International differences in employee silence motives: scale validation, prevalence, and relationships with culture characteristics across 33 countries

RESEARCH ARTICLE International differences in employee silence motives: Scale validation, prevalence, and relationships with culture characteristics across 33 countries Michael Knoll 1 | Martin Götz 2 | Elisa Adriasola 3 | Amer Ali Al-Atwi 4 | Alicia Arenas 5 | Kokou A. Atitsogbe 6 | Stephen Barrett 7 | Anindo Bhattacharjee 8 | Norman D. Blanco 9 | Sabina Bogilovi c 10 | Grégoire Bollmann 2 | Janine Bosak 11 | Cagri Bulut 12 | Madeline Carter 13 | Matej Černe 10 | Susanna L. M. Chui 14 | Donatella Di Marco 5,15 | Gesa S. Duden 1 | Vicki Elsey 13 | Makoto Fujimura 16 | Paola Gatti 17 | Chiara Ghislieri 17 | Steffen R. Giessner 18 | Kenta Hino 19 | Joeri Hofmans 20 | Thomas S. Jønsson 21 | Pazambadi Kazimna 22 | Kevin B. Lowe 23 | Juliana Malagón 24 | Hassan Mohebbi 25 | Anthony Montgomery 26 | Lucas Monzani 27 | Anne Nederveen Pieterse 18 | Muhammed Ngoma 28 | Emir Ozeren 29,30 | Deirdre O'Shea 31 | Christina Lundsgaard Ottsen 21,32 | Jennifer Pickett 20 | Anna A. Rangkuti 33 | Sylwiusz Retowski 34 | Farzad Sattari Ardabili 35 | Razia Shaukat 36 | Silvia A. Silva 15 | Ana Šimuni c 37 | Niklas K. Steffens 38 | Faniya Sultanova 39 | Daria Szücs 40 | Susana M. Tavares 15 | Arun Tipandjan 41 | Rolf van Dick 42 | Dimitri Vasiljevic 43 | Sut I. Wong 44 | Hannes Zacher 1 1 Institute of Psychology - Wilhelm Wundt, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany 2 Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland 3 Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Santiago, Chile 4 Department of Business Administration, Al Muthanna University, Samawah, Iraq 5 Department of Social Psychology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain 6 Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland 7 Department of Informatics, Technical University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland 8 ASMSOC, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai, India 9 Urban Studies Institute, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia 10 School of Economics and Business and Faculty of Public Administration, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 11 Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland 12 Strategy and Excellence Office, Yasar University, Izmir, Turkey From the third author on, authors are listed alphabetically because they contributed equally to this project. Received: 30 May 2019 Revised: 16 February 2021 Accepted: 18 February 2021 DOI: 10.1002/job.2512 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Organizational Behavior published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2021;42:619–648. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 619 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 13 Department of Psychology, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K. 14 Department of Management, Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 15 Department of Human Resources and Organizational Behavior, ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal 16 Faculty of Human Relations, Fukuoka Jo Gakuin University, Fukuoka, Japan 17 Department of Psychology, Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy 18 Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands 19 Faculty of Business Administration, Komazawa University, Tokyo, Japan 20 Department of Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium 21 Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark 22 Department of Applied Psychology, University of Lomé, Lomé, Togo 23 Business School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 24 Universidad de los Andes, School of Management, Bogotá, Colombia 25 European Knowledge Development Institute, Ankara, Turkey 26 University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece 27 Ivey Business School, Western University, London, Canada 28 Graduate studies and research, Makerere University Business School, Kampala, Uganda 29 Faculty of Tourism, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey 30 CISEI, University of Southampton, Southampton, U.K. 31 Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Ireland 32 CoHera, Risskov, Denmark 33 Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia 34 Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Sopot, Poland 35 Management Department, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran 36 Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan 37 Department of Psychology, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia 38 School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia 39 Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 40 Department of Psychology, Technische Universität Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany 41 International Centre for Psychological Counseling and Social Research, Pondicherry, India 42 Department of Psychology, Goethe Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany 43 Neoma Business School, Reims, France 44 Department of Communication and Culture, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway Correspondence Michael Knoll, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Institut für Psychologie –Wilhelm Wundt, Universität Leipzig, Neumarkt 9-19, 04109, Leipzig, Germany. Email: [email protected] Summary Employee silence, the withholding of work-related ideas, questions, or concerns from someone who could effect change, has been proposed to hamper individual and collective learning as well as the detection of errors and unethical behaviors in many areas of the world. To facilitate cross-cultural research, we validated an instrument measuring four employee silence motives (i.e., silence based on fear, resignation, prosocial, and selfish motives) in 21 languages. Across 33 countries (N= 8,222) representing diverse cultural clusters, the instrument shows good psychometric properties (i.e., internal reliabilities, factor structure, and measurement invariance). Results further revealed similarities and differences in the prevalence of silence motives between countries, but did not necessarily support cultural stereotypes. To explore the role of culture for silence, we examined relationships of silence motives with the societal practices cultural dimensions from the GLOBE Program. We found relationships between silence motives and power distance, institutional collectivism, and 620 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License uncertainty avoidance. Overall, the findings suggest that relationships between silence and cultural dimensions are more complex than commonly assumed. We discuss the explanatory power of nations as (cultural) units of analysis, our social scientific approach, the predictive value of cultural dimensions, and opportunities to extend silence research geographically, methodologically, and conceptually. KEYWORDS context, cross-cultural research, culture, employee silence, voice 1|INTRODUCTION In many countries, media reports and research emphasize that inefficacies, unethical practices, errors, and safety issues endure because employees withhold their views, questions, ideas, and concerns (e.g., Allard-Poesi & Hollet-Haudebert, 2017; Barry, 2007; Gibson & Singh, 2003; Joshi, 