Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013) 314 – 321

9th International Strategic Management Conference

The relationship between organizational silence and organizational

citizenship behavior: a survey study in the province of Erzurum,
Turkey
a b c
, , a
a, b, c
Turkey

Abstract

Although employees are regarded as sources of change, creativity, learning and innovation which are strategic factors to achieve
organizational goals, many of them choose to be silent and not to convey their valuable opinions and concerns about the problems
in their organizations. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is determined as a set of discretionary workplace behaviors that
aid that organizational silence (OS) and OCB are very
vital for organizations. In this study the relationship between OS and OCB is investigated. The data gathered from employees of
two medicine firms and two hospitals located in the province of Erzurum, Turkey.

Keywords: Organizational silence, Organizational citizenship behaviour, Erzurum

3 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the 9th International Strategic
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Management
Selection Conference
and peer-review under responsibility of the International Strategic Management Conference.

1. Introduction
There is a
voice should be more valuable then silence especially for organizations. The
saying actually takes attention to unnecessary and waste conversation. On the other hand, employees are often not
willing to convey information that could be understood as negative or threatening to superiors in an organizational
e sense if the employee fears that the manager will react

in the organization (Milliken, et al., 2003).

Morrison and Milliken (2000) suggest that organizational silence is the term used to refer to the collective-level
phenomenon of doing or saying very little in response to significant problems or issues facing an organization or
industry because of negative reactions. Indeed, when most of employees prefer to keep silence about organizational
matters, silence becomes a collective behavior which is called organizational silence (Henriksen and Dayton, 2006).

Corresponding author. Tel. + 90-533-510-7186 Email address:orhanar@gmail.com

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the International Strategic Management Conference.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.499
 Orhan Çınar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013) 314 – 321 315

Organizational silence is an inefficient process which can waste all organizational efforts and may take various
forms, such as collective silence in meetings, low levels of participation in suggestion schemes, low levels of
collective voice and so on (Nikmaram, et al., 2012).

While in a changing world, organizations need for employees who express their ideas; employees also choose
organizations in which they can express themselves because both employees and managers have high motivation and
high performance in a place that silence doesn't exist. How to break silence culture and establish a free climate to
encourage employees' voice are big challenges faced to mangers (Beheshtifar et al., 2012). It is obvious that a silent
climate can work against organizational outcomes and vice versa.

Katz and Kahn (1978) stated that organizational citizenship is important in organizations because it can be highly
valuable to organizations and can contribute to performance and competitive advantage. OCB is a relatively new
notion in performance analysis but it represents a very old human conduct of voluntary action and mutual aid with no
request for pay or formal rewards in return. Successful organizations need employees who will do more than their
usual job duties and provide performance that is beyond expectations.

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) include actions in which employees are willing to go above and
beyond their defined role requirements. According to Podsakoff et al. (1997), as OCB contributes to improved
organizational effectiveness, it takes considerable amount of attention.

Within this framework it is possible to say that both the OS and OCB are very important subjects for organizations
to reach desired objectives. In this context, our study focuses on the relationship between OS and OCB. The study
begins by a literature review of OS and OCB then will go on to development of hypotheses. Research methodology,
analyses results and research model will take place at second section. The results of the analyses will be discussed and
recommendation will be provided for managers and academician at the last section.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Organizational Silence

Employees often have ideas, information and opinions for constructive ways to improve work and work
organizations. Sometimes employees practice voice and convey their ideas, information, and opinions; and other times
they remain silent. Apparently, expressing and withholding behaviors might appear to be polar opposites because
silence implies not speaking while voice implies speaking up on important issues and problems in organizations (Zehir
and Erdo an, 2011).

The literature on organizational silence is grounded on the recent research by Morrison and Milliken (2000);
Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin (2003); and Pinder and Harlos (2001). Early definitions of silence equated it with
umption that nothing was wrong if concerns were not being voiced (Bagheri, et al., 2012). Pinder
and Harlos (2001) defined silence as the absence of voice as it has its own form of communication, involving a range
of cognitions, emotions or intentions such as objection or endorsement.

