Why an Open Door Does Not Feel Open

A manager ends a meeting with a familiar invitation: My door is always open. No one objects. No one mentions the flawed schedule, the customer complaints, or the shortcut that nearly caused an accident. The quiet may look like agreement. It may instead mean that people have learned to calculate the cost of candor.

Employee participation depends on more than the existence of a survey, suggestion box, town hall, or open-door policy. Workers also judge whether speaking is safe, legitimate, and capable of changing anything. These judgments are shaped by previous responses to dissent, the power held by the listener, the behavior of coworkers, and the organization’s history of acting—or failing to act—on what it hears (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Detert & Burris, 2007).

Organizational psychology gives us a useful way to understand this gap between formal invitation and lived experience. Employee voice refers to the discretionary expression of ideas, concerns, or suggestions intended to improve work. Employee silence is not simply quietness. It is the withholding of relevant information that could have been communicated. The same silence can arise from fear, deference, resignation, perceived futility, conformity, or a wish to protect legitimate confidences. Understanding silence therefore begins with a question: What does the employee expect will happen if they speak?

What Is Employee Silence?

Intent is important. Employee silence does not include every moment of quiet: a person may have nothing to add, need time to think, or be honoring a legitimate confidentiality obligation. This distinction also guards against a common error—treating the absence of speech as evidence that no concern exists (Van Dyne et al., 2003).

Silence and voice are related, but they are not simple opposites. An employee may raise suggestions about workflow while withholding concerns about a supervisor. Another may speak frequently yet offer only safe agreement. Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) argue that motives matter: acquiescent silence grows from resignation, defensive silence from self-protection, and prosocial silence from concern for others or the organization. Because these motives produce the same visible behavior—no speech—observers can easily misread them.

These ideas help explain silence without treating it as a defect in the employee. Organizational citizenship behavior draws attention to voluntary actions that help a workplace, while psychological safety asks whether speaking carries interpersonal risk (Van Dyne et al., 2003; Edmondson, 1999). Organizational climate concerns the practices people see rewarded or punished (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Together, these concepts direct attention to the relationship between the person and the system around them.

Silence Depends on the Issue and the Audience

Silence is selective rather than all-or-nothing. An employee may question a schedule while withholding a safety concern, discuss a problem with coworkers while avoiding a supervisor, or use a formal reporting channel while remaining quiet in a meeting. Morrison (2023) defines the dominant organizational-behavior form of voice as informal, discretionary, internal, and upward communication. That focus differs from peer communication, formal participation systems, union or grievance procedures, and external whistleblowing.

The content matters as well. Raising an improvement idea is not psychologically identical to reporting harassment, fraud, abuse, or a dangerous error. Ethical concerns may carry greater relational and career risks and may require persistence, collective effort, or a combination of formal and informal channels. Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008), for example, did not study silence in general; they examined frontline nurses withholding patient-safety information from members of their workgroups. This article focuses primarily on internal upward silence while recognizing that employees sometimes need protected routes beyond a direct supervisor (Morrison, 2023).

When Withholding Is Responsible: Prosocial Silence

Not every act of withholding is fearful, resigned, or conforming. Van Dyne and colleagues (2003) describe prosocial silence: an employee may protect confidential personnel information, proprietary knowledge, or another person’s legitimate privacy. Here, withholding is intentional and other-oriented, resembling organizational citizenship behavior.

This category should not become a convenient defense for concealing preventable harm, abuse, fraud, or serious safety risks. Its purpose is narrower: motives cannot be read directly from behavior. A supervisor who assumes that all silence signals loyalty may miss fear; a supervisor who treats every silence as disengagement may punish responsible discretion.

Five Pathways Into Silence

The five pathways below are not five mutually exclusive personality types. They are questions that help explain why a particular person may withhold a particular concern in a particular setting. Several can operate at once, and their importance can change across leaders, teams, topics, and communication targets.

This five-pathway arrangement is a reader-facing synthesis rather than a validated five-factor scale. Brinsfield’s later measurement research identified six empirically distinguishable silence motives—ineffectual, relational, defensive, diffident, disengaged, and deviant—showing both the value and the complexity of motive-based distinctions (Brinsfield, 2009, 2013).