2016; Maree, 2016; Sheriff, 2000). Highly visible cases include fraud in the automotive industry, harassment in the entertainment industry, the military, and sports teams, misconduct in law enforcement, abuse of children and older people in educational, caring, and religious institutions, and bullying in health services (e.g., Derr et al., 2017; Ewing & Bowley, 2015; NHS, 2017; Prasad, 2018; United Nations, 2014; WHO, 2002). Besides these cases covered by the media, there is evidence that on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis, many employees encounter situations in which they think that something should be addressed, but rarely speak up, hampering individual and collective effectiveness, development, and well-being (e.g., Knoll et al., 2019; Maxfield, 2016; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Despite an increased interest in these issues in many regions of the world, no systematic attempts exist to integrate international research on employee silence, and approaches to silence differ in their stage of conceptual and methodological development (e.g., Knoll et al., 2016; Morrison, 2014; Sherf et al., 2021). While diversity in approaches is valuable at early stages of theoretical development, when a concept matures and is to be applied in practice, research advances by comparability of assessment and findings (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). In addition, while culture and communication are interwoven (Lehman et al., 2004; Merkin et al., 2014), little systematic knowledge is available to explain how the specifics of culture may affect employees' motives for withholding their views. Conceptual articles proposed that cultural differences may exist regarding employees' tendency and motivation to express or withhold their views (Kwon & Farndale, 2020; Morrison, 2014), but very few studies have examined employee silence in more than one country. To advance understanding of employee silence as an international organizational challenge (George et al., 2016), to integrate conceptual developments in diverse disciplines, and to address a lack of empirical research, we conducted a large-scale study examining employee silence in diverse cultural regions. Our study contributes to the literature in three important ways. First, we adapt an established instrument for assessing differentially motivated silence types (i.e., silence based on fear, resignation, prosocial, and opportunistic motives; Knoll & van Dick, 2013) to 21 languages and examine the scales' psychometric properties (i.e., internal consistency, factor structure, and measurement invariance) in samples from 33 countries. Second, to advance understanding of the link between culture and employee silence, we examine whether approaches developed to differentiate between national cultures can be applied to explain international differences and similarities in the prevalence of silence motives. Specifically, we propose and test links between silence motives and societal practices dimensions from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research program framework (House et al., 2004)—an established approach to characterize cultural influences on organizational behavior (Dorfman et al., 2012; Urbach et al., 2020). Our study offers a rare opportunity to examine the relationship between culture and silence, because it provides sufficient variance in cultural variables of interest, minimizes context effects, and allows for examining cultural differences at the level at which they occur (Spector et al., 2015; Tsui et al., 2007). Third, based on our findings, we discuss the limitations of nations as (cultural) units of analysis and our social scientific approach, and we propose opportunities to extend silence research geographically, methodologically, and conceptually. We hope that our research facilitates international attempts to overcome the detrimental effects of silence. Besides, it shall help scholars and practitioners to address communication challenges that organizations face when employing an international workforce, collaborating with partners in different countries, staffing culturally diverse teams, assigning expatriates, and attempting to transfer participation schemes to acquired international branches (Lewin, 2015; Tung & Stahl, 2018). 2|THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 2.1 |Employee silence and its underlying motives Addressing issues and expressing ideas and concerns (i.e., voice) is a way to express oneself and can lead to improved (e.g., more efficient and less harmful) circumstances at work and may even increase one's status within the group (e.g., Chamberlin et al., 2018; Jetten & Hornsey, 2014; Weiss & Morrison, 2019). However, voice KNOLL ET AL.621 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License also exposes those who speak out, challenges the authority and judgment of others, and disrupts routines and the smooth operation of groups, which, in turn, potentially threatens relationships, group harmony, and status hierarchies (Brinsfield et al., 2009; van Dyne et al., 1995). Due to these potential costs of speaking out and speaking up, there are several reasons that motivate employees to remain silent (for recent reviews, see Knoll et al., 2016; Morrison, 2014; Sherf et al., 2021). Four of the most prominent silence motives are subject of our study. First, studies have shown that employees remain silent at work due to a fear that speaking up may have negative effects on their career, damage relationships, or lead to being labeled as a “troublemaker”by superiors or colleagues (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009; Milliken et al., 2003). This phenomenon has been called quiescent silence (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). While research on whistleblowing and retaliation shows that these fears are not unreasonable (Cortina & Magley, 2003; Miceli et al., 2008), remaining silent due to a fear of speaking up comes with a price as well, namely, high-arousal negative affect and increased exhaustion and depersonalization (Kirrane et al., 2017; Knoll et al., 2019). Second, Pinder and Harlos (2001) suggested that besides silence that is based on fear employees withhold their views because they think that speaking up will not make a difference and that potential recipients are not responsive or interested in the particular issue. This type of silence labeled acquiescent silence by Pinder and Harlos is also accompanied by negative affect but with a lower arousal level compared with quiescent silence, bearing similarities to the state of learned helplessness (Kirrane et al., 2017; Seligman, 1975). Subsequent research emphasized the relevance of prosocial and selfish motives for the occurrence of silence in organizations (for more extensive typologies, see Bies, 2009; Brinsfield, 2013; Kurzon, 2007). A third type of silence, prosocial silence, suggests that employees withhold their views to protect or not to embarrass their superiors, colleagues, or a specific group (e.g., organization, profession; van Dyne et al., 2003). Prosocial silence differs from quiescent and acquiescent silence in that it is accompanied by positive emotions and the intention to benefit others. However, it does not exclude negative emotions such as shame, sadness, and fear (Kirrane et al., 2017). Thus, prosocial silence is more complex than other silence types (Perlow & Repenning, 2009). This might be one reason for the divergent and in part ambivalent relationships with other constructs such as health, job satisfaction, and voice opportunities (Knoll & van Dick, 2013), as well as its association with both positive and negative outcomes (Umphress et al., 2010). Finally, a fourth type of silence, opportunistic silence, has been introduced to consider the fact that silence is, at times, based on rather selfish motives, such as the intention of protecting a knowledge advantage or avoiding additional workload (Knoll & van Dick, 2013). Opportunistic silence has its roots in the literatures on knowledge hiding, knowledge hoarding, and counterproductive work behaviors (Connelly et al., 2019; Evans et al., 2015) and is rather negatively connoted. 