Does locus of control lead to silence of academicians

Tam metin

(1)

(2) STUDIES ON BUSINESS ECONOMICS Papers on Human Resources Management, Leadership,. OrganiiationalCulture,OrganizationalsocialResponsibility' Performance Management, Auditing, Accounting, Tourism Management Setected proceedings of the. seconu"tlllfrlrl;tal conference on social sciences,. ""%1:1i'.in*,1;'m;:iffff. T$#:-". Edited by Ajay Kumar Singh & Amjad Hadjikhani Coskun Can Aktan & & D. Selcen O. Aykac. iznrr2009.

(3) ISBN: 978-60. 5. -57 4. l. -13 -6. First Edition: August- 2009 @. Authors and SoBiAD-SoSReS. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mgchanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retieval systenq without witten permission from the SoBiAD. Author(s) have right to publish their article elsewhere electronically or in another publication. SoBiAD has also right to publish the content of the whole book electronically.. SoBiAD-SoSReS : htB://www.sobiad,org. Printed in Turkey: Birlesik Matbaacrhk, Tel: (0-23.2 433 6866) www.birlesikmatbaa. com.

(4) DOES LOCU,S OF' CONTROL LEAD TO "SILENCE" OF ACADEMICIANS?. RefikaBAKOGLU Matmara University / Business Administration Dept. Marmara Universitesi, Anadolu Hisarr Yerlegkesi Cuma Yolu Cad. Beykoz i Istanbul E-mail : refika@marmara. edu. tr. Bige ASKUITI Marmara University / Business Adminishation Dept, Marmara Universitesi, Anadolu Hisarr Yerlegkesi Cuma Yolu Cad. Beykoz / Istanbul E-mail: olcayb@marmara.edu.tr. AykutBERBER Marmara University / Sehool of Business Administration istanbul Universitesi igletme Faktiltesi Avcrlar Kampiisil Avcrlar i Istanbul E-mail: berber@istanbul.edu.tr. -Abstract. -. Organizational silence is one of the new phenomena that seems to get more attention from scholars. Today, it is vital for employees to speak out loud and there is an atmosphere where anyone can speak at otganizattons because ofthe age we are in. Silence "at work" is especially important for Turkey and Turkish culflue. Despite its importance, there is little research on the. ofthe silence at organizations. For these reasons, this paper focuses on the linkage between locus of control and silence. As being part of the acadenric world, we are interested in exploring the linkage in old academic institutions, In other words, this paper attempts to find whether locus of control has effect on the organizational silence at two old and large sized universities in causes. Istanbul.. Key. Words:. Locus of Control, Organizational Silence, Academicians, (Jniversities. JEL Classification: M12. l.INTRODUCTION 1.1. Remaining Silent or Not?. It has been argued quite often in. the management literature that far too many organizations are caught in the paradox in w-hich most employees know the truth about certain issues and problems and do not tell their superiors (Tangirula and Ramanuj arnt, 2008a; Huang et al., 2005; Pinder and Harlos, 2001; Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Even though organizations in many industries become more flexible, and tend to have far beyond organic structures, recent studies still indicate that employees, when facing ,concefiNi or problems, often prefer to remain silent. Since. organizations distinguish from one another in terms of their management styles, organizatronal cultures, as well as business policies and stategies, it is arguable that employees tend to remain.