one reason of the silence of people about their concerns might be the fact that psychologists m
individuals have a general reluctance to convey negative information
because of the discomfort associated with being the conveyer of bad news. In organizations, there is evidence that
employees are especially uncomfortable conveying information about potential problems or issues to those above
them. In other words, the hierarchical relationship between subordinate and supervisor appears to increase the mum
effect (Milliken, et al., 2003). Morrison and Millike
proposed that when most members of organizations choose to keep silent about organizational matters, silence
becomes a collective behavior, which is referred to as organizational silence (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Milliken,
Morrison and Hewlin (2003) suggest a model of the choice to remain silent (Figure 1).
316 Orhan Çınar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013) 314 – 321

Figure1. A Model of the Choice to Remain Silent

It is suggested that employee silence is extremely harmful to organizations often causing an increasing level of
dissatisfaction among employees, which shows itself in absenteeism and turnover and perhaps other undesired

communication suffers and as a result harms the overall functioning of the organization. Other results may be
disappearance of innovation, poor projects, low morale and defective products. Over time silence within organizations
causes some employees to be irrelevant to their jobs quality of work (Bagheri, et al., 2012). It is assumed that
employee silence only hurts the organization, but realistically it hurts both the organization and the employees.

Richard (2003) bullets the factors that cause the silence in organizations as follows:
- Fear
- Embarrassment
- Narrow conceptions of ethical responsibility
- Implicated friends
- Lack of opportunity for voice
- Lack of organizational political skills.

2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Barnard (1938) stated that the willingness of individuals to contribute cooperative efforts to the organization was
necessary to effective attainment of organizational goals. Katz and Kahn (1978) pointed out that organizational
citizenship is important in organizations because it can be highly valuable to organizations and can contribute to
performance and competitive advantage.

The concept of organizational citizenship behavior was first introduced by Organ (1988). Organ defined OCB as
"individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in
the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization".
functioning of an organization. It means doing
a better job, making an effort above and beyond formal requirements, and filling the gap between procedures and
regulations on the one hand, and dynamic reality on the other. OCB is usually understood as exerting exceptionally
good behaviors for the sake of the organization and informally supporting its members.

Van Dyne, et al. (1994) proposed the broader construct of extra-role behavior, defined as behavior which benefits
the organization and/or is intended to benefit the organization, which is discretionary and which goes beyond existing
role expectations.
 Orhan Çınar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013) 314 – 321 317

By reviewing the relevant literature of organizational citizenship behavior, it can be seen that there is a lack of
consensus about the dimensions of OCB. Also the different labels used for the dimensions of OCB, those are the most
relevant dimensions which introduced by Organ (1988) as follows:

- Altruism: The helping of an individual coworker on a task; voluntary actions that help a fellow employee in
work related problems.

- Civic virtue: Participating in the governance of the organization; voluntary participation in, and support of
organizational functions of both a professional and social nature.

- Conscientiousness: minimum requirements; a pattern of going well

beyond minimally required role and task requirements.

- Courtesy: Alerting others in the organization about changes that may affect their work; the discretionary
enactment of thoughtful and considerate behaviors that prevent work related problems for others.

- Sportsmanship: Refraining from complaining about trivial matters; a willingness to tolerate the inevitable
inconveniences and impositions that result in an organization without complaining and doing so with a
positive attitude.

OCB is very important to organizations because they need employees who will do more than their usual job duties
and provide performance that is beyond expectations. OCB describe actions in which employees are willing to go
above and beyond their prescribed role requirements. As Organ (1988) suggested, high levels of OCB should lead to a
more efficient organization and help bring new resources into the organization. Podsakoff, et al. (2000) mentioned
seven ways that OCB contributes to organizational superior performance as follows:

- Increasing co-worker or managerial productivity

- Releasing resources so they can be used for more productive purposes
- Coordinating activities within and across work groups
- Reducing the need to devote scarce resources to purely maintenance functions
- Strengthening the organizations' ability to attract and retain the best employees
- Increasing the stability of the organization's performance
- Enabling the organization to adapt more effectively to environmental changes.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Goal, Hypotheses, Sample and Data Collection

In this study it is aimed to find out the relationship between organizational silence and organizational citizenship
behavior. In this context these hypotheses are developed:

H1: There is a relationship between organizational silence and organizational citizenship behavior.

H2: There are relationships between organizational silence and the dimensions of organizational citizenship
behaviour.

To test the hypotheses, a field survey using questionnaires conducted on employees of two medicine firms and two
hospitals located in the province of Erzurum, Turkey, in the year of 2012. The sample of the study was 256
respondents as they answered the conducted questionnaires entirely. The questionnaire consists of two sections. The
first section includes questions related to demographic characteristics of employees.
318 Orhan Çınar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013) 314 – 321

The second section includes two scales. Organizational Silence Scale

Organizational
Citizenship Behavior Scale based

for our sample.