2.2 |National culture and international differences in employee silence Culture can be defined as a set of shared beliefs, values, norms, meanings, and practices that have been learned while societies solved problems of external adaptation (e.g., dealing with external threats and securing resources) and internal regulation (e.g., how power and status are distributed and how conflicts are resolved; Schein, 2017). Shared patterns of social behavior and thinking are transmitted through social institutions and artifacts such as schools, hierarchies, laws, and reward systems, which, in turn, shape and justify individual and group beliefs and actions (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). In our study, we use countries as cultural units, because they are relatively stable societies, have clear geographical boundaries and institutionalized rules of what constitutes membership, they generally have a common law system, political institutions, and a history of collective problem solving (for respective discussions, see Chen et al., 2009; Peterson et al., 2018; Taras et al., 2016). National culture affects organizational behavior in several ways (Tsui et al., 2007). A key way is by providing its members (which constitute the majority of the workforce in a country) a framework for constituting the self and interpreting reality (including perceptions and evaluations) and by providing norms regarding communication and (inter)action (Gelfand et al., 2017; Triandis, 1996). National cultures also affect the shape of organizations and thus the immediate context in which employees operate (e.g., leadership styles and formal voice mechanisms; Dickson et al., 2004; Kwon & Farndale, 2020). While we do not explicitly examine how national culture affects the organizational context in which our study participants work, we need to consider that the immediate work context is embedded in a national macro context (Johns, 2006; Peterson & Barreto, 2014). A third way of influence that is beyond the scope of the current study is that culture moderates the effects of individual differences and factors of the immediate work context on organizational behavior (Tsui et al., 2007). We elaborate on this influence in the discussion. So far, employee silence has been examined in a rather limited scope of countries with South Asian and Arab countries recently complementing the traditional focus on Confucian Asian and Western countries (Hawass, 2016; Jain, 2015; Wilkinson et al., 2020). Studies comparing employee silence or voice across countries are almost absent (Morrison, 2014). Examining how national culture affects employee silence does not only lay a foundation for research on culture and workplace silence, it also contributes to the ongoing debate on whether national culture has considerable influence on employee behavior (Chen et al., 2009; Tung & Stahl, 2018). Indeed, despite ambiguity, a lot of—in part stereotypical—assumptions exist regarding national differences and their influence on employee behavior, and these assumptions potentially misguide research and practitioner training and actions (Chen et al., 2009; McCrae et al., 2013). For silence in particular, prior research—for example, among samples from Japan, Korea, Australia, South Africa, and the United States (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Maree, 2016)—did not support assumptions 622 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License regarding national differences in the use and valence of silence. To facilitate understanding of how silence manifests itself across nations, we validate an instrument to conduct cross-cultural research and use it to examine differences (or their absence) in silence motives across 33 countries from diverse regions. •Research Question 1: Do the scales that assess differentiallymotivated silence types demonstrate adequate psychometric properties in each country? •Research Question 2: Are there differences in the prevalence of differentially-motivated silence types across countries? 2.3 |Relationships between cultural dimensions and employee silence motives Attempts to explain culture's effects on silence can be divided into two approaches (Ting-Toomey, 2010). Ethnographic approaches aim at identifying distinctive communication codes of a cultural community that, in turn, reveal this particular community's normative expectations regarding the adequate use of, for example, speech and silence. Examples for ethnographic studies on silence include Covarrubias's (2007) research on generative silence (i.e., silence as a powerful means to achieve productive personal, social, and cultural outcomes) in the communication of Native Americans and Sheriff's (2000) research on customary silence (i.e., a form of silence reflective of cultural censorship and practiced in the absence of explicit coercion or enforcements) surrounding the subject of racism in Brazil. The second approach, called the social scientific approach by Ting-Toomey (2010), draws upon preexisting frameworks of cultural characteristics (e.g., individualism–collectivism) and uses them as independent variables to explain the differences and similarities of communication phenomena across countries. We decided to apply a social scientific approach based on the following arguments (Ting-Toomey, 2010). First, utilizing conceptual cultural frameworks helps to create an exploratory system for why employees in several cultural communities communicate differently or similarly in accordance with a consistent, anchoring foundation. Second, drawing upon a cultural framework provides design parameters regarding to concepts that potentially explain the phenomenon of interest and thus should be included in studies (and those that might be omitted). Third, the cultural characteristics included in conceptual cultural frameworks (e.g., cultural value dimensions, such as power distance and collectivism) provide starting points for practitioners and trainers who aim to improve communication in international business. Fourth, cultural frameworks such as Hofstede's typology (Hofstede, 1980) and the GLOBE framework (House et al., 2004) have been used to examine the relevance of culture for a range of organizational phenomena. Thus, by drawing on such frameworks, our research is embedded into the broader field of cross-cultural organizational behavior research. Studies that applied the social scientific approach to