Feeling Capable and Worthy? Impact of Employee Silence on Self-Concept: Mediating Role of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Abstract

While existing research findings have highlighted the consequences of employee silence at the interpersonal and organizational levels, little is known about how employee silence influences an employee’s inferences of self. Drawing on a cross-organizational sample of 142 employees, we test the impact of employee silence, in the forms of acquiescent, quiescent, prosocial, and opportunistic silence, on employees’ job self-efficacy and organization-based self-esteem. In addition, we examine how organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization and toward individuals mediates the direct effects. Results indicate that quiescent silence negatively affects organization-based self-esteem, and that opportunistic silence has a negative impact on job self-efficacy. In addition, organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization and organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals fully mediate the relationship between opportunistic silence and organization-based self-esteem, whereas organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals and organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization partially mediate the relationship between opportunistic silence and job self-efficacy. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Employee silence job self-efficacy organization-based self-esteem organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals

Introduction

Perhaps, one of the most important managerial tasks is to enhance employees’ inferences about themselves because self-inference not only determines life satisfaction (Nurius, 1993) but also affects work motivation, task performance, and well-being at work (Johnson & Saboe, 2011; Pugh, Groth, & Henning-Thurau, 2011; Reinhard & Dickhauser, 2011). Although self-inference at work encompasses various aspects, job self-efficacy (JSE) and organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) are the two primary bases for the formation of employee self-inference (Chou & Chang, 2017). More importantly, JSE and OBSE have been found to be predictive of various outcomes such as task performance, voluntary learning behavior, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction (e.g., Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Kim, Lee, & Kim, 2015; J. Liu, Hui, Lee, & Chen, 2013; Pierce, Gardner, & Crowley, 2016).

Despite existing scholarly progress in employee JSE and OBSE, we believe that the literature can be advanced in two major ways. First, it is well documented that employee silence, defined as “motivation to withhold versus express ideas, information, and opinions about work-related improvements” (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003, p. 1360), can impede managerial effectiveness and result in dysfunctional organizational outcomes (Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2003). While existing research findings have highlighted the consequences of employee silence at the interpersonal and organizational levels, little is known about the effect of employee silence at the intrapersonal level. Because an integral part of self-inference process focuses on the morality, deviancy, and/or desirability of a performance and self-image (Bandura, 1991), it can be expected that employee silence plays a pivotal role in determining how employees make inferences about themselves. Given that employee silence is a conscious and willful choice (Brinsfield, 2013), it becomes important to know how choosing to remain silent affects an employee’s inferences of self through the appraisal of JSE and OBSE. Second, while employee silence may be manifested due to disengagement, fear, and self-interest orientation (Knoll & van Dick, 2013), it may also be exhibited based on a sense of altruism and cooperation (Van Dyne et al., 2003). As a consequence, employee silence may influence self-inferences via an employee’s reduced or increased demonstration of citizenship behaviors, which broadly refers to discretionary work performance (Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007). In other words, certain forms of employee silence may be a precondition that hinders or boosts an employee’s willingness to go above and beyond the formal role requirements, which in turn affects the employee self-inferences. As such, it is critical to understand the role that an employee’s organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) plays in the relationship between employee silence and JSE, and between employee silence and OBSE.

Given the aforementioned discussion, we first seek to examine the impact of different forms of employee silence on employees’ JSE and OBSE utilizing self-consistency theory (Korman, 1970, 1976) as the theoretical base. When examining employee silence, we follow Van Dyne et al.’s (2003) definition and Knoll and van Dick’s (2013) work and classify employee silence behavior into four distinct forms: acquiescent, quiescent, prosocial, and opportunistic silence. Second, we attempt to test the mediating effects of OCBs on the relationship between employee silence behavior and JSE and OBSE. To do so, we follow Williams and Anderson (1991) and categorize OCBs into organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization (OCBO) and organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals (OCBI). Figure 1 depicts our hypothesized research model.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized research model.

Theoretical background and development of research hypotheses

Acquiescent silence, JSE, and OBSE

According to Van Dyne et al. (2003), acquiescent silence (AS) represents one’s lack of willingness and motivation to express his or her opinions, get involved in organizational activities, and participate in necessary organizational change. Essentially, AS is passiveness and inactiveness at work. Even though the passiveness and inactiveness nature of AS does not necessarily indicate that employees do not have relevant ideas, suggestions, and opinions, employees exhibiting AS often view speaking up as pointless or not being able to make a difference (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Meanwhile, one of the primary sources of JSE formation is one’s successful accomplishment in making job-related differences and improvements (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Thus, an employee is likely to form JSE on the basis of the extent of his or her engagement at work because workplace engagement is strongly associated with making improvements at work such as learning (Shuck, Ghosh, Zigarmi, & Nimon, 2013) and innovation (Vinarski-Peretz, Binyamin, & Carmeli, 2011). In addition, given that individuals tend to maintain a consistent positive or negative self-concept (Korman, 1970, 1976), the consistency in self-concept maintenance further suggests that an employee’s inferences of JSE can reduce upon displaying AS. Hence, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1a: Acquiescent silence negatively affects an employee’s JSE.

Conceptually, OBSE represents an employee’s perceived self-value as an organizational member (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989). Thus, OBSE can be determined by ones’ perceived importance, effectiveness, impact, competence, and worthiness within the organization (Chan, Huang, Snape, & Lam, 2013). The nature of OBSE suggests that an employee’s meaningful and active participation in the organization’s functioning can promote the employee’s OBSE. In line with how OBSE is formed, we contend that an employee experiences lower levels of OBSE when he or she engages in higher levels of AS resulting from disengagement at work. Moreover, drawing upon self-consistency theory (Korman, 1970, 1976), we expect that exhibiting AS, as a form of workplace disengagement, results in an employee’s negative self-image concerning the lack of personal adequacy and self-worth in the organization. This negative self-view reinforced by self-consistency process, therefore, can result in decreased OBSE. Consequently, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1b: Acquiescent silence negatively affects an employee’s OBSE.

Quiescent silence, JSE, and OBSE

Another type of silence behavior is called quiescent silence, which refers to an employee’s motivation to withhold the expression in order to protect him- or herself (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Although quiescent silence is motivated by unpleasant consequences that speaking up generates, employees who engage in quiescent silence are often aware of specific organizational matters that may require their knowledge, experience, and opinions (Knoll & van Dick, 2013). As such, quiescent silence may trigger an employee’s belief that he or she lacks confidence in initiating changes that are vital to improving personal performance and organizational effectiveness. In addition, quiescent silence may prevent an employee from experiencing a sense of being able to take charge and control his or her task environment, especially when the employee is aware of certain organizational issues. Because exercising control and having a sense of ability to influence personal task environment successfully are crucial to JSE (Bandura, 1997; Schreurs, van Emmerik, Notelaers, & De Witte, 2010), it is expected that an employee JSE is negatively affected by quiescent silence. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: Quiescent silence negatively affects an employee’s JSE.