Fear-Based Silence: Speaking Could Cost Me

Defensive silence is a self-protective decision (Van Dyne et al., 2003). A worker may fear retaliation, a poor evaluation, exclusion from future opportunities, public embarrassment, or the reputation of being difficult. The feared cost need not be dramatic. A dismissive look, sarcastic reply, or history of unrewarded truth-telling can be enough to teach caution.

Psychological safety describes a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. It does not mean that work is always comfortable or that people are protected from accountability. It means that questions, admissions of error, and respectful challenges are not expected to bring humiliation or punishment. Edmondson’s study of 51 work teams linked psychological safety with learning behavior. A later analysis that combined findings across many studies associated it with information sharing, voice, performance, and other workplace outcomes (Edmondson, 1999; Frazier et al., 2017).

Detert and Edmondson (2011) show how self-protection can become organized through implicit voice theories—taken-for-granted beliefs about when speaking is risky or inappropriate. Their five recurring beliefs concerned managers’ personal identification with existing practices, the need to arrive with complete evidence or a solution, the danger of bypassing a boss, the impropriety of embarrassing a boss publicly, and possible career consequences. These beliefs can remain influential even when a manager sincerely asks for input.

Deference to Authority: It Is Not My Place

Fear is not the only reason people defer. Some employees may regard managerial authority as inherently legitimate and employee participation as inappropriate. Timming and Johnstone (2015) use the authoritarian personality tradition to propose that certain workers may prefer submission to managerial authority and reject workplace democracy on principle. In this pathway, silence expresses a belief about the proper order of the workplace, not merely a calculation that dissent will be punished.

This claim requires care. Timming and Johnstone present a conceptual model, not an empirical demonstration, and they acknowledge longstanding criticisms of the F-scale and authoritarian-personality theory. The useful contribution is the question they raise: organizational voice research often asks whether managers offer participation, but not whether employees view participation as desirable or proper. The authoritarian personality may be one possible explanation, not a label to apply to a quiet worker.

Deference can also be a realistic response to hierarchy rather than a disposition. People lower in status often have less control over evaluations, schedules, pay, and access to decision makers. In health-care teams, Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) found that professional status was related to psychological safety and that leader inclusiveness helped counter the inhibiting effects of status differences. Authority is therefore both a psychological belief and a material relationship.

Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) offer a related status finding. Among 606 nurses in 30 workgroups, employees reported more silence about patient-safety issues when they perceived their supervisors as having higher organizational status. Because the study relied on self-reports collected at one hospital at one point in time, it cannot show that status caused silence or that nurses held authoritarian beliefs. It does show why deference must be examined as a response to a real authority relationship as well as a possible personal belief.

Resigned Silence: This Is Just How Things Are

Acquiescent silence grows from resignation. The employee no longer expects participation to be worth the effort and disengages from attempts to change the situation. This response differs from defensive silence: the defensive employee may have a strong idea and actively conceal it to avoid harm, while the resigned employee has reduced the effort devoted to involvement itself (Van Dyne et al., 2003).

Resignation should not be confused with laziness. Repeated exclusion, tightly centralized decisions, or a long history of ceremonial consultation can make withdrawal understandable. Organizational psychology treats this withdrawal as a response shaped by both the person and the work environment. What looks like apathy may be the residue of participation that repeatedly led nowhere (Van Dyne et al., 2003; Brinsfield, 2013).

Later measurement work helps preserve the distinction between disengagement and futility. Brinsfield (2013) identified disengaged silence and ineffectual silence as separate motives: one reflects psychological withdrawal, while the other reflects an expectation that speaking will not produce a useful result. The distinction is empirical but should not be treated as a diagnosis of an individual employee.

Futility-Based Silence: Nothing Will Change

Futility is related to resignation but deserves separate attention. A worker may still care deeply and may not fear retaliation, yet believe that speaking will accomplish nothing. Morrison and Milliken (2000) describe a climate of silence through two shared beliefs: speaking is dangerous and speaking is futile. Brinsfield (2013) similarly identifies ineffectual silence as a distinct motive. Formal participation becomes pseudo-voice when employees are invited to comment but experience no meaningful consideration, explanation, or response.