(5) silent, more or less, due to some general example, Ryan and Oestrich (1991) found and 'ihe belief that speaking up makes no. t at the organizational level, culture ofsilence issues are taken into considetation, silence rganizational silence (Huang et. a1.,. 2005)'. !.2, Or ganizational Silence ations tend to have trust in their employees therefore human capital became the ultimate management. g. conditions. At this Point,. elated to the competitive business environment mployees in Fortune 500 organizations the organization, shut down creativity This approach brings us the question 2003). and undermine productivity (Perlow and Williams, and whether this silence becomes a work, at silent remain prefer to wfr"tfr"r today's employe"s rtitt silence exist in thb collective behavior across the organization. Many definitions for organizational on the management literature, Even though there seems to be no consensus In study, of our topic main the define to outlines least lraw the conceptual c several of building the to leading Hirschman, by literature into was canied ,,wall of silence" in organizations; in other words, lack of willingness of employees to express as their views (Premeaux a.td B"deiun, 2003), Remaining silent is usually seen g"tting along with colleagues and managers inside the organization. H fonsiiered t6 be risky because it reflects need for pointing out a change environment, which may disturb manv other. "#i"#f,"T"X:tffirl f::T"lT ::Hl,:l";? or saYing verY (Morrison and. Morrison and low levels of. in sugge H individual. Milliken'proposed. participation in iiurn u, e*amplesl ihat at the. level has collective impact at the. forms may be ganizational level from ilence at the individual and causes related to. organizatio. remaining silent at work should be taken into consideration'. '. 2. LOCUS OF CONTROL AND ORGANIZATTONAL SrI'ENCE In 1954, Rotter used the framework of "locus of control" in order to analyze the social leaming issues theory ofpersonality. The general aim was to understand how the behavior of controlling. and iacts. ,). is. perceived, ,o. i,. external control. of reinforcements could be prevented (Lefcourt,.

(6) 1968). The literature suggests two t)?es of expectancy shifts (Weiner, Nierenberg and Goldstein, 1976); an individual's belief that a success of a failure would be followed by either similar or dissimilar outcomes; or typical expectancy shifts and atypical expectancy shifts respectively.. Whether internal and external loci of control should be treated as two opposing edges excluding one another has been a question asked over the past few years. For example, Lam and Mizerski (2005) has taken intemal and external loci of control into consideration as two interfering multidinensional concepts. When matched with externals, internals have been shown to have greater upward influence (Schilit, 1982), i.e. they do not remain silent but speak up with belief that they can influence their work environment (Premeaux and Bedeian, 2003), so they react to their superiors to take precautions against upcoming threats or solve problems. Thus, arguably, intemals tend to perform better than externals under conditions of parlicipation (Kren, 1992). Furthermore, internals see stranger relationship between what they do and what happens to them on the job. (Mitchell et al., 1975). 3. RESEARCH 3.1. Context of the Research. This paper aims to find rvhether locus of conhol has effect on the organizational silence at the Business Administration departments of two old and large sized universities in Istanbul. A secondary aim is to determine whether there are diffelences between the organizational silence approaches of these two entities.. The respondents are selected fi'om Business Administration faculty members of Malmala University and Istanbul University. Both universities are considered to be old and large sized, located in Istanbul, serye as state universities, and offer bachelor, master's and doctolal degree programs in the business field. In order to conduct the research, a survey instrument was provided to all the facultv members. aDle. Population size Sample size ResDonse rate. Slze and. Rate of the Research Marmara University School of Business Adm. And Economics, Dept. of Business Administration 94. lstanbul University School of Business. Administration. 5l. 29 32. s4.3%. 24.8%. Total 213 83. 38.9'7%. In our sample, there were 41 women and 39 men. Majority of the sample is women representrng 49,40yo of the total sample. As below table indicates, only nearly half of the sample marked therr ase and title in the research..

(7) 24-30 3140 41-s0 5l-60. 3814 206 205. 0l 02 03. Prof.Dr. Assoc. Prof. Asst. Prof. Lecturer, Ph.D. Lecturer Assistant. l? ll 13. 00s. 6. 002 0 0. 19. revised and Our research was conducted through two survey instruments. These surveys were both instrument the silence, organizational the As for submitted to minor changes prior to our research. developed by Qakrcr (2. University-also. a. state. organizational silence, an of scale of 5 through I with 28 and 27 items developed by Rottei(1966), which was validated by Da$ is also designed on a Likert-type of scale of 5 through I. y' This instrument Our questionnaire. also contains such demographics as gender, age, title and. instrument is calculated separatetry for each measurement tool, is substantially reliable. The Cronbach alpha value for the issues tlols approving thai each ofthese of organizational silence and lccus of control are calculated as causes silence, #organizational. The reliability. of our survey. 92.45o/o, 92.02Vo, and 9l'99o/o. respectively.. 3.2. Findings and Evaluations. Following the factor analyses (Table 3 and 4), arithmetic mean values and standard deviations are calculatel prior to the correlation analysis between the dimensions of organizational silence and locus of control, which is used to determine the relationship between the two dimensions of our research..