Perhaps, an employee’s relationship with his or her supervisor is one of the most crucial determinants of the employee’s OBSE (J. Liu et al., 2013). This is because one’s OBSE is often shaped by those who evaluate oneself (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). As a result, an employee’s sense of being an acceptable, significant, and worthy organizational member can be influenced by how the employee feels about the supervisor’s viewpoint of him- or herself. Given its nature, quiescent silence can convey an implicit relational cue to the employee that his or her expression is not important and meaningful to the supervisor, thereby decreasing the employee’s OBSE. In addition, experiencing fear of speaking up may prevent the employee from feeling trusted and respected by the supervisor, which can then lower the employee’s OBSE. Altogether, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2b: Quiescent silence negatively affects an employee’s OBSE.

Prosocial silence, JSE, and OBSE

While employee silence is generally detrimental to effective organizational functioning, Van Dyne et al. (2003) note that employee silence may be altruistic in its nature. For instance, remaining silent to protect confidential and private organizational information and not disclose information inappropriately is an altruistic-oriented silence (i.e., prosocial silence, PS; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Although remaining silent for the benefit of others and the organizations may not require significant job-specific skills and ability, exhibiting PS can enhance an employee’s perceived efficacy at work because he or she helps prevent the organization and/or its members from external threats and challenges. Indeed, an individual’s perceived efficacy raises after successfully carrying out actions that help overcome challenging and threatening events (Bandura, 1982; Maddux, 2016; Milner & Hoy, 2003). As a result, PS may enhance an employee’s belief that he or she has successfully helped the organization deal with external threats where organizationally relevant information needs to be protected. Such a belief can then lead to an employee’s consistent formation of positive efficacy at work. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3a: Prosocial silence positively affects an employee’s JSE.

In addition to promoting positive self-concept in JSE, PS may enhance an employee’s OBSE because PS focuses on fulfilling the interests of the organization and its members (Van Dyne et al., 2003). In addition, because cooperative and altruistic motives are embedded in the demonstration of PS, employees exhibiting PS are likely perceive themselves to be worthy, valuable, and meaningful participants of the organization. This positive self-worth generated by exhibiting PS can then reinforce employees’ positive view about being a valuable member of the organization through the process of self-consistency (Korman, 1970; Swann, Griffin, Predmore, & Gaines, 1987). Indeed, prior research has shown that the positive relationship between prosocial behaviors and positive self-evaluation (e.g., Glomb, Bhave, Miner, & Wall, 2011; Hitlin, 2007). In line with prior research, an employee exhibiting PS can develop positive self-concept regarding being an adequate, worthy, and meaningful organizational member through his or her proactive effort and behaviors that benefit the organization and its members (Gardner & Pierce, 2016; Wu, Lyu, Kwan, & Zhai, 2019). Consequently, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3b: Prosocial silence positively affects an employee’s OBSE.

Opportunistic silence, JSE, and OBSE

Drawing upon the concept of opportunism, Knoll and van Dick (2013) propose the concept of opportunistic silence, which represents an employee’s motivation to withhold relevant information in order to obtain advantage for him- or herself while acknowledging harm of others. Examples of opportunistic silence may include, but not limited to, withholding information in order to maintain existing or obtain power and status, and providing incomplete or misleading information in order to avoid organizational tasks (Knoll & van Dick, 2013). Even though opportunistic silence can be considered a counterproductive behavior (Knoll & van Dick, 2013), opportunistic silence allows an employee to maintain and/or obtain advantages through protecting information that may be important to the employee’s task-related performance. As such, opportunistic silence is an adaptive behavioral strategy, which strengthens employees’ sense of ability to accomplish their jobs on their own without experiencing barriers and disruptions (Raghuram, Wiesenfeld, & Garud, 2003). This sense of ability to perform, even at the expense of others, can provide a consistent positive self-evaluation regarding job-related capability. As a result, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4a: Opportunistic silence positively affects an employee’s JSE.

As noted by several scholars (e.g., Bowling, Eschleman, Wang, Kirkendall, & Alarcon, 2010; J. Liu et al., 2013), an employee may form OBSE on the basis of his or her interpersonal interactions with other members within the organization. Therefore, an employee’s assessment of self-worth as an organizational member partly comes from the quality of interpersonal treatment that the employee has with others (McAllister & Bigley, 2002). While the quality of treatment received from others serves as an important indicator of the extent to which an employee is valued by others (Bowling et al., 2010; Pierce & Gardner, 2004), the employee’s assessment of self-worth as an organizational member can reduce when he or she acknowledges the demonstration of self-interested behaviors that are harmful to other organizational members. That is, an employee may acknowledge that others from whom the employee withholds relevant information can experience informational injustice (Bies & Moag, 1986), especially the information that is crucial to others’ performance. The acknowledgment of informational injustice experienced by others with whom the employee interacts may then convey a consistent message to the employee that he or she is not a meaningful, worthwhile, and valuable organizational member, thereby reducing the employee’s OBSE. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4b: Opportunistic silence has a negative impact on an employee’s OBSE.

Mediating roles of OCBO and OCBI

Previously, we have presented some possible relationships between different forms of employee silence and JSE and OBSE. It is noteworthy that some forms of employee silence may be disengagement at work, while other forms of employee silence are altruistic-oriented (Van Dyne et al., 2003). The disengagement-oriented (or altruistic-oriented) silence may then influence an employee’s inferences of self through minimizing (or maximizing) the employee’s citizenship behaviors. Conceptually, OCBs refer to an employee’s discretionary behaviors that are not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and in the aggregate promote organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Organ, 1988). While OCBs describe a wide range of employee discretionary behaviors, we follow Williams and Anderson (1991) and classify OCBs into two distinct categories: OCBO and OCBI. OCBO focuses on employee discretionary behaviors that benefit the organization such as providing beneficial suggestions to the organization, whereas OCBI includes employee discretionary behaviors that indirectly contribute to the organization through benefiting specific organizational members such as helping other colleagues.