In motivational terms, the problem is not necessarily confidence in one’s ability to formulate an idea. It is the expected connection between action and outcome. Research on learned helplessness offers a cautious bridge: when people expect that their responses will not affect outcomes, initiation of voluntary action can decline (Abramson et al., 1978). This does not mean that silent employees have a disorder or that workplace frustration is equivalent to experimental helplessness. It clarifies why changing the environment may matter more than simply urging employees to speak.

A leader can invite voice and still reinforce futility by never closing the loop. When workers do not know whether a concern was considered, who owns the next step, or why a proposal was declined, silence can become a reasonable expectation based on experience. Repeated assurances that feedback is welcome cannot substitute for visible responsiveness (Brinsfield, 2013; Morrison, 2023).

Conformist Silence: Everyone Else Seems to Agree

A public request for opinions can produce less candor than a private one. When everyone else appears to agree, a dissenting employee must decide whether their information is wrong, whether disagreement will threaten belonging, and whether speaking will make them responsible for conflict. The silence of others becomes social information.

Asch’s classic conformity work showed that group pressure could alter public judgments even on a simple perceptual task. More recent experiments by Levitan and Verhulst (2016) found that unanimous group views influenced expressed attitudes and, in some conditions, later private attitudes. These studies are not workplace-silence studies, but they illuminate why apparent consensus should not be treated as independent confirmation from every person in the room.

Conformity connects employee silence with groupthink and pluralistic ignorance. Groupthink describes a pattern in which the pursuit of unanimity weakens critical evaluation. Pluralistic ignorance occurs when people privately question a norm but mistakenly assume that others accept it. In a silent meeting, each person may read everyone else’s caution as genuine agreement. The group then manufactures the consensus that individuals were afraid to challenge. Janis’s foundational account similarly describes how striving for unanimity can inhibit doubts and realistic appraisal (Janis, 1972).

Silence Is Personal, Relational, and Organizational

Silence is often discussed as an individual choice, but the choice is nested within relationships and systems. Individual differences may influence comfort with authority or willingness to take interpersonal risks. Team members also observe how leaders receive questions, whose expertise is valued, and what happens to people who deliver unwelcome news. At the organizational level, structures determine where decisions are made and whether upward information can travel (Morrison, 2023; Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

Morrison and Milliken (2000) call the collective pattern organizational silence. Their model begins with managers’ fear of negative feedback and with assumptions that employees are self-interested, management knows best, and disagreement is undesirable. These beliefs can encourage centralized decisions, weak upward-feedback mechanisms, and defensive responses to input. As employees compare what they have observed, those experiences can form a shared organizational climate in which voice appears dangerous or futile.

Organizational climate is important because people learn from one another. A single act of retaliation can become a widely repeated story; a suggestion ignored in one department can be interpreted as evidence that leadership does not listen anywhere. These interpretations may exaggerate risk, but they can also accurately describe the system. Silence is therefore neither purely internal nor purely imposed. It emerges through ongoing exchanges between expectations, practices, and observed consequences (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

The process can become self-reinforcing. Managers receive little negative information and conclude that operations are sound. Employees see leaders acting without corrective information and conclude that candor is unwelcome. Withdrawal then appears to confirm managerial assumptions that employees lack useful insight or commitment. Organizational silence becomes a feedback loop rather than a collection of isolated choices (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

How Managers View Employee Motivation

Employee beliefs about authority are only half of the relationship. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y describe contrasting managerial assumptions about human motivation and control. Theory X assumes that people generally avoid responsibility and require direction; Theory Y assumes that people can exercise self-direction and contribute judgment when conditions permit. These are managerial belief systems, not fixed categories of workers (McGregor, 1960).

Russ (2011) surveyed 144 full-time managers from several United States industries. Managers who more strongly endorsed Theory X were less inclined to share decision-making power, while those who more strongly endorsed Theory Y reported stronger expectations for employee participation. The study relied on managers’ own reports and measured variables at one point in time, so it shows a relationship between assumptions and intentions, not proof of how those managers actually behaved.

These beliefs can reinforce one another. Employees may see challenging a manager as improper (Timming & Johnstone, 2015), while managers may assume that employees lack the motivation or judgment to participate (McGregor, 1960; Russ, 2011). Each side may then read the other’s caution as confirmation. The result can be a formally open workplace in which authority is rarely questioned and participation remains limited (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

When Invitations to Speak Lose Credibility

A voice channel becomes credible through what happens after someone uses it. Leaders weaken that credibility when they demand a complete solution before hearing a problem, treat disagreement as disloyalty, ask for input after decisions are settled, or respond warmly in public and punish privately. Employees pay attention to these discrepancies because organizational practices often communicate more clearly than official values (Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Morrison, 2023).