examine the role of ethnic cultural factors regarding silence (or voice; e.g., Botero & Van Dyne, 2009; Lam & Xu, 2019; Rhee et al., 2014) focused on one or two out of potentially manifold characteristics supposed to differentiate cultures (see Lytle et al., 1995; Taras et al., 2009). Applying a more comprehensive approach, we draw upon a systematic and widely examined typology of culture, namely, the GLOBE framework (House et al., 2004). This framework provides a differentiated approach to culture including nine dimensions for societal practices (see Table 1 for an overview), uses more recent data than comparable typologies (e.g., Hofstede, 1980), and is well validated, as it is widely used in the field of leadership and management (Dorfman et al., 2012). In our study, we focus on three GLOBE dimensions based on theoretical grounds (i.e., the nature of the situation in which silence occurs) as well as empirical grounds (i.e., the number of cases for between-country level analyses is limited to 33 countries; Maas & Hox, 2005). We develop hypotheses that specify that silence is likely to vary as a function of power distance (because silence means not challenging authorities), assertiveness (because silence means applying a rather indirect communication style), and in-group collectivism (because silence means not acting independently but being loyal to group norms). Note that we also explore relationships between silence motives and the other GLOBE-dimensions and discuss findings as additional, exploratory analyses. 2.3.1 |How societies deal with hierarchy and power differences: Power distance Employees who address critical issues, ideas, and concerns are challenging the status quo, and they question the judgment of those who installed the current procedures, rules, and practices (van Dyne et al., 1995). The idea that cultures can be distinguished with regard to whether their members are expected to accept or challenge the current distribution of power is prominent in several cultural frameworks (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 2006; Smith et al., 2002) and central to the dimension of power distance in the GLOBE typology. Reviews (Daniels & Greguras, 2014; Khatri, 2009) suggested that in high power distance contexts, individuals with a lot of power are perceived as superior and elite, while those with little power accept their places in the hierarchy, defer judgments to their leaders, and are generally loyal and obedient to them (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994; Kirkman et al., 2009). Such loyalty and deference would suggest that members remain silent for prosocial reasons to protect or not embarrass their leaders. Power distance is also associated with conformity as suggested by results of Brockner et al.'s (2001) meta-analysis: compared with samples from low power-distance countries (i.e., the United States and Germany), samples from high-power distance countries (e.g., China and Mexico) responded more favorably to lower levels of voice opportunities. A tendency to defer to authorities is also visible in the sources of guidance employees tend to rely upon when handling work events. In a 47-nation study, Smith et al. (2002) showed that samples from high power distance cultures relied upon vertical sources such as superiors, as well as formal rules and hierarchies, KNOLL ET AL.623 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License while contributions from lower-level employees were not seen as effective or appreciated. These and similar findings (see Lam & Xu, 2019; Taras et al., 2010) suggest a positive relationship between power distance and acquiescent silence, which is associated with conformity and acceptance of the status quo. As members of highpower distance countries prefer directive leadership (Taras et al., 2010) and accept that the status quo cannot and should not be changed, they are likely to believe that it is more efficient not to rock the boat at all. Engaging in opportunistic silence would thus save them from additional workload and helps to avoid interpersonal conflict (Morrison & Rothman, 2009). Such a detachment-based reasoning is also supported by Merkin et al.'s (2014) meta-analytic finding that power distance is negatively related to propensity to interrupt. Power is linked to emotional experience, with fear often being experienced by low-power individuals (Mondillon et al., 2005). In line with this reasoning, in Hofstede's (1980) conceptualization of power distance, members of high-power distance cultures are fearful of expressing concerns to more powerful people. However, this emphasis on fear is not evident in the power distance construct and its operationalization as per the GLOBE study (see Hofstede, 2006). Indeed, power may not always be associated with fear. While the abuse of power (e.g., by leaders) certainly induces fear in followers (Beugre, 1998), trust in hierarchy, positions, and institutions can be comforting for individuals. Doney et al. (1998) proposed that calculative prediction and capability forms of trust would be more prevalent in high power distance cultures. Such forms of trust are based on the ability to predict and calculate the potential costs and rewards of making oneself vulnerable to another, as well as an assessment that the individual or entity that is trusted will meet their obligations and expectations (Doney et al., 1998). Thus, we do not expect a positive relationship with quiescent silence, because employees from high power distance cultures accept the status quo and thus do not fear their superiors (Daniels & Greguras, 2014). Indeed, neither Rhee TABLE 1 GLOBE study culture dimensions (House et al., 2004) examined in the current study and their relation to differentially-motivated silence types Cultural dimension a Brief definition Relationships with employee silence motives as found in our study b Power distance The degree to which members of a society expect power to be distributed equally or concentrated at higher levels. As hypothesized, power distance was related to acquiescent and prosocial silence. Assertiveness The degree to which individuals are assertive, confrontational and aggressive in their relationships with others. - In-group collectivism The degree to which members of a society express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families. - Institutional collectivism The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action. Exploratory analyses showed a negative relationship with acquiescent silence. Uncertainty avoidance The extent to which members of a society rely on social norms, rules, and procedures to alleviate unpredictability of future events. Exploratory analyses showed a negative relationship with opportunistic silence Performance orientation The degree to which a collective encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. - Gender egalitarianism The degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality. - Humane orientation The degree to which a society encourages and rewards individuals for being fair, altruistic, generous, caring and kind to others. - Future orientation The degree to which members of a society engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification. - a In this study, we used the societal practices scores to represent the cultural dimensions. b Only statistically significant results at p< .05 are reported. 