While the relationship between employee silence and OCBs has not been empirically tested extensively, the wider literature has provided reasoning indicating the possible link between employee silence and OCBs. First, it is generally acknowledged that performing OCBs require a considerable amount of an employee’s effort, time, and physical and mental involvement (Ozer, Chang, & Schaubroeck, 2014). In line with prior research, we further argue that because AS manifests the characteristics of workplace disengagement, AS not only hinders an employee’s in-role performance but also impedes the employee’s effort to go above and beyond his or her in-role requirements. Indeed, workplace disengagement often results in increased counterproductive behaviors (e.g., Christian & Ellis, 2014) as well as reduced employee OCBO and OCBI (e.g., Bonner, Greenbaum, & Mayer, 2016). Second, prior research has suggested that exhibiting OCBs allows employees to experience a sense of efficacy and personal value (e.g., Glomb et al., 2011; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000). Altogether, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5a: The relationship between acquiescent silence and an employee’s JSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBO.

Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between acquiescent silence and an employee’s JSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBI.

Hypothesis 5c: The relationship between acquiescent silence and an employee’s OBSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBO.

Hypothesis 5d: The relationship between acquiescent silence and an employee’s OBSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBI.

As mentioned previously, quiescent silence results from unpleasant consequences that speaking up generates (Knoll & van Dick, 2013). As such, the occurrence of quiescent silence signifies a lack of a positive organizational climate and managerial support that encourage positive workplace behaviors, thereby hindering the demonstration of OCBO and OCBI (Appelbaum, Iaconi, & Matousek, 2007; Fehr & Gelfand, 2012). In addition, the literature of psychological safety offers some possible explanations concerning the link between quiescent silence and discretionary workplace behaviors such as OCBs.

As pointed out by Edmondson (1999) that an employee’s perception of psychological safety is an important precondition for his or her willingness to speak up. Consequently, quiescent silence can reflect a lack of workplace psychological safety, which is an important precondition for employees’ motivation to engage in workplace discretionary behaviors that contribute to effectiveness of the individual, group, and organization. For instance, Carmeli and Gittell (2009) show that psychological safety enables employees to learn from their past failures that may be crucial for futures success. Similarly, Ortega, Van den Bossche, Sánchez-Manzanares, Rico, and Gil (2014) reveal that psychological safety enhances employee voluntary learning behavior, which in turn boosts overall performance. Moreover, findings from Zhou and Pan’s (2015) study suggest that employees’ perceived psychological safety helps foster their creative engagement process, which subsequently enhances employee creativity. Furthermore, psychological safety has been shown to be associated with employee’s OCBO (e.g., Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) and OCBI (e.g., Leung, Deng, Wang, & Zhou, 2015; Singh & Winkel, 2012). On the basis of previous research findings concerning organizational climate and employee discretionary behaviors, and the positive impact of OCBs on self-efficacy and personal worth (Glomb et al., 2011; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000), we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 6a: The relationship between quiescent silence and an employee’s JSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBO.

Hypothesis 6b: The relationship between quiescent silence and an employee’s JSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBI.

Hypothesis 6c: The relationship between quiescent silence and an employee’s OBSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBO.

Hypothesis 6d: The relationship between quiescent silence and an employee’s OBSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBI.

As emphasized by Van Dyne et al. (2003), employee silence can be motivated by other-oriented motives and prosocial reasons. Thus, PS results from an employee’s genuine desire to protect welfare of the organization and its members, strong sense of organizational identification, and vigorous need for maintaining affiliation with the organization and its members (Knoll & van Dick, 2013). Because PS contains the nature of an employee’s concern for others (Van Dyne et al., 2003), it further fosters an employee’s engagement in OCBO and OCBI that helps fulfill the employee’s altruistic and prosocial values. On the basis of previous research findings, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 7a: The relationship between prosocial silence and an employee’s JSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBO.

Hypothesis 7b: The relationship between prosocial silence and an employee’s JSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBI.

Hypothesis 7c: The relationship between prosocial silence and an employee’s OBSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBO.

Hypothesis 7d: The relationship between prosocial silence and an employee’s OBSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBI.

Knoll and van Dick (2013) suggest that employees may be motivated to withhold relevant information in order to obtain advantages for themselves. In other words, the opportunistic type of employee silence is a self-interested behavior focusing on restricting information sharing and dissimilation. While remaining silent opportunistically maximizes an employee’s advantage, it is exhibited at the expense of other organizational members’ interests and welfare. As such, it is plausible that opportunistic silence reduces an employee’s willingness to engage in OCBO and OCBI that contribute to the welfare of other individuals and the organization. That is, because knowledge and information are considered a major source of competitive advantage that one can obtain (Spender & Grant, 1996), opportunistic silence driven by self-interests and obtaining advantage can lead to reduced effort and willingness to contribute to the collective performance. This view is supported by existing findings, which reveal that higher levels of self-interest result in lower levels of information and knowledge sharing (e.g., Constant, Kiesler, & Sproull, 1994; Y. Liu & DeFrank, 2013). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 8a: The relationship between opportunistic silence and an employee’s JSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBO.

Hypothesis 8b: The relationship between opportunistic silence and an employee’s JSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBI.

Hypothesis 8c: The relationship between opportunistic silence and an employee’s OBSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBO.

Hypothesis 8d: The relationship between opportunistic silence and an employee’s OBSE is mediated by the employee’s OCBI.

Method

Sample and procedure

Participants in this study were employees of 12 small- and medium-sized sales companies located in the Southwest region of the United States. Using the convenience sampling approach and through personal connections, one of the researchers of this study contacted the human resource manager in each of these companies to obtain permission and provide information concerning the purpose of the research. After the permission was granted by each of these companies, one of the researchers of this study physically visited each of the sales companies and administered paper-based self-reported surveys onsite to sales employees. A total of 573 sales employees across 12 sales companies were invited to participate in the survey in which no personal information and identity were collected to protect anonymity and confidentiality.

After three weeks of onsite data collection, a total of 156 responses were obtained and 14 of them were deleted due to large missing values and inconsistent responses. The average cross-organizational response rate was 27.23%. The median organizational size of the companies was 62 employees. Of the 142 usable responses, 52.11% were males, 31.69% were females, and 16.2% did not indicate their gender. In total, 23 participants did not state their age, and 26 participants did not specify their tenure with the organization and in the profession. The average age was 43.07 years (standard deviation (SD) =16.07, n = 119). The average organizational tenure was 12.55 years (SD = 13.37, n = 116) and the average tenure in the profession was 15.4 years (SD = 14.28, n = 116).

Measures

Employee silence

We adopted Knoll and van Dick’s (2013) scale to measure the four distinct forms of employee silence (i.e., acquiescent, quiescent, prosocial, and opportunistic silence) using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Acquiescent silence was measure by a three-item scale (α = 0.88). A sample item was “I remain silent at work because I will not find a sympathetic ear, anyway.” Quiescent silence was measure by a three-item scale (α = 0.89). A sample item was “I remain silent at work because of fear of negative consequences.” Prosocial silence was measure by a three-item scale (α = 0.82). A sample item was “I remain silent at work because I do not want to embarrass other.” Opportunistic silence was measure by a three-item scale (α = 0.80). A sample item is “I remain silent at work to not give away my knowledge advantage.”