Figure2. Research Model

Data obtained from questionnaires was analyzed through the SPSS statistical packet program. Descriptive statistics
such as frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation, for relationships Pearson correlation coefficient and for
classification Mann-Whitney U test (two groups) and Kruskal-Wallis H test (more than two groups) were applied to
analyze the collected data. Only observed statistically significant differences were tabulated.

3.2. Findings

Table1, shows the demographic characteristics of the employees. 38.7% of respondents is female and rest of them
is male. When we examine Table 1 in terms of academic qualification, the great proportion of the sample graduated
from secondary school. We held this study both in private and public sectors. Hospitals are in public sector and other
organizations are in private sector. 60.2% of employees work in hospitals. A great number of employees seem new in
their organizations with 56.6% as 1-5 years seniority.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Employees

Frequency Percent
Gender
Female 99 38.7
Male 157 61.3
Academic Qualification
Primary School 24 9.4
Secondary School 107 41.8
Vocational High School 55 21.5
Faculty 58 22.7
Master Degree 12 4.7
Type of organization
Pharmaceutical Distribution Company 102 39.8
Hospital 154 60.2
Seniority
Less than 1 year 14 5.5
1-5 years 145 56.6
6-10 years 59 23.0
More than 10 years 38 14.8
Total 100 100

To compare the scores of scales according to the gender of respondents, Mann-Whitney U test applied to the
collected data. We tabulated only observed statistically significant differences. After the application of the test we
observed a significant difference for organizational silence. Table 2, indicates the comparison of Organizational
Silence Level according to the gender of respondents.
 Orhan Çınar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013) 314 – 321 319

The organizational silence level of females is lower than male. This means female employees are more silent than
male in their organizations. T
more than males. This result can be explained with the Turkish cultural characteristics. It is a fact that it is generally
wanted females to be silent in Turkish society and this may causes females to have less self-confidence. The ideas,
thoughts and views of females are given importance lowly compared to males during the socialization process. On the
other hand it is obvious that females in organizations are faced different negative behaviours such as mobbing,
blocking and glass ceiling syndrome etc. more than males. These factors may cause females to stay silence in their
organizations.

-Whitney U test)
Gender Number Mean Rank Mann-Whitney U p
Female 99 140.71
Organizational
Male 157 120.80 6563 0.036*
Silence
Total 256
* p<0.05

To compare the scores of scales according to the academic qualification of respondents, Kruskal-Wallis H test
applied to the collected data. We tabulated only observed statistically significant differences. After the application of
the test we observed a significant difference for organizational citizenship behaviour. Table 3, indicates the
comparison of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Level according to the academic qualification of respondents.

Academic qualification is an important aspect of self-co

level may be low because of feeling more independent in terms of finding a new job. In this point of view a qualified
person may think there is no need to effort more than what the organization wants to be done. On the other hand the
great part of the sample has Secondary School academic qualification. Their OCB level is the highest and differs from
the others. Employees having this qualification may concern showing such behaviours to be evaluated well by
managers in order to be awarded financially or socially.

Table 3 Academic Qualification (Kruskal-Wallis H test)

Gender Number Mean Rank Difference (LSD test) Chi-Square p
1- Primary School 24 124.67
2- Secondary School 107 142.79 2 differs from others
Organizational 3- Vocational High School 55 118.91
5 differs from others 9.562 0.048*
Citizenship Behavior 4- Faculty 58 121.78
5- Master Degree 12 85.21
Total 256
* p<0.05

To compare the scores of scales according to the type of organizations, Mann-Whitney U test applied to the
collected data. After the application of the test we observed significant differences for organizational citizenship
behaviour and three of its dimensions (Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue and Courtesy). Table 4, indicates the
comparison of OCB and three of its dimensions according to the type of organizations.