624 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License et al. (2014) nor Lam and Xu (2019) found substantial relationships between power distance and fear-based silence using individual-level data. In sum, we expect Hypothesis 1. Power distance is positively related to (a) acquiescent, (b) prosocial, and (c) opportunistic silence. 2.3.2 |Whether societies deal with issues in a confrontational versus harmonious style: Assertiveness Whether members of a culture express or withhold their views could also be affected by the culturally endorsed communication style (Merkin et al., 2014). Hall (1976) suggested that countries differ in their preference for direct (i.e., open and confrontational, which he labeled “low-context”) or indirect (i.e., more harmonious and considerate) communication styles (which he labeled “high-context”). Several researchers (e.g., Brett, 2007; Ting-Toomey et al., 2001; Ward et al., 2016) drew upon this idea and showed that members of high context cultures prefer indirect (i.e., more harmonious) communication styles, are more likely to avoid conflict, and use more nonconfrontational strategies in conflict resolution and negotiation. The idea of direct versus indirect communication style is part of GLOBE's assertiveness dimension (see Table 1). Elaborating on the relationship between assertiveness and voice, Kwon and Farndale (2020) suggest that in high assertiveness cultures, norms may signal that assertive behavior is appropriate, useful to achieve instrumental aims, and, thus, more important than concerns about harming relationships. This assumption suggests a negative relationship between assertiveness and prosocial silence and a lower tendency of members from assertive cultures to be afraid of negative consequences that might follow from speaking up (i.e., quiescent silence). Further, as assertiveness has been associated with internal locus of control (see den Hartog, 2004), members of assertive cultures should tend to believe that speaking up will make a difference and thus acquiescent silence should be low. Prospects seem different for opportunistic silence. Assertive cultures value competitiveness and assign status based on achievement. As a consequence, assertiveness is consistent with a tendency toward opportunism (den Hartog, 2004; Doney et al., 1998), which, in turn, makes it more likely that members of assertive cultures withhold their views to gain a personal advantage than members of less assertive cultures. Assertiveness has “rarely been studied as a dimension of culture in its own right”(den Hartog, 2004, p. 396), but research on Hofstede's (1980) dimension masculinity versus femininity provides indirect support for our reasoning. Indeed, the GLOBE dimension assertiveness has been derived from Hofstede's masculinity dimension, which denotes the degree to which a society values competition, achievement, heroism, and assertiveness rather than cooperativeness, modesty, and caring for the weak. In support of our reasoning regarding negative relationships between assertiveness and silence, masculinity was negatively related to indirectness, conflict avoidance, and conformity and positively related to confrontation in metaanalyses (Merkin et al., 2014; Taras et al., 2010). Doney et al. (1998) provide indirect support for the proposed positive relationship between assertiveness and opportunistic silence. Reviewing research from diverse disciplines, these authors conclude that calculative processes are more expected and thus tolerated in assertive/masculine societies, whereas honoring moral obligations is more valued in rather harmonious societies. In sum, we expect: Hypothesis 2. Assertiveness is negatively related to quiescent (H2a), acquiescent (H2b), and prosocial silence (H2c), and positively related to opportunistic silence (H2d). 2.3.3 |How societies perceive the relationship between individual and group: In-group collectivism Whether members of a society challenge the status quo by expressing their views and whether they expose themselves as individuals should be influenced by the way they perceive themselves and their position in relation to their social environment. Several cultural frameworks suggest that cultures differ regarding to the extent to which they socialize their members into striving for independent/individual and/or interdependent/collective identities—with widespread effects on their members' cognition, emotion, motivation, and behavior (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Minkov et al., 2017; Schwartz, 2006; Triandis, 2000). In the GLOBE framework, collectivism is addressed by two dimensions (see Table 1). In our study, we draw upon in-group collectivism as this dimension is rooted in the extensive literature on societal collectivism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1996), has been used to represent collectivism in crossvalidation studies (Vignoles et al., 2016), and has been conceptually related to silence and (negatively to) voice in the past (Kwon & Farndale, 2020). Collectivistic societies draw upon group norms, perceived duties, and obligations and members of collective cultures ground their selfesteem, at least in part, in their ability to adjust and restrain the self. One consequence of being socialized in collectivistic societies is a tendency to communicate in a way that protects others and maintains harmonious relationships—a pattern that has been associated with the concept of face (Merkin, 2018; Triandis, 1996). In face cultures, individuals derive their self-worth primarily extrinsically by fulfilling social role obligations, including that, besides preserving their own face, they also know of the importance of face for the self-worth of others (e.g., Leung & Cohen, 2011; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Expressing diverging viewpoints or questioning a supervisor's or colleague's viewpoint, risks discrediting one's own and the other person's face, causing embarrassment and feelings of shame in actor, target, and observers which, in turn, disrupt interaction and collaboration. Members of face cultures and collectivists in general try to avoid such disruption and know that others are interested in preserving each other's face in social interactions as well. Consequently, employees from KNOLL ET AL.625 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License collectivistic cultures should be more likely to withhold their views to protect others and social harmony. They should also expect others to protect them, but at the same time, to be interested in maintaining harmony and declining challenges to the status quo. This reasoning links collectivism to prosocial and acquiescent silence. Collectivists should further have a lower tendency to engage in selfish behavior to achieve a personal advantage which is the case in opportunistic silence. We do not, in contrast, expect relationships with quiescent silence. Collectivists should not fear their group members, because they know that group members do not discredit other group members and protect each other's face. This is particularly the case for higherstatus members, such as managers, as these have a particular obligation to protect the collective. While research