OCBO and OCBI

To measure OCBO, we adopted a six-item scale (α = 0.88) developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I adhere to informal rules devised to maintain order.” OCBI was measured by a seven-item scale (α = 0.75) developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). A sample item is “I help others who have heavy workloads.”

Job self-efficacy

JSE was measured by a seven-item (α = 0.77) developed by Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar (1994) using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I am good at finding out what customers want.”

Organization-based self-esteem

OBSE was measured by a 10-item (α = 0.91) developed by Pierce et al. (1989) using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item is “I am important around here.”

Data analysis

Considering the research purpose, measurement model, structural model, and data characteristics, we used partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the models. In this study, the largest number of independent variables estimated for a dependent variable was six. According to the 10 times rule (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995), the minimum sample size is 60. In addition, following Cohen’s (1992) recommendations for multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis using a significance level of 5% and a statistical power of 80% as the criteria, a total of 75 observations is needed in order to detect R² values of approximately 0.25. Thus, the sample size of this study was deemed adequate for PLS-SEM analysis.

Evaluation of the measurement model

We followed the PLS-SEM procedure suggested by Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2013) and evaluated measurement model prior to assessing structural model. The evaluation of the measurement model included internal consistency (composite reliability, CR), indicator reliability, convergent validity (average variance extracted, AVE), and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2013). All the PLS-SEM analyses were performed by the SmartPLS software version 2.0.M3 (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005). The initial screening of outer loadings indicated that OBSE₁₀ (0.559), JSE₂ (0.663), OCBO₃ (0.491), and OCBO₆ (0.638) had weaker outer loadings. Consequently, OBSE₁₀, JSE2, OCBO₃, and OCBO₆ were dropped one by one from the model, which resulted in an increase in AVE (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017).

Table 1

Table 1.

Summary of the results.

Construct	Indicators	Convergent validity			Internal consistencyReliability		Discriminant validity
Construct	Indicators	Loadings	Indicator reliability	AVE	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s alpha	Discriminant validity
AS	AS1	0.847	0.717	0.863	0.950	0.919	Yes^a
	AS2	0.967	0.936
	AS3	0.967	0.935
JSE	JSE1	0.720	0.518	0.692	0.931	0.910	Yes^a
	JSE3	0.886	0.786
	JSE4^b	0.865	0.749
	JSE5^b	0.758	0.574
	JSE6	0.876	0.767
	JSE7	0.870	0.758
OBSE	OBSE1	0.778	0.606	0.746	0.963	0.957	Yes^a
	OBSE2	0.904	0.818
	OBSE3	0.888	0.788
	OBSE4	0.902	0.813
	OBSE5	0.911	0.830
	OBSE6	0.913	0.833
	OBSE7	0.912	0.832
	OBSE8	0.803	0.646
	OBSE9	0.741	0.548
OCBI	OCBI1	0.798	0.637	0.729	0.949	0.938	Yes^a
	OCBI2	0.846	0.716
	OCBI3	0.876	0.768
	OCBI4	0.892	0.796
	OCBI5	0.870	0.757
	OCBI6	0.867	0.752
	OCBI7	0.822	0.675
OCBO	OCBO1	0.753	0.568	0.623	0.869	0.798	Yes^a
	OCBO2	0.744	0.554
	OCBO4^*	0.821	0.674
	OCBO5^*	0.836	0.699
OS	OS1	0.935	0.874	0.896	0.963	0.942	Yes^a
	OS2	0.965	0.931
	OS3	0.940	0.883
PS	PS1	0.972	0.944	0.943	0.980	0.970	Yes^a
	PS2	0.975	0.951
	PS3	0.967	0.935
QS	QS1	0.991	0.983	0.983	0.994	0.991	Yes^a
	QS2	0.995	0.991
	QS3	0.988	0.976

Note: OCBO: organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization; OCBI: organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals; AS: acquiescent silence; OS: opportunistic silence; JSE: job self-efficacy; PS: prosocial silence; QS: quiescent silence; OBSE: organization-based self-esteem; AVE: average variance extracted.

^aDiscriminant validity is assessed by examining the cross loadings of the indicators (Appendix A) and the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Table 2).

^bReverse-coded items.

shows that all constructs had a satisfactory level of internal consistency (CR above 0.70) and convergent validity (AVE above 0.5). Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion. As shown in Table 2, the square root of each construct’s AVE value was larger than its correlation with other constructs. In addition, as shown in Appendix A, each indicator’s outer loading on the associated construct was greater than all of its loadings on other constructs. As a consequence, we proceeded to the evaluation of the structural model.

Table 2.

Fornell–Larcker criterion.

	AS	JSE	OBSE	OCBI	OCBO	OS	PS	QS
AS	0.929*
JSE	–0.614	0.832*
OBSE	–0.711	0.749	0.864*
OCBI	–0.376	0.539	0.505	0.854*
OCBO	–0.349	0.685	0.531	0.449	0.790*
OS	0.850	–0.621	–0.606	–0.332	–0.416	0.947*
PS	0.938	–0.637	–0.666	–0.350	–0.388	0.849	0.971*
QS	0.811	–0.439	–0.593	–0.262	–0.256	0.651	0.683	0.992*

Note: The nondiagonal elements represent the correlations between constructs. The diagonal elements represent the square root of each construct’s AVE.*p < 0.01.

OCBO: organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization; OCBI: organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals; AS: acquiescent silence; OS: opportunistic silence; JSE: job self-efficacy; PS: prosocial silence; QS: quiescent silence; OBSE = organization-based self-esteem; AVE: average variance extracted.

Evaluation of the structural model

As indicated in Table 1, Table 2, and Appendix A, all model evaluation criteria suggested by Hair et al. (2017) have been met, indicating that the construct measures were reliable and valid. Next, we evaluated the structural model by assessing collinearity for each set of latent predictors in the structural model. Two separate OLS regressions for each part of the model were performed using SPSS 22.0 to assess collinearity. The two regressions were (1) acquiescent, quiescent, prosocial, and opportunistic silence as predictors of OCBO and OCBI and (2) OCBO and OCBI as predictors of JSE and OBSE. The tolerance values (VIF) of the analyses, illustrated in Table 3, indicated that AS and PS were above the threshold of 5 (Hair et al., 2017). As such, AS and PS were eliminated from the structural model following Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt’s (2011) recommendation. Because AS and PS were removed from the model, the criteria suggested by Hair et al. (2017) were reevaluated. The results shown in Table 4 indicate that the construct measures were reliable and valid.

Table 3.

Collinearlity assessment.

First set		Second set
Constructs	VIF	Constructs	VIF
AS	16.135	OCBI	1.252
OS	3.920	OCBO	1.252
PS	10.487
QS	3.442

Note: PS: prosocial silence; AS: acquiescent silence; QS: quiescent silence; OS: opportunistic silence; OCBO: organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization; VIF: tolerance values; OCBI: organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals.

Table 4.

CR, AVE, Cronbach’s alpha, and correlation.

	AVE	CR	Cronbach’s alpha	JSE	OBSE	OCBI	OCBO	OS	QS
JSE	0.692	0.931	0.910	0.832
OBSE	0.746	0.963	0.957	0.750	0.864
OCBI	0.729	0.949	0.938	0.539	0.505	0.854
OCBO	0.623	0.868	0.798	0.686	0.535	0.452	0.789
OS	0.896	0.963	0.942	–0.621	–0.607	–0.333	–0.416	0.947
QS	0.983	0.994	0.991	–0.439	–0.592	–0.262	–0.256	0.651	0.994

Note: The nondiagonal elements represent the correlations between constructs. The diagonal elements represent the square root of each construct’s AVE.

CR: composite reliability; OCBO: organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization; OCBI: organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals; OS: opportunistic silence; JSE: job self-efficacy;

QS: quiescent silence; OBSE: organization-based self-esteem; AVE: average variance extracted.

Given that this study used self-reported data from a single survey respondent as the source of independent and dependent variables, the proposed model of this study may be contaminated by common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Accordingly, we performed a full collinearity test suggested by Kock (2015) to assess the severity of common method bias. According to Kock, if all VIFs are lower than 3.3, the model can be considered free of common method bias; however, a VIF greater than 3.3 is an indication that a model may be contaminated by common method bias. As can be seen in Table 5, except JSE, the VIFs are below 3.3. The VIF of JSE is 3.533, which is slightly greater than 3.3, indicating that the model may be contaminated by common method bias. As a result, the results should be used with caution.

Table 5.

Full collinearlity assessment.

Constructs	VIF
JSE	3.533
OBSE	2.945
OCBI	1.485
OCBO	1.935
OS	2.298
QS	2.305

Note: QS: quiescent silence; JSE: job self-efficacy; OS: opportunistic silence; OBSE: organization-based self-esteem; OCBO: organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization; OCBI: organizational citizenship behavior toward individuals; VIF: tolerance values.

Hypothesis testing: direct effects

To test proposed hypotheses, a bootstrap with 5000 iterations was performed without the mediators. The path coefficients, t values, and significance levels measured by p values are presented in Table 6. The results indicated the following. Opportunistic silence was a significant predictor of OBSE (β = –0.383, p < 0.001) and JSE (β = –0.583, p < 0.001). Quiescent silence significantly predicted OBSE (β = –0.344, p < 0.001). Quiescent silence and opportunistic silence jointly explained 43.7% of the variance of OBSE. Opportunistic silence explained 38.7% of the variance of JSE. The f² effect of quiescent silence on OBSE, opportunistic silence on JSE, and opportunistic silence on OBSE was 0.1119, 0.311, and 0.1474, respectively. Although opportunistic silence was a significant predictor of JSE, it had a negative impact on JSE. Thus, only hypotheses 2b and 4b were supported.

Table 6.

Significance testing results of the structural model path coefficients.

	Path	Path coefficients	t value	p values
Hypothesis 1a	N/A*
Hypothesis 1b	N/A*
Hypothesis 2a	QS→JSE	–0.061	0.666	p = 0.5065
Hypothesis 2b	QS→OBSE	–0.344	3.336	p < 0.001
Hypothesis 3a	N/A*
Hypothesis 3b	N/A*
Hypothesis 4a	OS→JSE	–0.583	5.825	p < 0.001
Hypothesis 4b	OS→OBSE	–0.383	2.941	p < 0.01

Note: “N/A*” represents constructs dropped from the proposed model. Critical value = 1.96 (significance level = 5%). OS: opportunistic silence; JSE: job self-efficacy; QS: quiescent silence; OBSE: organization-based self-esteem.

In addition to testing the significance of path coefficients, we performed blindfolding procedure with an omission distance of D = 7 to assess the predictive relevance of the path model. The predictive relevance Q² of JSE and OBSE was 0.2536 and 0.3152, respectively, indicating that the path model had predictive relevance for JSE and OBSE.

Hypothesis testing: mediating effects

In the PLS-SEM field, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure for testing mediation effect has been challenged (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). Drawing upon the procedure developed by Nitzl, Roldán, and Cepeda (2016), Carrión, Nitzl, and Roldán (2018) provide a state-of-art method and guidelines on implementing mediation effects in PLS-SEM. In particular, Carrión et al. have noted that a significant indirect effect is the prerequisite for establishing a mediation effect, and the direct effect has to be assessed for determining the type of effect and/or mediation.

A bootstrap with 5000 iterations was performed with the mediators. The path coefficients of the mediating model are depicted in Figure 2. As shown in Table 7, the bias corrected confidence interval (CI) for the mediation effects of a₃×b₁, a₃×b₂, a₄×b₃, and a₄×b₄ did not include 0 value, indicating that the medicating effects were significantly different from 0 (Carrión et al., 2018). Therefore, H8_a, H8_b, H8_c, and H8_d were supported. Given that the indirect effects (a₄×b₄ and a₃×b₂) were significant, and that the bias-corrected CI of direct effect (c’4) included 0, indicating that C’4 was not significant, we concluded that OCBO and OCBI had a full mediation on the relationship between opportunistic silence and OBSE (Carrión et al., 2018). Because the indirect effects (a₃×b₁, a₄×b₃) and the direct effect (c’3) were significant along with the positive sign of a₃×b₁×c’₃ and a₄×b₃×c’₃, we concluded that both OCBO and OCBI had a complementary partial mediation on the relationship between opportunistic silence and JSE (Carrión et al., 2018). Although OS had significant mediating effects on JSE and OBSE through the mediators OCBO and OCBI, the magnitude of OCBO was stronger than that of OCBI on JSE and OBSE. The variance accounted for (VAF) value of the indirect effects of a₃×b₁ on JSE and a₃×b₂ on OBSE was 30% and 16%, respectively. Finally, the VAF value of the indirect effects of a₄×b₃ and a₄×b₄ on JSE and OBSE was 10% and 9%, respectively.

Figure 2.

Path coefficients of the mediating model.

Table 7.

Summary of mediating effects tests.