Detert and Burris (2007) studied 3,149 employees and 223 managers in a restaurant chain. Perceived managerial openness was more consistently associated with improvement-oriented voice than transformational leadership, and psychological safety helped explain the relationship. The finding does not mean that a friendly style guarantees candor. It suggests that employees watch for concrete evidence that leaders are accessible, receptive, and willing to act.

Leader inclusiveness is similarly behavioral. It consists of words and actions that invite and appreciate contributions. An invitation is more convincing when a leader acknowledges dependence on others’ knowledge, asks lower-status members before senior voices establish the answer, and responds nondefensively when information is inconvenient (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).

Implicit voice theories add another complication. People can carry learned rules from earlier leaders and institutions into a more supportive workplace. A manager may genuinely welcome challenge while an employee still assumes that bypassing authority or exposing a problem will harm a career. Changing the current climate may require repeated, visible experiences that contradict the old rule (Detert & Edmondson, 2011).

What Organizations Lose When Employees Stop Speaking

Silence narrows the range of information available to decision makers. Problems remain local, errors persist, and alternatives never reach the people with authority to act. Morrison and Milliken (2000) argue that this weakens decision quality, organizational learning, and change. Diversity may exist in the workforce while disappearing from the conversation, leaving leaders with a misleading picture of agreement.

Psychological safety research places this problem within the learning process. Teams learn when members ask for help, discuss mistakes, test assumptions, and share information. A recent review organizes the psychological-safety literature around getting work done, learning behavior, work experience, and leadership (Edmondson & Bransby, 2023). Psychological safety is not the only condition required for performance, but without sufficient interpersonal safety, knowledge can remain trapped in the people closest to the work.

Silence also shapes the employee’s relationship with the organization. Contemporary research associates repeated silence with anger, fear, burnout, emotional exhaustion, lower job satisfaction, and reduced creativity, although the evidence remains thinner for silence outcomes than for its antecedents. These outcomes are not inevitable for every individual, and some findings are context-dependent. They nevertheless help explain why organizational silence can be both an operational problem and a demoralizing one (Morrison, 2023).

Building Conditions for Meaningful Voice

Organizations cannot demand courage as a substitute for trustworthy systems. Meaningful voice develops when employees have reason to expect that relevant information will be received respectfully, protected from retaliation, evaluated fairly, and connected to a visible response. Different forms of silence require different remedies (Morrison, 2023; Reason, 2000).

Respond to Risk and Hierarchy

Fear-based silence requires more than encouragement. Research on psychological safety and leader inclusiveness supports predictable, non-punitive responses and deliberate attention to status differences (Edmondson, 1999; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Research on employee voice and reporting cultures also shows why employees watch how recipients react and whether reporting systems are trustworthy (Morrison, 2023; Reason, 2000). Leaders can reduce status barriers by acknowledging their own fallibility, asking for information before offering a preferred conclusion, and making respectful challenge a legitimate part of the role.

Leaders should also examine the small signals that teach implicit voice theories. Requiring employees to arrive with a complete solution may filter out early warnings. Treating a public question as a personal affront may make private reporting the only tolerable route. Private routes can be valuable, but they should not become evidence that public deliberation is unsafe (Detert & Edmondson, 2011).

Create a Just Reporting Climate

A system can invite reports while teaching people that the person who names an error will become the problem. Reason (2000) contrasts a person approach, which locates failure in individual weakness, with a system approach that examines recurring conditions and safeguards. In safety-critical settings, he argues that reporting depends on trust and a just culture that distinguishes blameless error from reckless conduct. Accountability remains necessary, but indiscriminate blame destroys information needed for prevention.

Evidence on error-management culture extends this logic beyond a single incident. Van Dyck and colleagues (2005) conceptualized effective error management through practices such as communicating, detecting, analyzing, and correcting errors; across two studies, that culture was positively related to organizational performance. Procedural fairness adds another level of explanation. Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) studied the intentional withholding of patient-safety information among 606 nurses nested within 30 workgroups. Individual perceptions of procedural justice were associated with less silence, while perceived supervisor status was associated with more silence.

