who may wish
to express voice. The diversity of needs arises, in part, from variations in
individual demographic differences, the nature of complaints (e.g. interactional,
distributive), and the functions of particular options (e.g. confidential advice,
adjudication, upward feedback; Rowe & Baker, 1984).
Yet questions remain in voice system research concerning intersections
between types of systems and types of injustice. For example, which voice
system best addresses complaints of interactional injustice? Do those who feel
they have been personally harassed or bullied prefer or require a different voice
system from those whose promotion was denied without apparent cause?
Empirical studies are needed to learn more about who uses voice systems, for
what issues, and with what results (i.e. effectiveness). Moreover, little is known
about whether effectiveness criteria vary across systems (see Brett et al., 1990).
To learn more about employee silence, however, such research requires focusing
on individuals rather than organizations, allowing not only for relationships
between perceptions of voice systems and their actual use to emerge, but also
for unjustly treated employees who remain silent to provide data concerning
expectations and effectiveness of voice systems as well as about barriers against
their use.
On a more practical level, we recognize that there are several key implications
for training both staff who are responsible for managing voice systems and
employees who are considering whether to break their silence. Clearly, both
parties need to be willing to communicate amidst emotionally-charged disputes.
Handling one's own and others'emotions effectively while demonstrating
empathy, attending, and probing (Egan, 1986) are among critical skills for
listening to the unspoken and that which is voiced (see also Saunders et al.,
1992). Additionally, along with a more conflict-positive approach, basic skills
in negotiating to help identify integrative solutions (Brett, Goldberg & Ury,
1990) would discourage acquiescence and quiescence. This is particularly true
for managers who lack formal training in conflict resolution but who nonetheless
deal directly with disputes or promote high conflict tolerance through explicit
promises that "their door is always open," for example.
POTENTIAL DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH ON

EMPLOYEE SILENCE
Earlier we noted that silence has been referred to as "a slippery concept"
(Muldoon, 1996). Our survey of both acoustic and pragmatic forms of silence
confirms that, indeed, it is a difficult, perhaps intractable concept representing
ineffable phenomena. Regardless, its slipperiness does not reduce its importance
as a form of organizational behavior that has gone without much attention
in the organizational sciences. We urge others to join in the pursuit of this
fascinating phenomenon, and we offer a few suggestions for such research,
along with a caveat.
First, along with Morrison and Milliken (2000), we have examined employee
silence primarily as a response (to injustice) in organizational settings. We urge
that silence be studied also as a cause of other organizational behaviors.
Second, we urge that silence be studied in positive, aversive, and benign
organizational circumstances. To the same extent that it has been a mistake
heretofore to assume that silence implies consent, it is a mistake to assume that
silence implies disapproval.
Third, while we made frequent reference to the abuses suffered recently by
a significant number of soldiers in the Canadian military, we do not presume
to offer a grounded theory of employee silence in any particular circumstances,
whether positive or otherwise. Hence, an early next step in silence research and
theory construction should include the examination of many more organizations
in which injustices have been perpetrated (or allegedly so), with a particular
emphasis on the rates at which victims of injustice break their silence (recall
Fig. 1).
Fourth, we have offered the notion that there are qualitatively different forms
(or states) of silence, hoping that those who wish to undertake the study of
silence will explore the validity of our quiescence/acquiesence dichotomy and
revise it as necessary.
Fifth, future work may also investigate the notion of aptimal levels afsilence.
That is, a prima facie case may be made that too much silence or too little
silence may be dysfunctional in organizational settings. As Morrison and
Milliken (2000) and Kleiner, Nickelsburg and Pilarski (1988) observe, too
much silence prevents feedback loops from developing to correct inappropriate
organizational policies and practices. Yet, too little silence (a condition in which
members of a work group or organization are constantly complaining) can also
be dysfunctional (cf. Freeman & Medoff, 1984).
Whatever directions are taken in silence research, we anticipate that non-
traditional methods such as diaries, personal accounts, and even projective
techniques will be required, at least during the early stages of inquiry. Intrusive
methods such as survey techniques may distort the experiences of silence
participants are experiencing.
Finally, we urge careful exploration of silence, following the best precepts
of construct development and validation (cf. Schwab, 1980; Frost & Stablein,
1992, especially Part 11). Too often it is the case that preliminary levels of
enthusiasm for a "new" concept in organizational science leads to a proliferation
of measurement activity and substantive theory construction before sufficient
care has been invested in sorting out and reaching agreement about the bound-
aries of the concept itself, as well as a sense of the nomological nets (Cronback
& Meehl, 1955) to which it belongs. (Early work on trust in organizations
provides a recent example - see Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995.)
CONCLUSION
Despite the attention that the concept of silence has received in disciplines such
as anthropology, sociology, and linguistics, it has been largely neglected in
organizational research. This historical neglect stems, in part, from the common
assumption that silence is nothing more than the absence of voice, reflecting
inaction and endorsement. On the contrary, our review of disparate literatures
suggests that silence can communicate and that it is accompanied by charac-
teristic thoughts, feelings, and actions. Throughout this paper, we have attempted
to not only preserve the complexities of the concept, but to expand its
conceptualization given the intricacies of human behavior and vagaries of

organizational life. A recent New Yorker cartoon illustrates (literally) the
conceptual complexity that we build on here. The drawing depicts a cocktail
party, at which a woman, standing to one side with a man, says to the him,
"His volumes speak silences." Thus, silences speak and voices can say nothing.
We accept that the terrain of silence is difficult and frustrating, but also
eminently interesting and important. We endorse Johannsen's (1974) plea for
further research on silence, specifically encouraging its systematic study within
organizations. We hope, for instance, to prompt further inquiries into the nature,
incidence, and impact of employee silence, including why some victims of
organizational injustice maintain their silences whereas other break theirs. We
have suggested that within circumstances regarded as unjust, silent organiza-
tional behavior may be acquiescent or quiescent in nature. It is premature,
however, to assert that these are the only two meaningful forms of employee
silence; further research may reveal that silence in organizations comprises more
forms than the two proposed here. We hope that organizational researchers
interested in studying silence will adopt the terms employee quiescence and
acquiescence, at least initially, to foster theorizing by rejecting implicit
interpretations of silence as inaction and endorsement.
We also hope that the theory introduced here will challenge managers to
reject simplistic assumptions that employees' silence implies endorsement of
organizational events; quiet employees are not necessarily content. Indeed,
the soldiers' stories and the academic literatures reviewed here suggest that
deafening silences in organizations can occur just before storms break.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part by separate grants to both authors from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada and by
a grant to the first author from the Centre for Labour and Management Studies
(CLAMS) at the University of British Columbia. The authors thank Professors
David McPhillips, Elvi Whittaker and Ronald Cohen for their contributions to
this project. We also thank Brian Bainbridge, Brian Bemmels, Art Brief, Robert
Folger, Peter Frost, Barbara Gutek, Roy Lewicki, Elizabeth Morrison, Sandra
Robinson, Ralph Stablein, Steve Tax and Gordon Walter for their comments
on earlier drafts of this paper, and Oana Branzei for early research assistance.
A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 40th Annual Meeting
of the Western Academy of Management, Hawaii, April 2000. Portions were
also presented at the 3rd Australian Industrial and Organisational Psychology
Conference held in Brisbane, June 1999.
NOTES
1. More than 50 years ago, Lenney (1949) discussed at length whether hazing rituals
at West Point were inhumane, and more recently, Nuwer (1999) has documented the
traditions of hazing and rites of initiation in both fraternal and military organizations.
2. Fear of reprisal also affects indirect observers of mistreatment. For example, the
day after her rape, Private Elaine Smith told her brother, also a soldier, what had
happened. "He seemed very upset, very mad. Then he told me not to complain . . . . [He
said] 'it's only going to hurt you, and it's only going to hurt me.' He said if people
find out his sister complained he'll end up being ousted or leaving because they'll be
so hard on him" (O'Hara, 1998a, p. 16).
3. Pragmatics is the sub-discipline of semiotics that deals with the extra-linguistic
purposes and effects of communications (Honderich, 1995, p. 821).
4. Power dependence is rooted in exchange-based models of reciprocity between
people where power is a commodity with costs and rewards affecting exchanges
(Homans, 1961) and where relationships reflect mutual dependencies based on inverse
degrees of power; the more that A is dependent on B, the more power B has over A
(Emerson, 1962).
5. Similarly, other studies report that making light of harassment is a fairly common
response allowing victims either to avoid interpreting the incident(s) as sexual harassment
or to avoid confronting the harasser (see Gutek & Koss, 1993), thereby maintaining
silence.
6. Webster's Dictionary (1965) does not define silence in connection with either
quiescence or acquiescence, although Hirschman (1970, p. 31) makes passing reference
to "acquiescence or indifference."
7. In contexts of justice, quiescence may belie vigilance against change or loss of
one's comfortable circumstances. In this situation, a person is ready to speak up to
protect the status quo.
8. In personality theory and measurement, acquiescence " . . . is the tendency to agree
rather than disagree with propositions in general" (Paulhus, 1991, p. 46).
9. Individuals' work values, especially in relation to justice and injustice, are
especially important components of cultural background in such situations (see Stackman,
Pinder & Connor, 2000).
REFERENCES
American Journal of Psychotherapy (1993). Silence: The resounding experience, 47, 167-170.
Asch, S. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgement. In:
H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.
Battle, J. (1990). Self esteem: The new revolution. Edmonton: James Battle and Associates.
Bies, R., & Moag, J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In: R. J.
Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard & B. H. Bazerman (Eds), Research on Negotiation in Organizations
(Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Boroff, K. (1989). Loyalty - a correlate of exit, voice, or silence? In: J. F. Burton (Ed.), Industrial
Relations Research Association Series: Proceedings of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting
(pp. 307-314). Madison, WI." Industrial Relations Research Association.
Brett, J., Goldberg, S., & Ury, W. (1990). Designing systems for resolving disputes in organizations.
American Psychologist, 45(2), 162-170.
Bruneau, T. (1973). Communicative silences: Forms and functions. The Journal of Communication,
23, 17-46.
Bruskin Associates (1973). What are Americans afraid of?. The Bruskin Report, No. 53.
Cage, J. (1961). Silence; lectures and writings. Middletown, CT: Weslayan University Press.
Caproni, P., & Finley, J. (1997). When organizations do harm: Two cautionary tales. In: P. Presad
& A. Mills (Eds), Managing the Organizational Melting Pot (pp. 255-284). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Carlson, M. (1995). The louts of discipline. Time, August 28, No. 9, p. 35.
Cleveland, J., & McNamara, K. (1996). Understanding sexual harassment: Contributions from
research on domestic abuse and organizational change. In: M. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual
Harassment in the Workplace: Perspectives, Frontiers and Response Strategies (pp. 217-240).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25.
Cohen, R. L. (1990). Justice, voice and silence. Paper presented at the International Conference
on Social Science and Societal Dilemmas, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
Dauenhauer, B. P. (1980). Silence: The phenomenon and its ontological significance. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
Davis, K., Leijenaar, M., & Oldersma, J. (Eds). (1991). The gender of power. London: Sage.
Dutton, D., & Painter, S. (1993). The battered woman syndrome: Effects of severity and intermit-
tency of abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63, 614-4522.
Egan, G. (1986). The skilled helper: A systematic approach to effective helping. CA: BrooksCole.
Ehrenhaus, P. (1988). Silence and symbolic expression. Communication Monographs, 55, 41-57.
Emerson, R. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multi-
dimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 596-607.
Ferris, G. R., Russ, G. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In: R. A. Giacalone
& P. Rosenfeld (Eds), Impression Management in the Organization (pp. 143-170). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive justice and procedural justice: Combined impact of 'voice' and
improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,
108-119.
Foliano, J. S. (1995). Listening to the voices of survivors: The effects of rape on self-esteem and
self-blame. Dissertation Abstracts International-B, 56/04, p. 2323.
Francke, L. B. (1997). Ground zero. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Frost, P. J., & Stahlein, R. E. (1992). Themes and variations: An examination of the exemplars.
In: P. J. Frost & R. E. Stablein (Eds), Doing Exemplary Research. Newbury Park, CA:
Gage Publishing Company.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational
context: An empirical examination. Group and Organizational Management, 2, 48-70.
Graham, J. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In: B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, (Vol. 8, pp. 1-52). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 16, 399-432.
Gutek, B., & Koss, M. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and
coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 28-48.
Harlos, K. P. (1998). Organizational injustice and its resistance using voice and silence (Doctoral
dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International-A,
59/05, p. 1660.
Harlos, K. P. (1999). Cultures of injustice: Organizational correlates of unjust employment
relationships. Proceedings: Third Australian Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Conference (pp. 111-119). Brisbane, QLD. Australian Psychological Society.
Harlos, K. P. (2000). When voice systems fail: More on the deaf ear syndrome and frustration
effects. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Harlos, K. P., & Pinder, C. C. (1999). Patterns of organizational injustice: A taxonomy of what
employees regard as unjust. Advances in Qualitative Organizational Research, 2, 97-126.
Hirschman, A O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
HoUis, J. (1970). Harold Pinter: The poetics of silence. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior." Its elementary forms. NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Honderich, T. (Ed.) (1995). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hotelling, K. (1991). Sexual harassment: A problem shielded by silence. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 69, 497-501.
Houck, N., & Gass, S. M. (1997). Cross-cultural back channels in English refusals: A source of
trouble. In: A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 285-308). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Jaworski, A. (1993). The power of silence: Social and pragmatic perspectives. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Jaworski, A. (Ed.) (1997). Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jensen, J. V. (1973). Communicative functions of silence. ETC, 30, 2249-257.
Johannsen, R. (1974). The functions of silence: A plea for communication research. Western Speech,
38, 25-35.
Kahn, E. (1958). Functions of silence in life and literature. Contemporary Review, 194, 204-206.
Kanter, R. (1971). Men and women of the corporation. NY: Basic Books.
Kennamer, J. D.(1990). Self-serving biases in perceiving the opinions of others. Communication
Research, 17, 393-404.
Kleiner, M. M., Nickelsburg, & Pilarski, A. M. (1988). Grievances and plant performance: Is Zero
optimal? Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research
Association. IRRA: Madison, WI.
Kolarska, L., & Aldrich, H. (1980). Exit, voice and silence: Consumers' and managers responses
to organizational decline. Organization Studies, 1, 41-58.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.
Lazarus, R. L., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. NY: Springer.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1991). Locus of control. In: J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman
(Eds), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp. 413-499). San Diego:
Academic Press.
Lenney, J. J. (1949). Caste system in the American Army. NY: Greenberg.
Lewin, D. (1999). Theoretical and empirical research on the grievance procedure and arbitration:
A critical review. In: A. Eaton & J. Keefe (Eds), EmploymentDispute Resolution and Worker
Rights in the Changing Workplace (pp. 137-185). NY: ILR Press.
Lind, E., Kanfer, R., & Early, P. (1990). Voice, control and procedural justice: Instrumental and
non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 952-959.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. NY: Plenum
Press.
Lips, H. (1994). Female powerlessness: A case of "cultural preparedness"? In: H. L. Radtke &
H. J. Stam (Eds), Power~Gender: Social Relations in Theory and Practice (pp. 89-107).
London: Sage Publications.
Locke, E. A., McClear, K., & Knight, D. (1996). Self-esteem and work. In: C. L. Cooper &
I. T. Robertson (Eds). International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
(Vol. 11, pp. 1-32).
Maclean's. (1998). In defence of the military. June 1, 17.
Maniero, L. (1986). Coping with powerlessness: The relationship of gender and job dependency
to empowerment-strategy useage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 633~553.
McCarthy, J. (1983). Silence: Descriptions and queries. Philosophy Today, 27 (2), 141-146.
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37,
269-277.
McCroskey, J. C., Daly, J. A., & Sorensen, G. (1976). Personality correlates of communication
apprehension: A research note. Human Communication Research, 2, 376-380.
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1989). The incidence of wrongdoing, whistle-blowing and retaliation:
Results of a naturally-occurring field experiment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 2, 91-108.
Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as
dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 298-305.
Molseed, M. (1989). Gender, silence and group structure. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 10,
145-165.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and devel-
opment in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706--725.
Muldoon, M. S. (1996). Silence revisited: Taking the sight out of auditory qualities. The Review
of Metaphysics, 50, 275-298._
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of
Communication, 24, 43-51.
Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.
O'Day, R. 1974. Intimidation rituals: Reactions to reform. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
10, 373-386.
Office of the Inspector General (1993). The Tailhook report. NY: St. Martin's Press.
O'Hara, J. (1998a). Rape in the military. Maclean's, May 25, 15-21.
O'Hara, J. (1998b). Breaking ranks. Maclean's, May 25, 24.
O'Hara, J. (1998c). Speaking out. Maclean's, June 1, 14-20.
O'Hara, J. (1998d). Of rape and justice. Maclean's, December 14, 16-21.
O'Reilly, C., Chatman, J., & CaldweU, D. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal,
34, 487-516.
Parker, L., & August, D. (1997). Silent dissenters: A model for exploring the source and
consequences of principled turnover. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of
Management, Boston, MA.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In: J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver
& L. S. Wrightsman (Eds), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes
(pp. 17-59). San Diego: Academic Press.
Peirce, E., Smolinski, C., & Rosen, B. (1998). Why sexual harassment complaints fall on deaf ears.
Academy of Management Executive, 12 (3), 41-54.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based
self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 622-648.
Pinter, H. (1964). Writing for the theatre. In: H. Popkin (Ed.), The new British drama.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1968). Dimensions of organizational
structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 65-105.
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal
of Marketing, 47, 68-78.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80(1), Whole No. 609.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro
organizational behavior. In: L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 71-114). Greenwich CT: JmI Press.
Rousseau, D. M., & House, R. J. (1994). Meso organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15 (Suppl. 1), 13-30.
Rowe, M. (1990). Helping people help themselves: An ADR option for interpersonal conflict.
Negotiation Journal, 6(3), 239-248.
Rowe, M., & Baker, M. (1984). Are you hearing enough employee concerns? Harvard Business
Review, 62, 127-135.
Rudman, L. A., Borgida, E., & Robertson, B. A. (1995). Suffering in silence: Procedural justice
versus gender socialization issues in university sexual harassment grievance procedures.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 519-541.
Sajavaara, K., & Lehtonen, J. (1997). The silent Finn revisited. In: A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 263-284). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Saunders, G. R. (1985). Silence and noise as emotion management styles: An Italian case. In:
D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds), Perspectives on Silence (pp. 165-184). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
Saunders, D., Sheppard, B., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992). Employee voice to supervisors. Employee
Responsibility and Rights Journal, 5(3), 241-259.
Saville-Troike, M. (1985). The place of silence in an integrated theory of communication. In:
D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds), Perspectives on Silence (pp.3-18). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Co.
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In: B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-44). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Scollon, R. (1985). The machine stops: Silence in the metaphor of malfunction. In: D. Tannen &
M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspectives on Silence (pp. 21-30). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Co.
Schmitt, E. (1992). Wall of silence impedes inquiry into a rowdy navy convention. The New York
Times, June 14, 1, 34.
Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Seabrook, J. (1999). Sleeping with the baby. New Yorker,. November 8, Vol. LXXV, No. 33, 56-65.
Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for
fairness in the workplace. Toronto: Lexington Books.
Sifianou, M. (1997). Silence and politeness. In: A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives (pp. 63-84). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Singh, J. (1990). A typology of consumer dissatisfaction styles. Journal of Retailing, Spring, 57-99.
Sobkowiak, W. (1997). Silence and markedness theory. In: A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence:
Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 39--62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sontag, S. (1969). The aesthetics of silence. In: S. Sontag (Ed.), Styles of Radical Will (pp. 3-34).
NY.: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.
Spencer, D. (1986). Employee voice and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal,
29, 488-502.
Stackman, R. W., Pinder, C. C., & Connor, P. R. (2000). Values lost: Redirecting research on
values in the workplace. In: N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom & M. F. Peterson (Eds),
Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate (pp. 37-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Stephens, N., & Gwinner, K. P. (1998). Why don't some people complain? A cognitive-emotive
process model of consumer complaint behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 26, 172-189.
Stockdale, M. (Ed.) (1996). Sexual harassment in the workplace (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Szuchewycz, B. (1997). Silence in ritual communication. In: A. Jaworski (Ed.), Silence:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 239-260). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tannen, D. (1985). Silence: Anything but. In: D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspectives
on Silence (pp. 93-112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. NY: Ballantine
Books.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization: Stimulate diversity and create unity. NY:
Addison-Wesley.
Tyler, S. A. (1978). The said and the unsaid: Mind, meaning, and culture. NY: Academic Press.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. R. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 33, 101-125.
Watts, R. W. (1997). Silence and the acquisition of status in verbal interaction. In: A. Jaworski
(Ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 87-116). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations (Henderson, A., & Parsons, T.,
Trans.). NY: Free Press.
White, L. (1990). Subordination, rhetorical survival skills and Sunday shoes: Notes on the hearing
of Mrs. G. Buffalo Law Review, 38(1), 1-58.
Wiggins, O. P. (1983). Reflections on Barnard Dauenhauer's "Silence." Philosophy Today, 27(2),
105-121, 126.
Wilmer, H. A. (1996). Silence: Something we rarely hear, which does not exist. Journal of The
American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 23, 723-730.
Withey, M., & Cooper, W. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 34, 521-539.
Yiannis, G. (1998). An introduction to the social psychology of insults in organizations. Human
Relations, 5, 1329-1354.
View publication stats

PINDER & HARLOS Employee Silence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PINDER & HARLOS Employee Silence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PINDER & HARLOS Employee Silence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Employee Silence: Quiescence and Acquiescence as

Chapter in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management · December 2001

Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Craig C. Pinder and Karen P. Harlos

Purpose and Boundaries

Definition of Employee Silence

We suggest that individual-level silence encompasses a range of feelings,

Features and Implications of our Definition

significance of the concept in a sample of these disparate disciplines, seeking

HIRSCHMAN'S LEGACY: RESPONSES TO

Conflicting Views of Silence: Endorsement or Objection?

Since Hirschman (1970), the organizational sciences have generally continued

remains a neglected, albeit common, response of dissatisfied (e.g. Kolarska &

Marketing research also acknowledges silence as a form of objection. In one

FUNCTIONS, MEANINGS, AND FORMS OF SILENCE

Acoustic Silence: The Absence of Sound

Pragmatic Silence: The Absence of Speech

Whereas sound is the putative opposite of acoustic silence, speech is typically

This quotation illustrates both communication (whether with oneself or others)

FORMS AND FEATURES OF PRAGMATIC SILENCE

The Literature on Interactive Silence

As a form of pragmatic silence, interactive silence is often strategic and inten-

Interactive silences, therefore, allow people to make inferences about verbal

Contextual Factors Affecting Interactive Silences

Social scientific theory and research on pluralistic ignorance (Miller &

Power dependence also underlies a silence strategy that we call tactical

Gender. Besides power, gender is important for extended interactive silence. On

Combining power and gender. Feminist scholarship traditionally has contended

The Literature on Socio-cultural Silence

Contextual Considerations Affecting Socio-cultural Silence

ORGANIZATIONAL CAUSES OF EMPLOYEE SILENCE

Earlier we considered the critical role of context in interpretations of employee

How Organizations Produce Employee Silence

Recently, an inductive investigation by Harlos (1999) of employees from 33

six dimensions that capture common elements of such workplaces. Together,

The Role of Organizational Context in the Case of the Canadian Military

FORMS OF EMPLOYEE SILENT BEHAVIOR

but on people's degree of acceptance of organizational events and conditions

Further to our preliminary definition of employee silence introduced earlier (i.e.

In contrast, to be acquiescent is to submit (Webster's New International

of inevitability about their circumstances, despite the nation-wide attention and

Comparing Employee Quiescence and Acquiescence

Table 1. Dimensions of Quiescence and Acquiescence.

or to be expected. Hence, stress levels are comparatively low and employees

AN INTEGRATIVE MODEL OF EMPLOYEE

In this section, we integrate the literatures reviewed with our concepts of

Individual Predispositions Toward Employee Silence

Gardner, Cummings & Dunham, 1989), a trait describing employees' beliefs

Research on conformityand persuasibilitydemonstratesthat the person with low self- esteem

Traditionally, communication anxiety is defined in terms of people's willingness

Situational Factors as Causes of Employee Silence

Breaking Silence: Moving to Voice From Quiescence and Acquiescence

As Fig. 2 indicates, we propose that employees initially adopt quiescence when

IMPLICATIONS OF EMPLOYEE SILENCE FOR

The Range of Employees' Injustice Experiences

Previous inductive research suggests that a taxonomy reflecting four aspects of

and variety in ways that organizations respond to employees' complaints, as

Using Voice Systems to Listen to the Unspoken