According to Table 4, the levels of OCB, Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue and Courtesy are higher than that of
public sector. This result means that employees working in private sector show more OCB than public sector. A

sector while meeting desired tasks assumed adequate in public sector. In the highlight of this explanation, it is possible
to say that private sector employees show more organizational citizenship behaviour in order to their contribution to be
appraised better by the management of their organizations.
320 Orhan Çınar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013) 314 – 321

Table 4. Comparisons According to Type of Organizations (Mann-Whitney U test)

Type of Organization Number Mean Rank Mann-Whitney U p
Private 102 155.48
Conscientiousness 5102 0.000
Public 154 110.63
Private 102 150.86
Civic Virtue 5573 0.000*
Public 154 113.9
Private 102 141.60
Courtesy 6518 0.017*
Public 154 119.82
Organizational Private 102 147.97
5868 0.001*
Citizenship Behavior Public 154 115.61
Total 256
* p<0.05

Coefficients for collected data. Table 5 shows statistically significant observed relationships. According to the table
there is a strong and negative relationship between organizational silence and organizational citizenship behaviour.
This means the lower the level of organizational silence (or the higher the level of voice), the higher the level of
organizational citizenship behaviour. It can be said that if employees supported to talk and reveal their thoughts about
tasks, organization and management etc., their organizational citizenship behaviour level increases and they feel the
organization as a family and become volunteer to contribute cooperative efforts to the organization. Similar results
ades and Eisenberger (2002) and Corporanzo et al. (1997).

Table 5. Coefficient)
Organizational Silence Sig. (2-tailed)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior -,158* 0.011
Sportsmanship -,172** 0.006
Civil Virtue -,158* 0.012
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

There is a very strong and negative relationship between OS and Sportsmanship. It is possible to say that if
employees are allowed to express their thoughts, ideas and feelings related to work, and then they refrain from
complaining about trivial matters and tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions that result in an
organization without complaining and doing so with a positive attitude. Meanwhile there is a strong and negative
relationship between OS and Civil Virtue. This means the higher the level of OS, the lower the level of Civil Virtue.
This means if employees are able to talk then they participate the governance of the organization voluntarily and
support organizational functions of both a professional and social nature.

4. Conclusion

In this study we basically try to find out the relationship between organizational silence and organizational
citizenship behaviour. In present day there are many threats for organizations in competitive business environment. To
survive longer, organizations have to utilize their human resources especially in terms of using their unknown

of organization. On the other hand, over efforts not mentioned officially are very important to achieve
strategic goals and take advantages in the market.

In this study we observed that there is a strong and negative relationship between OS and OCB. This means, if
employees are not allowed to express their ideas related to work then their organizational citizenship behaviour level
decreases. Thus, the organization loses new ideas, thoughts, creative solutions usual
job duties which might be very beneficial to the organization. It can be recommended that organizations should
support and create an organizational climate in which employees are able to talk.
 Orhan Çınar et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 99 (2013) 314 – 321 321

As we conducted the survey in four organizations in the province of Erzurum, the data is limited to this sample.
Further researches can be applied in different organizations, provinces and also countries to generalize the findings.

References

Bagheri, G., et al. (2012). Organizational silence, Ideal Type of Management, 1 (1): 47-58.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ergisi, 61 (4): 83-
101.
Beheshtifar, et al. (2012). Destructive role of employee silence in organizational success, International Journal of Academic Research in Business
and Social Sciences, 2 (11): 275-282.

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., and Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors,
attitudes and stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 159 180.
Henriksen, K. and E. Dayton (2006). Organizational silence and hidden threats to patient safety, Health Services Research, 41 (4), Part II, 1539-
1554.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York: 1978.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W. and Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee s
upward and why, Journal of Management Studies, 40 (6): 1453-1476.
Morrison, E. and F. Milliken (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world, Academy of Management
Review, 25(4): 706-25.
Nikmaram, S., et al. (2012). Study on relationship between organizational silence and commitment in Iran, World Applied Sciences Journal, 17
(10): 1271-1277.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
n belirlenmesi
-134.
Pinder, C. C. and Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice, Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, 20: 331-369.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. and Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of
employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, 22:259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., and Bachrach, D. G (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the
theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research, Journal of Management, 26: 513-563.
Rhoades, L. ve Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 698-714.
Richard, N. (2003). Why Do We Remain Silent in the Face of Unethical Behavior?, The Politics of Ethics: Methods for Acting, Learning, and
Sometimes Fighting, with Others in Addressing Ethics Problems in Organizational Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
unication in organizations: Three possible culprits, Academy of Management
Journal, 17: 205 15.
ed PHd Thesis,

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., and Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and
validation, Academy of Management Journal, 37: 765-802.
Zehir, C. and Erdogan, E. (2011). The association between organizational silence and ethical leadership through employee performance, Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24: 1389-1404.