(8) Table 3: Factor Items Factor Load. SK22 0,8405 SK25 0,7535 SK23 0,7515 0_6879 SK24 SK14 0,7966 SK2O 0,6492 SKI8 0,6032 SKI5 0,5839 SKI3 0.5377. for Issues. Silence. Mean. Std Deviation. 2,530 2,530. r,041 0. I,01. 2,152. 1,0705. 2.455 2,621 2,364 2,259. 1.0696. l0. l,ll37. 2,glg. 1,051. 2.364 2,833. 0,9549 ,0414 ,1229 t< {?. I. 0,8503. SKI9 SKI6. 2,500. SK3. 0,7356 0,5482 0,4611 0.4462 0,7796. SKI2. 0,6209. 3,091. l. 0,6103. SK6 SKIO SK27 SK26 SK2 SK4. 0.54t 6 0,7766. 2,091 2.348 2,955. ,2207. 0,7067. 3,349. ,1434. SK5. SKI. SK8. SKIT SKI. 2;970 2,485. Issues related to practices at the micro-level. (fac_sk2). ,1036. 2.682. ,0101. 2,182. ,2014 ,1466 ,0774 ,1. Managerial performance (fac_sk3). Managerial insufliciency and ethical disorder (fac_sk4). 568. 0.6133. 3.030. ,0809. 0,7835. 2,924. 0.7731 0,7680 0.731r 0,7627. 2.576 7. ,0857 .0963. '17. Macrolevel issues (fac_sk I ). I,0780 0,9866. SK2I. SK7. Name of the tr'actor. ,0459. 2.530 .0844 3,667 l,l 140 SK9 .0.5261 2.879 0,9847 Extraction Methodr Principal Component Anal]rsis', Rotation Rotation converged in 13 iterations.. Indirect issues and interpersonal conflicts (fac_skS) Operations and process improvement (fac sk6) Personal development and career (fac_sk7). Colleague insufficiency and priority self-interests (fac_sk8) ,Iethod: Varimax with Kaiser Normal. of. As seen in Table 3, the factor analyses yield eight factors for the first dimension of our research; namely the issues of organizational silence. The factors are named and explained as given below:. c. Macro-level issues: Such problems related to issues as infrastructure, ttre structure of educatign, governmental policy of education, certain legal mechanisrns, and several others, which cpnnot be solved individually.. t. Issu? r.1l1te!. to practices at the micro-level: These issues are the ones that have direct impact on the i4dividual. Examples can be given as rules and procedures that do not serye objectives, envirorunental responsibility, and waste at workplace. 'b.