Fair procedures mattered most when nurses also felt connected to their workgroup and profession. Strong identification and professional commitment were linked with less silence only in groups that viewed procedures as fair. In groups with a weak procedural-justice climate, commitment did not have the same protective relationship. Because the study used self-reports from one hospital at one point in time, it cannot establish cause and effect or prescribe a universal reporting program. Its practical lesson is narrower: commitment does not compensate for an unfair system (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).

Restore the Connection Between Input and Action

Futility-based and resigned silence require evidence that participation has consequences. Closing the feedback loop is a practical application of research on ineffectual silence and on how recipients respond to employee voice: acknowledge the concern, identify who will consider it, report what was decided, and explain why. Not every suggestion should be adopted, and false promises quickly become another lesson in futility. Even a reasoned refusal can preserve more credibility than appreciative silence (Brinsfield, 2013; Morrison, 2023).

Organizations can also review where decision authority actually resides. If committees collect ideas while all meaningful choices remain centralized, participation becomes ceremonial. Voice becomes more believable when employees can see which decisions they influence, which constraints are real, and how dissent enters the record (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Morrison, 2023).

Design for Independent Thought

Public consensus can influence what people are willing to say, even when they privately disagree (Asch, 1951; Levitan & Verhulst, 2016). One practical implication is to protect independent thought before a visible consensus forms. Leaders might collect individual judgments before discussion, rotate who speaks first, invite written concerns, and ask what evidence would challenge the emerging view. Anonymous channels may reveal information, but they should supplement rather than replace relationships in which people can speak without hiding.

The goal is not endless disagreement. Organizations still need decisions, expertise, and accountability. The aim is to keep legitimate hierarchy from becoming informational blindness. A psychologically safer team is not a team without standards; it is a team better able to examine errors, uncertainty, and dissent while continuing the work.

Diagnose Before Intervening

A voice initiative can fail when it answers the wrong form of silence. Reassurance does little for an employee who expects no response. Another survey does not correct retaliation. An anonymous channel may reveal information without repairing a relationship in which direct candor remains dangerous. Encouragement alone will not change a belief that challenging authority is improper. Appeals to professional commitment may also fail when the workgroup’s procedures are experienced as unfair (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).

Leaders therefore need to ask what is being withheld, from whom, and under what expected consequence. Patterns across topics, status levels, teams, and reporting channels can help distinguish fear, futility, disengagement, deference, and apparent consensus. The purpose is not to classify employees but to identify which relationship or organizational practice must change (Brinsfield, 2009, 2013; Morrison, 2023).

What Employee Silence Means to Us

When a room goes quiet, it is tempting to ask why people lack courage. Organizational psychology suggests a more useful set of questions. Are employees predicting punishment or ineffectiveness? Do they believe challenging authority is improper? Have they disengaged after repeated disappointment? Are they reading one another’s silence as agreement? The answer directs attention toward the mechanism rather than the character of the person.

For employees, speaking can carry genuine risks. Advice to be brave can become another way of transferring responsibility from the organization to the person with less power. Careful timing, collective support, protected reporting channels, and—in serious ethical or safety situations—formal mechanisms beyond a direct supervisor may matter. Remaining silent in a dangerous system is not proof of weakness, just as speaking once is not proof that the system is safe (Morrison, 2023).

For leaders, an invitation is only the beginning. People evaluate openness through reactions to bad news, the treatment of dissenters, and whether input changes understanding or action. Listening well does not require agreeing with every claim. It requires showing that the person and the information can enter the decision without becoming targets.

Silence is often treated as an absence, yet it can be one of the most informative features of a workplace. It may tell us that people are afraid, that authority has become unquestionable, that repeated invitations have lost credibility, or that everyone is waiting for someone else to break an apparent consensus. It does not tell us which explanation is true without further listening.

Healthy organizations do more than request honesty. They make room for the unfinished concern, the inconvenient observation, and the lower-status voice that sees what authority has missed. When people experience voice as safe, legitimate, and capable of mattering, the open door begins to mean something.