Direct effects	Coefficient	Bootstrap 95% CI
		Percentile		Bias corrected
		Lower(2.5%)	Upper(97.5%)	Lower(2.5%)	Upper(97.5%)
c'₁	–0.055	–0.181	0.070	–0.180	0.071
c'₂	–0.330^a	–0.490	–0.168	–0.493	–0.172
c'₃	–0.331^a	–0.494	–0.174	–0.487	–0.168
c'₄	–0.207	–0.446	0.018	–0.436	0.027
a ₁	0.027	–0.141	0.182	–0.140	0.183
a ₂	–0.079	–0.265	0.088	–0.266	0.087
a ₃	–0.438^a	–0.597	–0.183	–0.629	–0.215
a ₄	–0.281^a	–0.496	–0.060	–0.491	–0.055
b ₁	0.436^a	0.341	0.589	0.309	0.557
b ₂	0.259^a	0.100	0.430	0.096	0.425
b ₃	0.218^a	0.038	0.368	0.057	0.387
b ₄	0.233^a	0.044	0.405	0.053	0.414
Indirect effects	Point estimate	Percentile		Bias corrected
Indirect effects	Point estimate	Lower(2.5%)	Upper(97.5%)	Lower(2.5%)	Upper(97.5%)
a₁ × b₁	0.012	–0.066	0.091	–0.067	0.090
a₁ × b₂	0.007	–0.037	0.054	–0.038	0.054
a₂ × b₃	–0.017	–0.067	0.018	–0.068	0.017
a₂ × b₄	–0.018	–0.081	0.015	–0.080	0.017
a₃ × b₁	–0.191^a	–0.302	–0.078	–0.302	–0.078
a₃ × b₂	–0.113^a	–0.222	–0.026	–0.225	–0.030
a₄ × b₃	–0.061^a	–0.128	–0.004	–0.134	–0.010
a₄ × b₄	–0.066^a	–0.143	–0.006	–0.146	–0.009

Note: CI: confidence interval.

^aSignificant.

Discussion

Theoretical contributions

Although much scholarly attention has been devoted to exploring how an employee’s OBSE can be influenced by dispositional, situational, and organizational factors (see, Bowling et al., 2010), much of this attention has focused on an employee’s overt interactions (e.g., behaviors that are visible to the observer) with the supervisor under certain contextual features such as leadership characteristics where interpersonal interactions occur. While this research stream has provided important insights into understanding overt determinants of OBSE, we still lack the understanding of how covert determinants (e.g., behaviors that are invisible to the observer) influence employee OBSE. Through this study, we address how an employee’s intentional withholding of relevant information, as a covert behavioral determinant, affects his or her inference of self-worth within the organization. As a result, this study advances the currently body of knowledge by offering a covert perspective of employees’ OBSE.

Perhaps, one of the most prominent reasons leading to employees’ choice of remaining silent intentionally is employees’ disinterest in expressing their opinions and ideas (Milliken et al., 2003; Van Dyne et al., 2003). This lack of interest to speak up is often produced by employees’ beliefs that speaking up is not valued and wanted (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) and/or conformity is required (Knoll & van Dick, 2013). In addition to AS, PS proposed by Van Dyne et al. (2003) describes an employee’s withholding of ideas and opinions for the benefit of the organization and its members. In other words, PS is motivated by an employee’s altruistic and cooperative tendencies (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Even though AS and PS represent two distinct theorizations of employee silence, our analyses interestingly indicate that collinearity exists between AS and PS. While the collinearity between AS and PS could result from random sampling errors and/or respondent bias, it might be explained by the motives for PS and AS are closely intertwined. In particular, because employees exhibiting PS may have high need for affiliation and a personal interest in maintaining social relationship and identity (Knoll & van Dick, 2013), these motives for PS can lead to the development of a sense of conformity and desire to withhold dissent, thereby encouraging AS. Given this possible explanation, this study contributes to the literature by testing the robustness of the instrument measuring the four forms of employee silence developed by Knoll and van Dick (2013). Of course, we further encourage future scholarly effort to focus on distinguishing the motives between PS and AS clearly.

Finally, findings concerning the mediating roles of OCBs contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the dark side of prosocial behaviors exhibited by employees. Specifically, even though the vast majority research has viewed OCBs as employees’ altruistic participation intended for enhancing overall organizational functioning, some scholars (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009; Yun, Takeuchi, & Liu, 2007) have found that OCBs may be exhibited for the purpose of benefiting oneself. Our results further illustrate that employees’ intentional withholding of relevant information for the purpose of benefiting themselves leads to the demonstration of OCBI, which then promotes JSE and OBSE. In addition, our findings reveal that exhibiting opportunistic silence leads to reduced OCBO, which subsequently results in increased JSE and OBSE. These findings seem to suggest that employees who exhibit opportunistic silence chooses to engage in higher levels of OCBI and lower levels of OCBO for the purpose of enhancing positive self-concept. That is, while opportunistic silence can lead to a negative self-concept, the demonstration of discretionary behaviors directed toward other individuals alleviates such negative self-concept. Therefore, this study advances the OCBs literature by highlighting how positive self-concept can be fostered through OCBs when an employee engages in self-interested behaviors.

Implications for practice

Results of this study provide several implications for managers. First, as pointed out by scholars (Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003), employees may engage in quiescent silence because of their fear of negative consequences. This highlights the importance of allowing employees to experience high levels of accountability and ownership of their tasks, thereby developing high levels of JSE. One particularly useful approach, for instance, is aligning employees’ personal needs with the organization’s goals, so that the employees become motivated to attain organizational goals while satisfying their needs. This can then enhance employees’ workplace engagement and development of positive self-evaluations concerning job-related capability. In other words, goal congruence between an organization and its employees promotes the employees’ sense of fit and enhances the quality of exchange relationship (e.g., Boswell, 2006), which can help foster the employees’ workplace engagement and JSE.

This study has also demonstrated that an employee’s quiescent silence is predictive of his or her OBSE. Because quiescent silence describes an employee’s deliberate withholding of relevant information due to fear of receiving negative consequences (Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos, 2001), our findings suggest that managers need to establish a workplace environment where employees feel safe to express their opinions and suggestions. In line with numerous studies that have revealed the link between psychological safety and employee willingness to speak up (e.g., Liang et al., 2012; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009), we further encourage managers to ensure that they are perceived as open, caring, tolerant, and empathic concerning organizational matters. By being perceived as supportive, managers are able to enhance employee perceived psychological safety, which in turn strengthens employee OBSE.

In terms of opportunistic silence, the results demonstrate that it negatively affects employee OBSE. Thus, to foster employee OBSE, we emphasize that managers should pay attention to the overall fairness climate and organizational transparency. Specifically, there is strong evidence in the literature that employees are less likely to engage in deviant, opportunistic, and counterproductive behaviors when they are treated fairly compared to those who are treated unfairly (e.g., Thornton & Rupp, 2016; Yang, Bauer, Johnson, Groer, & Salomon, 2014). Accordingly, managers are advised to make sure that decision-making process, organizational resource allocation, and task assignments are transparent and openly discussed, and that employees are informed. As a consequence, opportunistic behaviors aimed at benefiting self at the expense of others may be discouraged and eliminated.

This study uncovers that OCBI positively mediates the relationship between opportunistic silence and JSE and OBSE. Because OCBI represents behaviors that are interpersonal and cooperative (Williams & Anderson, 1991), it is often perceived favorably by the managers and, consequently, results in positive outcomes such as higher advancement ratings and better managerial appraisal (Whiting, Podsakoff, & Pierce, 2008). Employees who intend to obtain personal benefits and advantages through intentionally withholding relevant information can be motivated to demonstrate OCBI given the potential receipt of positive outcomes. As such, we encourage managers to be cautious when considering rewarding employees’ OCBI and ensure that opportunistic behaviors are not used as a means to put certain organizational members in disadvantageous positions. Finally, results illustrate that OCBO negatively mediates the relationship between opportunistic silence and JSE. This implies that employees can intentionally withhold relevant information that is beneficial to themselves and opportunistically not offer some crucial suggestions and ideas that are beneficial to the organization. As a result, it may be important for managers to assess the thoroughness and completeness of an employee’s expression in order to ensure that the organization’s overall condition is not compromised, while the employee’s personal interests are attained.

Future research directions

Although this study systematically and empirically tests the hypothesized relationship, it has some limitations that need to be noted. First, although our sample size is considered suitable for the PLS-SEM approach, the relatively small sample size of this study may reduce the external validity. Future studies using larger sample sizes are particularly needed to validate findings of this study. Second, in this study we make an implicit assumption that employee JSE and OBSE are relatively stable overtime. Research on organizational socialization, however, has indicated that employees’ inferences about themselves may be a dynamic phenomenon where employees develop and reassess their self-concept across their career span (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Li, Harris, Boswell, & Xie, 2011). For example, it is quite likely that newcomers of an organization exhibit higher levels of quiescent silence and lower levels of opportunistic silence due to their desire to establish themselves as valued members and reduce vulnerability and uncertainty (Schein, 2004). Because this study is a cross-sectional study, future research is highly desired to address the dynamic nature of employee self-concept using longitudinal research design.

Third, even though employee silence broadly reflects an employee’s intentional withholding of relevant information (Pinder & Harlos, 2001), employee silence can be exhibited when different organizational matters (e.g., unethical events and quality improvement) and different targets (e.g., the manager, coworkers, and subordinates) are involved (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). Given this, it is plausible that an employee’s formation of self-concept determined by his or her intentional withholding of relevant information may be moderated by the type of organizational matters as well as the target. For instance, an employee may form a more negative self-concept when he or she intentionally remains silent about unethical and illegal behaviors than when he or she intentionally remains silent about how to improve existing product quality. The complexity of employee silence, therefore, calls for further investigations concerning how different organizational matters and targets involved in employee silence determine employee self-concept.

Fourth, one of the important research streams in employee silence has suggested that individual-level variables may influence employee silence. For example, Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) show that individuals with low self-monitoring tendency tend to speak up more than individuals with high self-monitoring tendency. In addition, Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) illustrate that employee professional commitment and perception of procedural justice are related to employee silence. Without a doubt, individual-level variables play a significant role in determining employee silence, thereby affecting self-concept. Consequently, future research can extend this study by considering individual-level variables. For example, it would be particularly interesting to examine how an employee’s JSE and OBSE are interactively affected by proactive personality and employee silence.

Another possible avenue for future research is to investigate the conditions of interpersonal dynamics and organizational climates in the context of employee silence and self-concept. One particular condition may be the quality of interpersonal relationship, which has been shown to be relevant to employees feeling of self-worth in the team (e.g., Farmer, Van Dyne, & Kamdar, 2015). From a broader organizational perspective, healthy organizational climates, such as employee involvement climate and ethical climate, may discourage employees’ conscious decisions to remain silent and promote the development of positive employee self-concept. Consequently, future research that considers the conditions of interpersonal dynamics and organizational climates can further advance our understanding of employee silence and employee self-concept.

Conclusion

In this study, we empirically examine how an employee’s JSE and OBSE is affected by each of the four distinct forms of employee silence. In addition, we empirically test the mediating roles of OCBs. Through our empirical analyses, we show that quiescent silence and opportunistic silence negatively affect an employee’s OBSE. In addition, findings of this study reveal that OCBI mediates the relationship between opportunistic silence and employee JSE and OBSE, whereas OCBO mediates the relationship between opportunistic silence and JSE. By investigating these relationships, this study provides important theoretical contributions and offers crucial managerial recommendations that may help managers strengthen employees’ inferences about themselves.

Footnotes

Article Notes

ORCID iD

Shih Yung Chou

References

Appelbaum

S. H.

Iaconi

G. D.

Matousek

(2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7, 586–598.

Ashforth

Saks

(1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

Bandura

(1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

Barclay

Higgins

Thompson

(1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285–309.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bies

R. J.

Moag

J. F.

(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki

R. J.

Sheppard

B. H.

Bazerman

M. H.

(Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (pp. 43–55). JAI Press.

Bonner

Greenbaum

Mayer

(2016). My boss is morally disengaged: The role of ethical leadership in explaining the interactive effect of supervisor and employee moral disengagement on employee behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 731–742.

10.

Boswell

(2006). Aligning employees with the organization’s strategic objectives: Out of “line of sight”, out of mind. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1489–1511.

11.

Bowling

N. A.

Eschleman

K. J.

Wang

Kirkendall

Alarcon

(2010). A meta-analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-based self-esteem. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 601–626.

12.

Brinsfield

C. T.

(2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measure. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 671–697.

13.

Carmeli

Gittell

J. H.

(2009). High-equality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 709–729.

14.

Carrión

G. C.

Nitzl

Roldán

J. L.

(2018). Mediation analyses in partial least squares structural equation modeling: Guidelines and empirical examples. In Latan

Noonan

(Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodological issues and applications (pp. 173–193). Springer.

15.

Chan

S. C.

Huang

Snape

Lam

C. K.

(2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 108–128.

16.

Chou

S. Y.

Chang

(2017). Being helped and being harmed: A theoretical study of employee self-concept and receipt of help. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1573–1592.

17.

Christian

Ellis

(2014). The crucial role of turnover intentions in transforming moral disengagement into deviant behavior at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 193–208.

18.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

19.

Constant

Kiesler

Sproull

(1994). What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5, 400–421.

20.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

21.

Farmer

S. M.

Van Dyne

Kamdar

(2015). The contextualized self: How team-member exchange leads to coworker identification and helping OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 583–595.

22.

Fehr

Gelfand

M. J.

(2012). The forgiving organization: A multilevel model of forgiveness at work. Academy of Management Review, 37, 664–688.

23.

Gardner

D. G.

Pierce

J. L.

(1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context. Group and Organization Management, 23, 48–70.

24.

Gardner

D. G.

Pierce

J. L.

(2016). Organization-based self-esteem in work teams. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 19, 394–408.

25.

Gist

M. E.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.

26.

Glomb

T. A.

Bhave

D. P.

Miner

A. G.

Wall

(2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood. Personnel Psychology, 64, 191–223.

27.

Grant

A. M.

Mayer

D. M.

(2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900–912.

28.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

M., & Sarstedt

(2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 1st Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139–152.

31.

Hitlin

(2007). Doing good, feeling good: Values and the self’s moral center. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 249–259.

32.

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 555--566.

33.

Johnson

R. E.

Saboe

(2011). Measuring implicit traits in organizational research: Development of an indirect measure of employee implicit self-concept. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 530–547.

34.

Kim

Lee

Kim

(2015). Employee self-concepts, voluntary learning behavior, and perceived employability. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 264–279.

35.

Knoll

van Dick

(2013). Do I hear the whistle …? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 349–362.

36.

Kock

(2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.

37.

Korman

A. K.

(1970). Toward a hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 31–41.

38.

Korman

A. K.

(1976). Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension. Academy of Management Review, 1, 50–63.

39.

Leung

Deng

Wang

Zhou

(2015). Beyond risk-taking: Effects of psychological safety on cooperative goal interdependence and prosocial behavior. Group and Organization Management, 40, 88–115.

40.

Harris

Boswell

W. R.

Xie

(2011). The role of organizational insiders’ development feedback and proactive personality on newcomers’ performance: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1317–1327.

41.

Liang

Farh

C. I. C.

Farh

(2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71–73.

42.

Liu

Hui

Lee

Chen

Z. X.

(2013). Why do I feel valued and why do I contribute? A relational approach to employee’s organization-based self-esteem and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1018–1040.

43.

Liu

DeFrank

R. S.

(2013). Self-interest and knowledge-sharing intentions: The impacts of transformational leadership climate and HR practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1151–1164.

44.

Maddux

J. E.

(2016). Self-efficacy. In Trusz

Bąbel

(Eds.), Interpersonal and intrapersonal expectancies (pp. 41–46). Routledge.

45.

McAllister

D. J.

Bigley

G. A.

(2002). Work context and the definition of self: How organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 894–904.

46.

Milliken

F. J.

Morrison

E. W.

Hewlin

P. F.

(2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453–1476.

47.

Milner

H. R.

Hoy

A. W.

(2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self-efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263–276.

48.

Morrison

E. W.

Milliken

F. J.

(2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706–725.

49.

Nitzl

Roldán

J. L.

Cepeda

G. C.

(2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116, 1849–1864.

50.

Nurius

P. S.

(1993). Human memory: A basis for better understanding the elusive self-concept. Social Service Review, 67, 261–278.

51.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.

52.

Ortega

Van den Bossche

Sánchez-Manzanares

Rico

Gil

(2014). The influence of change-oriented leadership and psychological safety on team learning in healthcare teams. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 311–321.

53.

Ozer

Chang

Schaubroeck

J. M.

(2014). Contextual moderators of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and challenge and hindrance stress. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 557–578.

54.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

(2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591–622.

55.

Pierce

J. L.

Gardner

D. G.

Crowley

(2016). Organization-based self-esteem and well-being: Empirical examination of a spillover effect. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 181–199.

56.

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.

57.

Pinder

C. C.

Harlos

K. P.

(2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. In Rowland

K. M.

Ferris

G. R.

(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 331–369). JAI Press.

58.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

59.

Premeaux

S. F.

Bedeian

(2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1537–1562.

60.

Pugh

S. D.

Groth

Henning-Thurau

(2011). Willing and able to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 377–390.

61.

Raghuram

Wiesenfeld

Garud

(2003). Technology enabled work: The role of self-efficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 180–198.

62.

Reinhard

Dickhauser

(2011). How affective states, task difficulty, and self-concepts influence the formation and consequences of performance expectancies. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 220–228.

63.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Will

(2005). SmartPLS 2 [Computer software]. https://www.smartpls.com

64.

Schein

(2004). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

65.

Schreurs

van Emmerik

Notelaers

De Witte

(2010). Job security and employee health: The buffering potential of job control and job self-efficacy. Work and Stress, 24, 56–72.

66.

Shuck

Ghosh

Zigarmi

Nimon

(2013). The jungle jangle of employee engagement: Further exploration of the emerging construct and implications for workplace learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12, 11–35.

67.

Singh

Winkel

D. E.

(2012). Racial differences in helping behaviors: The role of respect, safety, and identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 467–477.

68.

Somech

Drach-Zahavy

(2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649–659.

69.

Spender

J. C.

Grant

R. M.

(1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 5–9.

70.

Sujan

Weitz

B. A.

Kumar

(1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58, 39–52.

71.

Swann

W. B.

Griffin

J. J.

Predmore

S. C.

Gaines

(1987). The cognitive-affective crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 881–889.

72.

Tangirala

Ramanujam

(2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 37–68.

73.

Thornton

Rupp

(2016). The joint effects of justice climate, group moral identity, and corporate social responsibility on the prosocial and deviant behaviors of groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 677–697.

74.

Van Dyne

Ang

Botero

I. C.

(2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359–1392.

75.

Vinarski-Peretz

Binyamin

Carmeli

(2011). Subjective relational experiences and employee innovative behaviors in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 290–304.

76.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Schaubroeck

(2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275–1286.

77.

Whiting

S. W.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Pierce

J. R.

(2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 125–139.

78.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. W.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

79.

Lyu

Kwan

H. K.

Zhai

(2019). The impact of mentoring quality on protégés’ organization-based self-esteem and proactive behavior: The moderating role of traditionality. Human Resource Management, 58, 417–430.

80.

Yang

Bauer

Johnson

R. E.

Groer

M. W.

Salomon

(2014). Physiological mechanisms that underlie the effects of interaction unfairness on deviant behavior: The role of cortisol activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 310–321.

81.

Yun

Takeuchi

Liu

(2007). Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 745–756.

82.

Zhao

Lynch

J. G.

Chen

(2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.

83.

Zhou

Pan

(2015). A cross-level examination of the process linking transformational leadership and creativity: The role of psychological safety climate. Human Performance, 28, 405–424.