(9) as low performance of Managerial performance.' Inaccurate attitudes and behaviors as well at the workplace are expectations with not comply do that policies managers, decisions and major examPles to this factor.. professional Managerial instfficiency ancl ethical clisorcler" Harassment, mistreatment, such examples to this *lr"o"na.r"t, violence, insufhcient talent and knowledge of managers are. factor.. and interpersonal conflicts: These are usually conflicts happen to exist colleagues and usually between individuals as an outcome of lbw performance of one of the. Indirect. issues. due to reasons that do not directly affect the other'. for. Tqhlp 4I. Issues. Silence. of. Std Deviation. ltems. Factor Load.. Mean. SN21. 2,836 2,507. ,5094. 2,808. SN22. 0,7984 0,7864 0,7819 0,7308. SN2O. 0.51 15. 2,329 2.384. ,4207 ,1 909. SN23. 0,7233. 3,274. ,315. SNI4. 0,7t76. 2,959. ,2521. SNIO. 3,384. ,4'.179. 3,027. SN25. 0,6749 0,6330 0,6210 0,5725. ,2690 ,'t704 ,3749. SN4. 0.s228. SN24. SN8. 0,7474 0,6975 0,6702 0.5397. SNl8. fi. SNI9 SNI5 SNI. 0,7057 0.6616 0,8342. SN2. SN3 SN9. sN27 SNI6. SN6 SN7. 17?.'.). ,3857. Don't spit into the wind. (fac-snl). .1741. 3,137. 3,671 2.959. I. Never complain, never explain (fac-sn2). nR57. 2,562. ,2132. 2,507. ,3655. 3,178. ,3265 .2198. 2.890 2,986 2,425 2-959. ,l 843 ,2574 .0857. ,2589. 0,6t351... 2,677 2,301. SN5. 0.4p89. 2.932. ,2619. SNIT SNI3. 0,6jr. le. 2,836. ,2249. 0,qr oe. 3,247. SNI l. 0,5894. SN26. o,Bp13. SNI2. 0.5499. 2.384 2,493 2.795. ,4509 .2091 1,2597. nt. .. Narire of the f'actor. ,0761. Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor (fac-sn3). I have often regretted my speech, never my silence (fac_sn4). Don't cross a bridge until you come to lt (fac_sn5). * "Diin bir, bugiin iki!" (fac-sn6) Enjoy what you don't know (fac-sn7). 1.3940 Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation. Operltions anel process improvement; This factor involves two items related imprdvement of operational activities. I. to. the.

(10) c. Personal development and career; This factor also involves two items related to the title.. '. Colleague insfficiency antl priority of se(-interest.' This factol contains the approach the individual by taking his/her self-interest into consideration.. o. Factor analyses yield seven factols for the second dimension of our resear.ch (Table 4): the causes of organizational silence. The factors ale named and explained as givenbelow. F-or this dimension, we prefer to use proverbs or quotes of sone famous characters in the history in orde'to stress the message in each determined factor.. o. of. "Don't spit itlto the wind": Inctease in workload, losing the job, fear of getting isolated at. the workplace, being perceived inexperienced, und r"u.ral othei ..uron, .our.. preoccupation of individuals, who, therefore, would prefer to remain silent rather than tell the truth.. o. "Never complain, never explain" (Henry Fortt);This famous quote helps us collect such of silence as lack of a complaint mechanism, culture that does not support speaking out loud, the know-it-all attitude of managers or the belief that ideas are not welcome under the roof of one factor. causes. o. "Democracy gives every nxan the right to be his owtx oppressor" (James Russ'ell Lowel) Individuals also prefer to remain silent when they believe that ihey are part of a strict hierarchy and that the leader really knows all, as well as once they are inexperienced in speaking out loud.. c "[. have often regretted my speech, nevet nry silence" (publilius syrus); once an individual encounters situations that do not comply with personal principles, he/she may. prefer distant relationships with his/her colleagues in order to remain silent and prevelt him/herself from unfair reactions.. o. "Don't cross a brklge wttil you conte to il ". Sometimes, individuals may prefer to remain silent even though they encounter future problems. This factor includes such causes of organizational silence as fear ofbeing labeled as a problem-jnventor or unrealistic, which in refurn may cause loss of hust and respect inside the organization.. c. "Diin bir, bugiln iki!"; This famous Turkish explession, which literally can be translated as "first day yesterday; second today" refers to the unwanted reactions of newcomers. Individuals may feel not authorjzed or qualified enough to tell the huth or may have pertui'bation of promotion, thus prefer to remain silent.. t. "Enioy wlmt you don't know". Conformism, morL or less, nray have strong influelce o1 individuals, so that they prefer to remain silent against problems or unwanted occasions. Thetefore, this factor includes such causes of organizalional silence as belief that time. will mend everything,. and problems concern managers' attention rather-than employees.. In order to determine whether locus of control has relationship with issues of organizational silence and causes of organizational silence respectively, a correlation analysis is colducted.. Therefore the propositions are as follows:.