on specific relationships between collectivism and silence motives is scarce, a large body of research supports the more general assumption that members from collectivistic cultures are socialized into accepting group norms even if their ideas and opinions diverge from the ideas and concerns shared by their group. Meta-analyses (e.g., Bond & Smith, 1996; Merkin et al., 2014; Taras et al., 2010) and reviews (Gelfand et al., 2007) showed that conformity is more prevalent in collectivistic cultures while individualism, in turn, is positively related to openness in communication, propensity to interrupt, and confrontation, and negatively related to passive reactions to injustice, conflict avoidance, indirectness, and facesaving concerns. The only study that examined specific relationships of collectivism with silence—at the individual level—supported our assumption regarding the relationship between collectivism and acquiescent silence and the zero-relationship between collectivism and silence that is based on fear (Rhee et al., 2014). Notably, contrary to our reasoning, Rhee and colleagues also did not find support for the expected relationship between collectivism and prosocial silence. We expect: Hypothesis 3. In-group collectivism is positively related to acquiescent (H3a) and prosocial silence (H3b) and negatively related to opportunistic silence (H3c). 2.3.4 |Additional dimensions included in the GLOBE framework The GLOBE framework includes further cultural dimensions (see Table 1). While there is no strong theoretical rationale and consistent prior research to propose hypotheses regarding their relationship with silence motives, we explored how these additional dimensions relate to the four employee silence motives. Our aim was to identify patterns of relationships that have been neglected so far but may inspire future theorizing and research. •Research question 3: How are the GLOBE cultural dimensions uncertainty avoidance, performance orientation, future orientation, gender egalitarianism, human orientation, and institutional collectivism related to employee silence motives? 3|METHOD 3.1 |Samples and data preparation The Cross-Cultural Silence Project is an international collaboration of scholars from social and organizational psychology as well as management science. Data collection was centrally organized by the first author but carried out by each of the co-authors in their respective country. Table 2 show the samples' characteristics, and more detailed description of data collection strategies within the participating countries is presented in Appendix S1. Thirty-five samples were collected from 33 countries. Canada and Switzerland are represented by two samples due to the two main language groups in these countries (i.e., English/French and German/French, respectively). The overall sample comprised 8222 employees. Sample sizes in each country ranged from 145 to 463 with a median of 225 participants. To avoid biases caused by organizational membership or profession, we aimed to recruit heterogeneous employee samples. This aim was accomplished in that all of the samples comprised participants from diverse age groups, many different professions and industries, and with varying degrees of work experience. Note that we excluded all participants that were self-employed, because we were interested in silence as it appears within organizations (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). 3.2 |Measures Contributors translated all scales using the standard procedure of translation-back-translation, and resolving inconsistencies through discussion (Brislin, 1970). The translated items of the employee silence scales are presented in Table A1. Employee silence was measured with the employee silence scale developed by Knoll and van Dick (2013). Participants first read a short paragraph outlining the situations we were interested in (i.e., they thought that colleagues or supervisors acted in a wrong, inefficient, immoral, or otherwise problematic way) and then asked them whether they spoke up to someone who could change the situation or tended to remain silent. We then asked them to rate their underlying motives for remaining silent. The item stem (“I remained silent at work …”) was presented, followed by three randomly ordered items for each of the four silence types, namely, acquiescent,quiescent,prosocial, and opportunistic silence (see Table A1 for the complete list). The silence type items were answered using a frequency scale with the following seven response categories: 1 (never), 2 (very rarely), 3 (rarely), 4 (from time to time), 5 (occasionally), 6 (frequently), and 7 (very frequently). Cultural dimensions were represented by the respective societylevel scores as provided at the GLOBE webpage (GLOBE, 2020). The GLOBE project provides country-level societal practices and societal values scores. We used societal practices scores, because societal cultural practices (as a culture “is”) mirror individuals' reality of “how things are”in a society and how a societal culture is practiced in everyday life (Frese, 2015; Urbach et al., 2020). This is why practices are more likely to drive behavior than societal values (i.e., how a 626 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License society's culture “should be”). In Tables S5 and S6a–d in the Online Appendix), we provide additional analyses linking the employee silence motives to further cultural typologies. Data for the respective indicators were taken from the following sources: Schwartz (2008) for Schwartz' culture value orientations, Hofstede (2006) for the Hofstede (1980) dimensions and Minkov et al. (2017) for the revised TABLE 2 Demographic details for each cultural sample Cultural unit nAge M(SD) Gender (% fem.) Manager (% yes) Contract (% perm.) Language Cultural region a City/Region Australia 259 44.39 (12.67) – c 64 85 English Anglo Australia-wide Belgium 171 33.16 (9.34) 65 12 79 Dutch Germanic Europe Flanders Canada (English) 307 39.87 (12.06) 56 43 89 English Anglo 5 regions d Canada (French) 280 40.34 (12.47) 62 49 68 French Anglo Quebec Chile 176 40.54 (8.75) 57 56 94 Spanish Latin America Area around Santiago China 264 33.32 (6.08) 45 11 72 Chinese Confucian Asia Shenzhen Colombia 157 30.24 (9.20) 55 31 61 Spanish Latin America Colombia-wide Croatia 201 36.01 (9.32) 74 21 78 Croatian Eastern Europe Whole Croatia Denmark 230 38.60 (12.87) 56 15 – c Danish Western Europe Aarhus France 244 39.10 (12.24) 50 43 84 French Western Europe Whole France Germany 463 37.38 (12.87) 56 18 72 German Germanic Europe Western Germany Greece 145 42.12 (10.15) 59 19 51 Greek Eastern Europe Macedonia Great Britain 182 39.53 (10.43) 76 59 86 English Anglo UK-wide Indonesia 202 39.41 (8.03) 63 33 89 Bahsa Indon. Southern Asia Central and western regions India 319 33.95 (8.87) 67 35 77 English Southern Asia Whole India, major cities Ireland 272 41.67 (9.95) 62 47 88 English Anglo Whole Republic of Ireland Iran 256 38.96 (7.05) 30 42 75 Farsi Middle-East The largest cities in five main regions of Iran Iraq 261 41.21 (9.40) 37 49 88 Arabic Middle East Iraq-wide Italy 245 38.67 (12.95) 56 18 69 Italian Western Europe Piedmont Japan 202 39.34 (10.49) 22 75 96 Japanese Confucian Asia Tokyo and Fukuoka The Netherlands 201 39.02 (11.04) 48 33 89 Dutch Western Europe Whole Netherlands Norway 189 45.11 (11.12) 35 28 96 Norwegian Nordic Europe Whole Norway Pakistan 210 36.60 (7.85) 30 61 72 English Southern Asia Islamabad and Rawalpindi Peru 246 32.39 (6.83) 55 – c – c Spanish Latin America Peru-wide Poland 174 35.58 (8.37) 66 30 78 Polish Eastern Europe Northern Poland Portugal 318 – b 62 25 75 Portuguese Western Europe Portugal-wide Romania 273 42.54 (10.39) 59 29 89 Romanian Eastern Europe Lugoj, Western Romania Russia 202 29.70 (11.42) 65 26 68 Russian Eastern Europe Moscow Slovenia 301 44.06 (9.83) 48 81 88 Slovenian Eastern Europe Whole Slovenia Spain 183 46.83 (9.62) 38 69 85 Spanish Western Europe Mainly in the South of Spain Switzerland (French) 163 41.30 (10.10) 71 40 78 French Germanic Europe French-speaking part Switzerland (German) 307 35.98 (10.77) 73 19 77 German Germanic Europe German-speaking part Togo 190 36.94 (8.01) 27 48 67 English Sub-Saharan Africa Lomé Turkey 204 32.25 (7.47) 49 78 88 Turkish Middle East Izmir Uganda 225 30.73 (8.12) 44 50 66 English Sub-Saharan Africa Central and Eastern parts Note:N= 8,222. Data were collected between 2014 and 2019. a Culture clusters as suggested by the Globe study. b Age was measured categorically, most frequent category was 18–24 years (26%). c Measure was not included in the survey. d Nova Scotia; Ontario; Manitoba; Alberta; Brit. Columbia. KNOLL ET AL.627 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Taras et al.' (2010) meta-analysis provided some support for this reasoning: masculinity, a culture dimension from the Hofstede (1980) framework that is associated with assertiveness, was negatively related to conflict avoidance, but it was also positively related to accommodating and compromising conflict management styles. Thus, our reasoning regarding a negative association between assertiveness and silence might have been misguided by an atomistic fallacy (Brewer & Venaik, 2014; Diez-Roux, 1998): cultural characteristics such as assertiveness might yield differing or even contradicting effects at the individual and collective level. Opportunistic silence was also not significantly related to the three cultural dimensions for which existing theory and evidence recommended the development of specific hypotheses. Instead, opportunistic silence was negatively related to uncertainty avoidance, a cultural dimension that we included to explore potential relationships. This is an interesting finding given that voice is often associated with uncertain outcomes for the individual who speaks up, and challenging the status quo is supposed to induce uncertainty in systems. However, at the cultural level, change is essential for survival and should not be oppressed by fear of uncertainty (Schein, 2017). To secure development, cultures that view uncertainty as a problem that should be avoided, might provide employees with opportunities to overcome uncertainty (Kwon & Farndale, 2020). This could include procedures that guide change-oriented behaviors such as formal voice channels which, in turn, should reduce silence in such countries. 5.1 |Theoretical and practical implications 5.1.1 |Scale application and scale validity We found evidence (i.e., internal reliabilities, factor structure, sufficient degree of homogeneity within countries, measurement invariance) that the Knoll and van Dick (2013) scale is a reliable and valid measure that can be used for international research projects and surveys that are concerned with employee participation, organizational learning, safety issues, or preventing wrongdoings. Having such measures is a precondition for identifying links between specific types of silence and specific country characteristics that eventually might help to disentangle the relations between country culture and silence. 5.1.2 |Relationships between culture (dimensions) and silence might be more complex than previously assumed Cultural dimensions have been suggested as a starting point for examining the relationship between culture and employee silence. Studies suggesting that dimensions such as power distance and collectivism are responsible for differences in silence (e.g., Botero & van Dyne, 2009; Rhee et al., 2014), however, drew upon a limited number of (mostly prototypical) countries and used individual-level scores to represent culture characteristics. Results of our study challenge and specify established views of the potential of individual cultural dimensions as predictors of silence. Results showed that only three out of the nine cultural dimensions included in the study significantly explained variance in employee silence. The pattern that they showed indicates that silence is more likely to occur in cultures which accept status differences and rely on established structures, and less likely in cultures in which collective efforts are ingrained in their societal practices. Strong in-group bonds did not make silence more likely to occur nor did societal practices characterized by assertiveness make silence less likely. Moreover, our study specifies the motives that are responsible for the reluctance to challenge authorities in high power distance cultures. The distinct relationships that we found between silence and in-group and institutional collectivism point at the necessity to challenge traditional views of collectivism and paves the way for more differentiated views (see Brewer & Venaik, 2011; Vignoles et al., 2016) and combinations with other dimensions as proposed in the concepts of horizontal and vertical collectivism (Singelis et al., 1995). 5.1.3 |Associations of silence with specific countries need to be reconsidered Our results show that various countries ranked high (e.g., Croatia, Slovenia, Canada, and Iran) as well as low (Denmark, China, and Chile) on silence motives, and some countries ranked rather differently across the four silence types (e.g., Greece and Togo). Furthermore, the country clusters suggested by the GLOBE study showed no consistent pattern regarding the countries' silence scores (see Table 2 and Figures S1 and S2). These findings support prior research (e.g., Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hasegawa & Gudykunst, 1998) in challenging the validity of widespread assumptions regarding the use and value of silence in different cultures. They indicate that there are no typical countries in which silence is high or low, and silence motives are not necessarily all high or all low in any given country. The amount of variance that cultural dimensions could explain in our study recommends caution when using cultural dimensions to predict silence and assign countries as high- or low-silence countries—at least for two reasons. First, different culture characteristics might be responsible for the same silence scores. While for some countries in our study silence might be driven by low institutional collectivism, the driver for others might be high power distance. Expecting a silent workforce due to their score on one particular cultural dimension would thus be misleading. Second, the effect of cultural dimensions could be substituted or neutralized by the work context and/or by country-specific features that are not necessarily represented in a cultural dimension. These features may result, for example, from specific traditions of providing participatory rights (see Szabo et al., 2002) and collective experiences relevant for silence (so-called “remote historic 634 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License drivers”; Beugelsdijk & Welzel, 2018). The latter may include a socialization in authoritarian cultures (as it is the case in former Communist countries in Eastern Europe or countries with a history in colonization; den Hartog & Dickson, 2012) and growing up or living in difficult socio-economic conditions (Ehrenreich, 2001; Leana et al., 2012). 