LITERATURE REVIEW - The Effect of Locus of Control on Employee Silence in Political Parties in

In this chapter, researcher reviewed the literature about locus of control, employee silence, agreeableness, extraversion and the relationship among locus of control, employee silence, agreeableness and extraversion.

Employee Silence

According to the literature, silence behavior occurred in 1970s. Previous research indicates that employees keep silent due to different reasons, and one is that individuals simply choose to remain silent because they do not want to become bad news communicators for negative message. It is called mum effect (Rosen & Tesser, 1970). Literature suggests that silence can be divided into organizational and individual level (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

Morrison and Milliken (2000) first introduce that organizational silence is a collective behavior, which is the employee’s decision to hide their thoughts and concerns about the organization

Organizational level silence pays attention to organizational level silence behavior, including various forms of phenomenon (e.g., low participation in the meeting, low employee voice behavior, collective silence behavior in the meeting). Organizational level silence has been considered to be a collective behavioral as well. Organizational level silence means that the flow of silence is from the top to the bottom in organization level, while individual level silence means that the flow of silence is from the bottom to the top.

Employee silence puts emphasis on entry level employees, but organizational level silence views the organization as a whole. In other words, organizational level silence focuses on situational factors such as organizational structure and culture will affect the whole organizations’ communication style and most employees’ voice intention. On the other hand, employee level silence focuses on personal factors such as personality traits which will affect an individual’s intention to voice out (Knoll & Dick, 2013).

Employee silence has been viewed as an individual behavioral instead of the one from the organization itself, and this phenomenon has not yet caught researchers' much attention.

It refers to situations where employees withhold information that might be useful to the organization of which they are a part, whether on purpose or not (Pinder & Harlos, 2001).

Previous study has already categorized employee silence behavior into many different forms, such as quiescence, acquiescence, defensive, prosocial and protective silence (Brinsfield, 2009, 2013; Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003 ; Knoll & Dick, 2013; Perlow & Repening, 2009; Pinder &

Harlos, 2001).

Pinder and Harlos (2001) first divide employee silence into two categories, which are quiescence and acquiescence silence. They define the term quiescent silence as deliberately hiding useful information because of personal fears. This is similar to Morrison and Milliken’s (2000) concept on organizational silence. However, acquiescent silence means to be submissive. Acquiescence is a deeper level of silence than quiescence. Furthermore, acquiescent silence means that people think their advice is useless.

Previous study defines defensive silence as hiding related ideas, information, or opinions as a way of self- protection, based on fear (Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). Defensive silence is an intended and initiative behavior with an eye to protecting oneself from external threats.

Dyne and the rest authors (2003) also refers prosocial silence as hiding work-related problems in order to benefit other people or the organization –depending on altruism or cooperative motivation. Compared to defensive silence, the use of prosocial silence is derived from the intention of protecting others, rather than by fear of getting negative results for the "self" (Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). Brinsfield (2009) also defines that prosocial silence is the consequence of a misunderstanding, renaming this type of silence as relational silence.

Another type of silence is protective silence. Morrison and Milliken (2003) indicate that maintaining a good relationship in the workplace is one of the most essential reasons of silence.

Employees choose to be silent instead of speaking up what is wrong in their organizations is because they consider others will not approve them. Therefore, silent employees never express their opinion to avoid conflict in the workplace. Another form of protective silence is that employees believe that sharing their ideas may determine the success and failure of the organization. In order to maintain their own reputations and images, employees decide to remain silent in the workplace (Perlow & Repenning, 2009).

Knoll and Dick (2013) conclude four forms of employee silence, including acquiescent silence, quiescent silence, prosocial silence and opportunistic silence. Acquiescent silence, quiescent silence and prosocial silence are based on previous concept. Their conceptualization on acquiescent silence, quiescent silence and prosocial silence are similar with Pinder and Harlos’ (2001) definition.

Opportunistic silence refers to strategically withholding work-related ideas, information, or opinions with the goal of achieving an advantage for oneself while accepting harm of others.

Based on previous studies, Brinsfield (2013) concludes six kinds of employee silence which are deviant silence, relational silence, defensive silence, diffident silence, ineffectual silence and disengaged silence. Relational silence is similar to prosocial silence. Conceptualization on

defensive silence is closed to Pinder and Harlos’ concept in 2001. Deviant silence is a kind of detrimental behavior in the workplace, which stands for employee remains in silence for the purpose of making their manager or colleague to do the wrong decision (Brinsfield, 2013).

Generally speaking, deviant silence has been thought of as quite fatal behavior in the workplace since it symbolizes those employees who tend to keep silent on purpose with a view to leading their managers, supervisors and coworkers to make any wrong decision that may impose negative influences on the development of a certain organization.

Diffident silence consists of insecurities, self-doubt and uncertainty in terms of a situation and to what to say. Being afraid of suffering from embarrasses or being terminated from a job may contribute to the vicious situation where wrong decisions may be made.

Ineffectual silence is related to the general belief that speaking up would not be useful in effecting change relative to the focal issue, situation, or concern. Relevant reasons for voice and silence have previously been proposed in the literature (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

Disengaged silence is separating selves from work roles based on feeling unable to make a difference (Brinsfield, 2013).

According to different research fields and purposes, scholars would use different terms to describe employee silence. Among all these different definitions, this study adopts Pinder and Harlos’(2001) general definition of employee silence, which refers to situations where employees keep back useful information to the organization, to capture employees’ silence behavior. Their definition is one of the most widely used one in the literature.

It has been discussed frequently in the organizational behavior literature that many organizations are caught in a dilemma in which most employees know the truth about particular issues but do not speak up in the workplace (Huang et al., 2005; Morrison &

Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). Even though some organizations try to create a work environment in which it is safe for employees to share their opinions, when facing concerns or problems, most employees still choose to be silent instead of speaking out. Literature suggests that the causes of employees’ unwillingness to speak out can be attributed to internal and external factors. Internal factors, for example, Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) indicate that personality traits such as esteem, self-monitor will affect employee voice behavior. However, little research has done on the relationship between locus of control and employee silence, especially in nonprofit organization. Drawing on the literature, the current study aims to explore whether another personality trait, locus of control, will also influence the employee silence behavior.

Locus of Control

Although Judge and Bono (2001) research is comprehensive and is the first article to explore that locus of control is related to several work outcomes, yet their study is a qualitative research. Later, Judge and colleagues (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) propose that locus of control is one of the four components (along with self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, and emotional stability) of a higher-order construct called core self-evaluation. Core self-evaluation represent self-assessment about themselves and their self-value. Ng, Sorensen and Eby (2006) also propose that internal locus is positively related to positive work outcomes, such as positive task and social experiences, and greater job motivation.

Based on the framework of Rotter's (1966) social learning theory, internal-external locus of control represents the degree to which an individual views success and failure as being based on personal belief. Highly internal people are those who perceive their own efforts as the most important element to attain success. For those who are highly external, they attribute little value to initiative, because they believe that success and failure are completely unrelated to ability and hard work. Namely, the stronger the perceived relationship between initiative and success, the more worthwhile initiative becomes and the more likely it is to be demonstrated.

The internal-external control dimension developed by Rotter (1966) refers to the degree to which an individual believes that his/her reinforcements are contingent upon his/her own behaviors. The internally oriented individual believes that the reinforcements follow as a consequence of his/her own behavior; while, conversely, the externally oriented individual believes that reinforcements are controlled by forces independent of his behavior (i.e., fate, luck, chance, or other individuals).

Rotter (1966) believes that actions, or behaviors, are determined by the interaction of personality and environment. This research use Rotter's social learning theory (1954) to provide theoretical framework for locus of control. Rotter believes that everyone has a personality that is built up over time, based on our experiences and reactions to those experiences. Thus, social learning theory is a theory of learning and social behavior which indicates that new behaviors can be obtained by observing and imitating others (Bandura, 1971).

This theory also shows that behavior is determined by the way an individual -- the personality that has developed over time - reacts to his or her environment. Therefore, the way you become an internal control person or not is depending on the learning process of your own personal experience. Every critical incident you encounter will influence the way you react toward your

life.

Since the study of Rotter in 1966 dealing with the locus of control construct, there has been increasing interest in the relationship between locus of control and performance of managers (Durand & Shea, 1974). The basis for this relationship is usually based on the argument that those who ascribes responsibility for their performance to themselves tend to suppose that they can lead to certain changes in their working environment, which in turn contributes to an increase in their motivation. Andrisani and Nestel (1976) also provide evidence that success in the workplace tends to make employee become internal control orientated.

A number of researchers investigate locus of control in different fields. For example, one previous study focuses on the impact of locus of control on job search behavior (Caliendo, Cobb-Clark, & Uhlendorff, 2015) using a data set by using newly unemployed individuals in Germany. The finding indicates that those who are internal locus of control search more and that individuals who believe that their future outcomes are determined by external factors have lower reservation wages.

A recent study by Lepp , Barkley and Karpinski (2015) tests a path model examined how locus of control (LOC) is related to cell phone use and behavioral outcomes. The definition of LOC in this study is not related to total daily cell phone use, but to use at inopportune times and circumstances. The finding shows that an internal locus of control individuals may lessen some of the negative outcomes related to high frequency cell phone use; on the contrary, those who are more external locus of control may have difficulty in controlling use at inopportune times and the negative effects associated with high frequency use may be exacerbated.

Another recent interesting study focuses on the relationship between locus of control and savings behaviors (Cobb-Clark, Kassenboehmer, & Sinning, 2016). In this study, the researcher considers locus of control to be a psychological concept that captures individuals’

beliefs about the causal relationship between their own behavior and life events. The finding suggests that households with an internal locus of control person save more in terms of levels and, in some cases, as a percentage of their permanent incomes. Although the locus-of-control gap in savings rates is largest among rich households, the gap in wealth accumulation is particularly large for poor households. Furthermore, this study also reveals that households with an internal reference person are in a better position to save in forms that are harder to access than otherwise similar households with an external reference person.

A systematic review on the literature shows that the research trend on locus of control is

quite different between the past and the present literature. Different from these prior studies, the current study further identifies the relationship between locus of control and employee silence.

Locus of Control and Employee Silence

Locus of control (LOC) represents the degree to which people believe that they have control over the outcome of events in their lives, as opposed to external forces beyond their control (Rotter, 1954). People with a strong external locus of control tend to believe that the things which happen in their lives are out of their control, and tend to attribute success, failure and upcoming events to fate, luck, or influence of powerful others. In other words, employees with a strong external locus of control may be more passive and tend to think they cannot control the expected results they want in the workplace. This kind of people may feel that even speaking out in the workplace, their opinions will not necessary be taken by others and thus would not make any substantial change. Employees with strong external locus of control might be less willing to speak out and choose to be silence. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 2. Locus of control is positively related to employee silence.

The Role of Agreeableness as a Moderator

A number of researchers investigate agreeableness in different fields. For example, one previous study focuses on the role of emotion recognition ability in service contexts using a data set by using individuals in service center of a large retail bank (Doucet, Shao, Wang, &

Oldham, 2016). The finding indicates that service employees’ emotion recognition ability helped enhance their job performance. However, the positive effect of emotion recognition ability on job performance was only statistically significant when employees’

agreeableness or cognitive ability was low.

A recent study by Peñacoba, Rodríguez, Carmona and Marín (2018) try to analyze the possible differences between high and low agreeableness in relation to coping strategies and psychiatric symptoms in pregnant women. The finding shows that higher levels of agreeableness were associated with positive reappraisal and problem-solving, and lower levels of agreeableness were associated with overt emotional expression and negative self-focused coping. Women with low agreeableness had poorer mental health, especially in the first trimester. These findings should be taken into account to improve women’s experiences during pregnancy.

Another recent interesting study focuses on the relationship between agreeableness, anger and vengefulness (Sindermann et al., 2018). Furthermore, this study also indicates similar patterns in both nations to explain vengefulness; namely (high) ANGER and (low) agreeableness as significant predictors for both vengefulness scales across cultures.

A systematic review on the literature shows that the research trend on locus of control is quite different between the past and the present literature. Different from these prior studies, the current study further identifies the relationship between agreeableness and employee silence.

A number of existing psychologists conclude that there are five kinds of personality traits.

The five broad personality traits are extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism (Goldberg, 1990). Graziano, Jensen-Campbell and Hair (1996) indicate that compared with the other four dimensions, the agreeableness dimension is probably the most concerned with interpersonal relationships. Agreeable individuals consider interpersonal relationship is important. They are usually thoughtful, helpful, accommodating, trustworthy, and tend to compromise their interest with others (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003). Research shows that agreeableness is correlated to prosocial behaviors, such as helping (Graziano &

Eisenberg, 1997). High-agreeable people are more likely to help others under different circumstances. Low-agreeable people are more likely to help others when the costs of helping are relatively low. Agreeableness is also related to two of the major dimensions of prosocial emotions, namely empathic concern and personal distress (John & Srivastava, 1999).

Agreeableness has s a number of dimensions. Trust, altruism, kindness, affection and other prosocial behaviors are all the predictors to measure agreeableness .Those who are low in this trait tend to be more competitive and even manipulative while those who high in agreeableness tend to be more cooperative, so they may less likely to express different or conflict opinions to others in the organization. Therefore, this study proposes employees with agreeable personality is positively related to employee silence. We can also conclude that high-agreeable people are more likely to hide their true feeling and show more prosocial silence because they want to benefit the organization and maintain a better interpersonal relationship in the workplace. Moreover, previous research also indicates that agreeableness is negatively related to voice behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001), which means that high-agreeable people are inclined to remain silent in the workplace. Therefore, agreeableness may function as an important moderator for the relationship between locus of control and employee silence.

Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 2. Agreeableness will moderate the relationship between locus of control and employee silence. Specifically, under high level of agreeableness, the positive relationship between locus of control and employee silence will be stronger.

The Role of Extraversion as a Moderator

A recent study by Blackwell, Leaman, Tramposch, Osborne and Liss (2017) investigate whether extraversion, neuroticism, attachment style, and fear of missing out (FOMO) were predictors of social media use and addiction. The finding shows that only fear of missing out predicted social media addiction. Attachment anxiety and avoidance predicted social media addiction, but this relationship was no longer significant after the addition of FOMO.

Another recent interesting study focuses on the relationship between neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among young adults. In this study, the researcher consider young adults high in neuroticism reported presenting their ideal and false self on Facebook to a greater extent whereas those low in extraversion reported engaging in greater online self-exploratory behaviors.The findings suggest that young adults who are experiencing emotional instability may be strategic in their online self-presentation perhaps to seek reassurance, and those who have self-doubt further explore themselves online.

A systematic review on the literature shows that the research trend on extraversion is quite different between the past and the present literature. Different from these prior studies, the current study further identifies the relationship between extraversion and employee silence.

Previous research indicates that Big Five personality traits can predict vocational outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, 1992; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, &

Reddon, 1999). Based on trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), a person will have different levels of personality trait, which will predict different future behaviors. In other words, work-related cues that activate different personality trait also lead to different work related behavior. Sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness and excitability can determine the definition of extraversion (Costa & McCrae, 1990). People who are high in extroversion tend to seek out

在文檔中 The Effect of Locus of Control on Employee Silence in Political Parties in Taiwan (頁 16-26)