(11) of organizational pir: There exists a positive relationship between locus of control and issues silence.. p"1: There exists a positive relationship between locus. of control and. causes. of organizational. silence.. )' k4). -0.001 -0.113 -0.04s -0.035 0.318* 0.106. 0'993 0.380 0.729. 0'187 0.012 0.414. egarding the opetations and process improvement. efforts in their organizations.. 0.412** -0.222. 0.000. ;:ffi;;il;il;r;;.;y-ffilr,J.iinttrrrhisownoppressor(fac_sn3) -0.019 (fac-sn4) 4. id;; on.ni.gttttta my speech, never mY silence. 2r"r"l 0.875. i5n't spitEtolhtwind (fac-sn. ) 2. Never iomplain, never explain (fac5n2) all I. - -:-L..^. 5, Don't cross a bridge until you come to lt (tac-sn)) 6, "Diin bir, bugiin iki" (fac-sn6). -99?:. 0,069. 0.t25. 0.31I. 28. 0.298. 0.1. is be{ge1 locus of control and causes of Table 5b exhibits a single significant relationship, which factor, which we recently labelled with-the on"i, ts that individuals tend to remain silent due to their. tlt. they do not prefer in return' The unwillingness of. internal or external locus of contol' established as determining As already mentioned, an additional purpose of the research was schooVdepartment of business the namely samples, two the gxlsted between whether differences Marmara University ahd Istanbul University'.

(12) Table 6: Difference between Loci of Control of the Two. Locus of. Control. Marmara. 49. Istanbul. 29. 2,737. 0,4731. 4,2t11g. Table 6 exhibits a slight and significant difference between the loci of control of the two samples at the lYo level. According to the result, in terms of perceptions towards locus of 'control, academicians at the Marmara sample tend to be more internals ,when compared to those of the Istanbul sample. Table 7a: Differences According to the Factors of the Issues of Organizational Silence among the. Two Factors Macro-level issues (fac_skl ) Issues related to practices at the. microlevel (fac_sk2) Managerial performance (fac_sk3) Managerial insuffrciency and ethical disorder (fac sk4) Indirect issues and interpersonal conflicts (fac_sk5) Operations and process improvement (fac sk6) Personal development and career. (fac sk7) Colleague insufficiency and sel f-interests (fac_sk8). priority of. Deviation t. Sample N. Mean. Marmara Istanbul Marmara Istanbul Marmara Istanbul Marmara Istanbul Marmara Istanbul Marmara Istanbul Marmara Istanbul Marmara Istanbul. 39. -0,121. 1,143. 27. 0.175 -0,036 0,052. 0.734 1,162 0,722. 39 27. 0,341 t0,492. 1,029 0,726. 39 27. 0,021. I,168. -0.030. 39 27. Std.. l0. 0.709 1,168. 27. -0.159. 0,679. 39. -0,098. 1,086. 27. 0.141. .0.860. 39. 0,254 -0.368. 0.856. 39. 27 39 27. 0,1. -0,473 0,684. 1,023 0,832 0,817. Sig.. 1,1836 0,241 -0,3514 0,726. 3,6267 0,001 0,2022 0,840 1,0794 0,284. -0,9516. 0,345. 2,5910 0,012. -5,5954. 0,00. Table 7a and Tb exhibit that the two samples are significantly different from one another in terms of such factors related to silence issues as "managerial performance", "personal development and career", "colleague insufficiency and priority ofself-interests", as well as, the cause related silence factors of "don't spit into the wind", "I have often regretted my speech, never my silence", and \ eventually, "enjoy what you don?t. know",.

(13) l'able 7b: Dill'crences According to the Factors of the Causes of Olganizational Silence among the Trvo Sa. srd. Deviatio. Factors. UniversityNMeanntSie.. Don't spit into the wind. (fac_sn. Marmara Istanbul. l). Never complain, never explain. Marrnara. (fac sn2). Istanbul Marrnara Istanbul. Denrocracy gives every nran the right to be his own oppressor (fac sn3). I. have often regrctted nry speech, never my silence (fac_sn4). Marmara Istanbul. Don't cross a bridge until you come. Marmara. to it (fac sn5). Istanbul Marmara Istanbul Marrnara Istanbul. "Dtin bir, bugiin iki!" (fac_sn5) Enjoy what you don't krrow (fac_sn7). 46 -0,530 0,7762 -8,17758 0'000 27 o.qo: o.otso 46 -0,026 1,1154 -0,28916 0,773 27 0,045 0.7827 46 -0,132 j,|iii -t ,48821 o, ,4, 2'7 0,225 46 0,196 0 9064 2,249t07 0,028 ;';.:: 27 -0,334 r.u/6)-. :i i:)11^ I'il:X 46 27 46 27. 0,068. -0,1. l6. -0,252 0.429. n onno. :':".:: l.u4 t0. o qt51. -: /)o. :'-^-^. u,y. ',614458. 0,,,,. 0,75(1348 o,4s2. -2,9ss84. 0.004. 3. CONCLIJSION. Even though some recettt resealch indicates a possibility of relationship between locus of control aud organizational silence, literatute shows no dilect evidence ofsuch a correlation. Since we havc attcrnpted to find out a relationship between these two consfnrcts within the acadernic fi-amework, that is gathering responses from academicians in the business adninistration school or department of two different state urtiversities, we have not been able to prove that a sh'ong r.elationsliip exists bctwecn locus of control and organizational silence neither. Our findings are limited to one couelation fol issues, as well as causes of organizational silence each. These finclings imply that respondent academicians declare their opinions and ideas tegatcling the opelations and process improvement effolts in their organizations depending on how they perceive the locus of control, and that they tend to remain silent due to their preoccupation of enconntering something they do not prel-er in retulu. In addition, a vely slight and signihcant difference between the two sanrDles is found in terns of their loci of control. Since the arithmetic means of the all variables do not vary to a gtcat extent (more or less between 2'-5 and 3), we argue that a very limited number of correlations rnay happen to exist. Furthermore,. previotls research implies that individuals with internal locus of conh'ol perceptions tend to be more educated (Lachman and Leff, 1989). This may also be valid fbr our research, whereas respondents of the two samples ale academicians. Thus, nse of academicians as respondents may be a major limitation in our shrdy. This may create a drawback to observe the linkaee between locus ofcontrol and organizational silence.. Futute research should attenrpt to replicate thc same study by expanding the sample frame ancl sizes for better generalization. In addition, the cunent research only focuses on olle of the many. l0.

(14) pe$onality constructs and did not examine other external factors that may have potential impact on organizational silence.. BIBLIOGRAPIIY Ajzen,Icek (2002), '?erceived Behavioral Confiol, Self Efficacy, Locus Of Contol and The Theory ofplanned Behavior, Journel OfApplied Social Psychologt, pp. 665-683.. Bowen, Frances and Blackrnan, Kate (2003), "spirals of Silence: The Dynamic Effects of Diversity on Organizational Voice", Journal of Management Studies, Vol.40, No'6, September, pp.r393-14r7.. Brown, Steven, D (2007), "Three Minutes Of Silence: Thinking in Duration in Organization Studies", Tamara Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp' 159- 175. Bruce Barry (2007), "The Cringing and The Craven: Freedom of Expression In, Around, And Beyond The Workplace", Btrsiness Ethics Quarterly, Volume 17, Issue 2,pp'263-296' Dinamikleri",Q. U eakrcr, Aygehan (2007), "Orgtitlerde Sessizlik Sessizli[in Teorik Temelleri ve Cilt. 16, Sayr'l, pp.l45-162.. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitiisii Dergisi,. Nedenleri ve Algilanan Qakrcr, Aygehan (2008), "Orgiitlerde Sessiz Kalman Konular, Sessizlipin 17, Sayr'1, pp.l17Cilt. Dergisi, Enstitiisil Bilimler O Sosyat Aragtrma",Q, SonuglariUzerine Bir. t34, Dag, ihsan (1991), "Rotter'in ig-Drg Kontrol Odalr Olge[i lRiOfOol'nin Universite Oprencileri igin Giivenirli$i ve Gegerli$i" , Psikoloii Dergisi, Cilt. 7 , Sayr'26,pp.10-14.. Da!, ihsan (2002), "Kontrol OdaSr OlgeSi (KOO): 019ek Geligtirme, Giivenirlik ve Gegerlik Qal4masr", Tilrk Psikoloji Dergisi, VoL17, No.49, pp.77-90. Detert, James, R and Bunis, Ethan, R (2007), "Leadership Behaviour and Employee Voice: Is The Door Really Open ?", Acadeny of Management Journal,Vol.50, No. 4, pp'869-884. Dyne, Linn Van, Ang, Soon and Botero, Isabel, C (2003), "Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice As Multidimensional Constructs, , Journal Of Management Studies, Vol' 40, No.6, September, pp. 1359-1 392. Elanain, Hossanq M, Abu (2008), "Work Locus Of Conftol and Job Performance in The UAE: the Mediating Role Of Individual and Organizational Factors, The Business Review,Yol' 11, No.1, December, pp.188-194. Judge, Timoth, A and Bono, Joyce, E (2001), "Relationship Of Core Self-Evaluations Traits-Self. Of Contol and Emotional Stability With Job A Meta Analysis", Journal Of Applied Psychologt, Vol.86,. Esteen\ Generalized Self Efficacy, Locus Satisfaction and Job Performance: No.1,pp.80-92.. KernU Henrilcsen and. Dayton Elizabeth (2006), "Organizational Silence and Hidden Threats to Patient Safety", Health Services Research,Vol'4l, No. 4, August' pp.l539-1554'. l1.

(15) Kre4 Leslie (1992)'The Moderating Effects Of Locus Of Control on Performance Incentives and Participation', Human Relations,, Vol.45, No. 9, September, pp.99 l-1013.. M, E and Leff, R (1989), "Beliefs About Intellectual Efficacy !19h! psychologlt, Elderly; A Five Year Longitudinal study", Developmental. And Conhol In The vol.25, pp.722-72g.. D. and Mizerski, D. (2005) "The Effects of Locus of conhol on word-of-mouth Communication" Journal of Marketing Communicatior,r, Vol. ll, No. 3,2l1J,2g. Larno. Lefcourt, Herbert, M, Lewis, L and Silverman, Irwin, W(1968) "Intemal vs External Control of Reinforcement and Attention in A Decision Making", Journal of Personality,Vol.36, No.4, s.663683.. Morrison, Elizabeth, Wolfe and Milliken, Frances, J (2000), "Organizational Silence: A Barrier to chlnge and Development in A Pluralistic world", Academy oy Manog" ent, yol.25, No. 4, pp.706-725. Morrison, Elizabeth, wolfe and Milliken, Frances, J (2003), "speaking Up, Remaining silent: The Dynamics of Voice and Silence in Organizations", Journal of Managimeit Studi"r,Vil. 40, No. 6, September, pp. I 353- 1358.. Milliken, Frances, J and Monison, Elizabeth, Wolfe (2003), "slades of Silence: Emerging Themes and Future Directions For Research on Silence in Organizations", Journal. Studles,Vol, 40, No. 6, pp.1562-1568.. oyUanajient. Milliken, Frances,. J, Monison, Elizabeth, wolfe and, Hewlin, patricia, F (2003), ,,An Exploratory of Employee Silence: Issues That Employees Don't Communicate Ufward *:a Wfryl Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 40, No. 6, September,pp.l453_1476.. Study. Mitchell, Terence, R, Smyser, charles, M and weed, stan (1g75),,,Locus of control: supervision and work satisfaction, academy of Managernent Journal, september, vol. lg, No.: pp.o'zl-o:t.. L and Thomas, Anisya, S (2000), "Culture and Entrepreneurial potential: A Nine Country Study of Locus Of Conhol and Innovativeness" Joumal of Bisiness venturw Mueller, Stephen, 16,pp.51-75.. NG, Thomas, w,H, sorgnsen, Kelly, L and Eby, Lillian, T (2006), ,.Locus of control At Meta-Analysis", Journal of organizational Behavior, vol. iz,pp. i 057- 1 0 g2.. ,iot.. work A. Perlow, Leslie and Williams, Stephanie (2003), "Is Silence Killing your Corrrpany',, Haward Business Review, May, pp.3-8.. lidedt, Sandy, Kristin andAshford, Susan, J (2003), "Tactical Choices Women Managers Make in Speaking up About G91dgr- Equity lssuds, Journal of Managemeilt studies, vof +0, No. o, September, pp.l477 -1502.. Pinder, c. c. and Harlos,_H.. p (2001), "Employee silence: euiescence And Acquiescence As Responses To Perceived Injustice". Research in Personnel ind Human Resourcl Management,. Vol.20, pp.331-69.. T2.

(16) pinto, Jonathan, Leana, Canie, R, Pil and Frits K (2008), "Comrpt Organizations or Organizations of Comrpt Individuals ? Two Types of Organizational - Level Comrption", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33, No.3, pp.685-709.. Premeaux, Fontenot, Sonya and Bedeian, Arthur, G (2003), "Breaking The Silence: The Moderating Effects of Self-Monitonng in Predicting Speaking Up in The Workplace", Journal o/ Management Studies,Vol. 40, No. 6, pp,1537-1561. Rotter, J, B (1966),"Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control Reinforceme nt", Psychological Monograp&. Vol.' 80,. of. Ryan,K.D,andOestreich,D.K(1991), Drivinglearoutoftheworlcplace:Howtoovercomethe invisible barriers (quality, productivity, ancl innovation, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass' Schilit, Warren, K and Locke, Edwin, A (1982), "A Study Of Upward Influence In Organizations, Aelministrative Science Quarterly, Y o1.27, pp,304-3 16. Sommer, Kristin, L and Williams, Kipling,b (2001), "When Silence Speaks Louder Than Words: Explorations Into The Intrapsyohic and Interpersonal Consequenqes of Social Oshacism", Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 23, No.4, pp.225-243.. Tangirala, Subrahmaniam and Ramanujanr, Rangaraj (2008a), "Employee Silence on Critical Work Issues: the Cross Level Effects of Procedural Justice Climate, Personnel Psychologt,Yol' 61, pp.37-68.. Tangirala, Subrahmaniam and Ramanujanr, Rangaraj (2008b), "Explori'ng Nonlinearity in Employee Voice The Effects of Personal Contol and Organizational ldentification, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51, No.6 pp.l189-1203. Weiner, Bernard, Nier.enberg, Richard and Goldstein, M(1976) "social Learning (Locus Of Contol) versus Attributional (Causal Stabilig Interpretations Of Expectancy Of Success", Journal of P ers onality, Y o1.44, No. 1, s, 52-68.. WillianL De Maria (2006), "Brother Secret, Sister Silence: Sibling Conspiracies Against Managerial Integrity, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 65, pp.2l9-234.. Xu Huang, Vliert, Evert Van De and Vegt, Gerben Van Der (2003), "Break The Silence:Do Management Openness and Enployee Involvement Raise Employee Voice Worldwide ?", Academy of Management Best Conference Paper ,pp.l-6. Xu Huang, Vliert, Evert Van De and Vegt, Gerben Van Der (2005), "Breaking The Silence Culture: Stimulation of Participation and Employee Opinion Withholding Cross-nationality" Management antl Organization Review, Vol.l, No.3 ,pp.459-482.. l3. I.

(17)

(18)