Associated Concepts

• Psychological safety: A shared belief that interpersonal risk-taking can occur without humiliation or punishment; central to learning behavior and voice.
• Authoritarian personality: A possible individual-difference pathway into deference, retained here with the important limitation that Timming and Johnstone’s workplace model was conceptual.
• Learned helplessness: A cautious bridge for understanding how expecting one’s actions not to change an outcome can reduce attempts to act. It is not a diagnosis of silent employees.
• Asch conformity study: Classic evidence that majority pressure can influence public judgment, helping explain why apparent consensus may conceal private disagreement.
• Groupthink: A group-level pattern in which pressures toward unanimity weaken critical evaluation and suppress dissent.
• Pluralistic ignorance: A condition in which people privately reject a norm while assuming that others accept it, allowing collective silence to reinforce itself.
• Theory X and Theory Y: McGregor’s contrasting managerial assumptions about whether employees require external control or can exercise self-direction and contribute judgment when organizational conditions permit.

References

Abramson, Lyn Y.; Seligman, Martin E. P.; Teasdale, John D. (1978). Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49–74. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49.
(Return to Main Text)

Asch, Solomon E. (1951). Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments. In Harold Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men (pp. 177–190). Carnegie Press.
(Return to Main Text)

Brinsfield, Chad T. (2009). Employee Silence: Investigation of Dimensionality, Development of Measures, and Examination of Related Factors [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center.
(Return to Main Text)

Brinsfield, Chad T. (2013). Employee Silence Motives: Investigation of Dimensionality and Development of Measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 671–697. DOI: 10.1002/job.1829.
(Return to Main Text)

Detert, James R.; Burris, Ethan R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2007.26279183.
(Return to Main Text)

Detert, James R.; Edmondson, Amy C. (2011). Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-Granted Rules of Self-Censorship at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2011.61967925.
(Return to Main Text)

Edmondson, Amy C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. DOI: 10.2307/2666999.
(Return to Main Text)

Edmondson, Amy C.; Bransby, Derrick P. (2023). Psychological Safety Comes of Age: Observed Themes in an Established Literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 55–78. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055217.
(Return to Main Text)

Frazier, M. Lance; Fainshmidt, Stav; Klinger, Ryan L.; Pezeshkan, Amir; Vracheva, Veselina (2017). Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. DOI: 10.1111/peps.12183.
(Return to Main Text)

Janis, Irving L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
(Return to Main Text)

Levitan, Lindsey C.; Verhulst, Brad (2016). Conformity in Groups: The Effects of Others’ Views on Expressed Attitudes and Attitude Change. Political Behavior, 38(2), 277–315. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-015-9312-x.
(Return to Main Text)

McGregor, Douglas (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
(Return to Main Text)

Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe (2023). Employee Voice and Silence: Taking Stock a Decade Later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 79–107. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654.
(Return to Main Text)

Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe; Milliken, Frances J. (2000). Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2000.3707697.
(Return to Main Text)

Nembhard, Ingrid M.; Edmondson, Amy C. (2006). Making It Safe: The Effects of Leader Inclusiveness and Professional Status on Psychological Safety and Improvement Efforts in Health Care Teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966. DOI: 10.1002/job.413.
(Return to Main Text)

Reason, James (2000). Human Error: Models and Management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768–770. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768.
(Return to Main Text)

Russ, Travis L. (2011). Theory X/Y Assumptions as Predictors of Managers’ Propensity for Participative Decision Making. Management Decision, 49(5), 823–836. DOI: 10.1108/00251741111130887.
(Return to Main Text)

Tangirala, Subrahmaniam; Ramanujam, Rangaraj (2008). Employee Silence on Critical Work Issues: The Cross-Level Effects of Procedural Justice Climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37–68. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00105.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Timming, Andrew R.; Johnstone, Stewart (2015). Employee Silence and the Authoritarian Personality: A Political Psychology of Workplace Democracy. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 23(1), 154–171. DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-06-2013-0685.
(Return to Main Text)

Van Dyck, Cathy; Frese, Michael; Baer, Markus; Sonnentag, Sabine (2005). Organizational Error Management Culture and Its Impact on Performance: A Two-Study Replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228–1240. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1228.
(Return to Main Text)

Van Dyne, Linn; Ang, Soon; Botero, Isabel C. (2003). Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00384.
(Return to Main Text)

Last Updated: