Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs

By Linn van Dyne, Soon Ang, Isabel C. Botero. 2003

1,934 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/68cb5a299759ac328b1d0993d9617719c29f42bc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Information Systems and Management

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Who speaks up at work? Dispositional influences on employees' voice behavior (2008, background): “Although, employee’s voice could be considered as the opposite pole of organizational silence, van Dyne et al. (2003) suggested that they are two independent, multidimensional constructs.”
Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: an empirical investigation (2005, background): “(1997) investigated the role of self esteem in expression of voice and concluded that individuals who have high self esteem, are more likely to express voice behaviour or be open to change according to Wanberg and Banas (2000). Other studies indicate the role of individual differences in coping with”
Workplace bullying and employee silence (2017, background): “…employee intentionally withholding ideas, information, concerns, and opinions about issues related to their job and the organization (Brinsfield, 2013; Dyne et al., 2003), is one of the most significant passive responses that employees display in the face of mistreatment at work (Xu et al., 2015).”
Echoes of Silence: Employee Silence as a Mediator Between Overall Justice and Employee Outcomes (2012, methodology): “With respect to item generation, the authors used the critical incident technique and existing theory to develop the items (e.g., Pinder and Harlos 2001; Van Dyne et al. 2003).”
The Silent and the Silenced in Organizational Knowing and Learning (2009, background): “Moreover, Van Dyne et al. (2003) differentiated two further types of voluntary silence: ‘acquiescent’, where the individual is silent because they are prepared to go along with what is occurring; and ‘pro-social’, where the decision to withhold is based on a judgement that this is ‘for the best’ for”
Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st century organizations: strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees (2011, background): “Perhaps most relevant to GLBT employees is the concept of quiescent or defensive voice, designed to protect oneself from abuse or mistreatment (Ellis & Van Dyne, 2009; Pinder & Harlos, 2001), as may occur in environments that are heterosexist or hostile to GLBT employees.”
Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect model of employees' responses to adverse conditions in the workplace (2007, methodology): “However, when the model is employed to describe the employment relationship, voice necessarily takes on a different meaning, defined by Rusbult et al. (1988) as ‘actively and constructively trying to improve conditions’, a form of voice also referred to as pro-social voice (Van Dyne et al., 2003).”
Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures (2013, methodology): “Van Dyne et al. (2003) also proposed this dimension of employee silence and defined it as “withholding relevant ideas, information, or opinions as a form of self-protection, based on fear” (p. 1367).”