5.2 |Limitations and directions for future research Cross-cultural research is challenging and, while results in terms of psychometric qualities justified scale adaptation, our study does not meet all the criteria emphasized for comparing results across cultures (Spector et al., 2015; Tsui et al., 2007). We address some of these limitations and suggest how overcoming them provides opportunities to further improve international research on employee silence. 5.2.1 |Sample characteristics and geographical coverage Due to limited resources, we were not able to obtain samples that are representative of their respective countries and are completely similar in features that might influence silence tendencies (e.g., gender, occupational sector, and managerial status). Besides collecting representative samples with respect to demographics or regions, representativeness could also be justified by measuring cultural variables (e.g., individualism) and showing that the scores of the sample match the scores as achieved in large cultural studies. Data collection procedures also differed by country (see Table S1). However, using superficially equivalent data collection procedures such as online surveys in each country might not solve this problem as data collection procedures can have different implications across countries (see Spector et al., 2015). Furthermore, while all of the GLOBE cultural clusters are represented in our samples with at least two countries, European samples dominate. One of the purposes of conducting this research was to make scales available in many languages, which eventually allows for extending silence research geographically. This is necessary as very few studies have been conducted in Arab countries, Latin America, and Africa leaving the diverse models of selfhood and silence that prevail in these regions marginalized (see Vignoles et al., 2016). 5.2.2 |Country as a unit of analysis for examining cultural influences While statistical measures (i.e., ICC) justified treating country as a unit of analysis in our study, the amount of explained variance by country was not large. As this is rather common in cross-cultural research (Tsui et al., 2007), some researchers challenge viewing countries as shared meaning systems (see Schwartz, 2014; Tung & Stahl, 2018). Indeed, individuals are subject to several influences within their country of origin and countries themselves are not homogeneous societies (Chao & Moon, 2005; Peterson et al., 2018). They can comprise subcultures and regions with distinct learning histories due to specific historical developments or geographical specifics. Further, differences in socioeconomic development can be a source of cultural variation within countries (Marcus et al., 2019). Future research could identify whether sources of within-country-variation might also explain variance in silence. 5.2.3 |Complementing social scientific with ethnographic approaches When discussing approaches to cross-cultural studies, we introduced the distinction between social scientific and ethnographic approaches (Ting-Toomey, 2010). While the social scientific approach that we drew upon is useful for the purposes of this study (which was comparison of silence tendencies across countries and cultural dimensions), conducting ethnographic studies could advance research on culture and silence and provide insights into some of our more ambiguous findings. For example, the low silence scores in China and the high silence scores in the Anglo cluster might be based on the fact that members of different cultures do not just behave differently in a particular situation, but define the situation itself differently (Leung & Cohen, 2011; Mendoza-Denton & Mischel, 2007). Situations related to silence and voice might be of high or low relevance for members of a culture and thus remaining silent becomes more salient and more likely to be remembered. Besides, ethnographic studies could reveal culture-specific motives for silence that we did not examine in our study (see Fontes', 2007, ethnographic study on shame as an important motive for silence in Latino cultures). 5.2.4 |Going beyond GLOBE and cultural dimensions The current study investigated silence motives in relation to the cultural framework of the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004). Starting with this established typology had the advantage that a relatively broad range of cultural characteristics could be related to silence, and scores for these characteristics were available for a large number of countries. However, the cross-cultural research literature is complex and offers various approaches to characterize and contrast cultures including high-/low-context cultures (Hall, 1976) and the World Values Survey (Inglehart, 2018; for more exhaustive lists, see Lytle et al., 1995; Taras et al., 2009). For some of these approaches— Schwartz' (2006) cultural value orientations, Hofstede's (1980) typology of cultural dimensions, Minkov et al.' (2017) revision of Hofstede's individualism–collectivism dimension, and the concept of cultural tightness (see Gelfand et al., 2006)—we provide brief descriptions and analyses in Appendix S1. KNOLL ET AL.635 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 5.2.5 |Culture as a moderator Our study focused on the direct effects that culture characteristics might have on employee silence. However, culture may also have a moderating effect on the relationships between more proximal antecedents and silence, and cultural dimensions might interact in a similar way as individual traits do (Judge & Long, 2012; Spector et al., 2015; Tsui et al., 2007). For example, as cultural differences exist regarding the role of seniority and gender in societies, in societies in which older and male employees have a higher status, the barrier to overcome silence is higher for younger and female employees. Older and male employees, in turn, may experience greater responsibility to speak up. Kwon and Farndale (2020) suggested that cultural tightness (i.e., the extent to which cultures are characterized by strong norms and low tolerance of deviance; Gelfand et al., 2006, Triandis, 1996) could function as moderator between other cultural dimensions and silence. For example, the relationships between silence and power distance and institutional collectivism might be stronger if examined in tight cultures, because cultural tightness restricts the range of permissible behavior. 6|CONCLUSION Securing effective communication and dealing with challenges to the status quo are central issues for the sustainable development of societal and organizational cultures. Despite frequent reports of detrimental silence in organizational practice across the globe, there is little common ground, empirically or from a measurement standpoint, on which to build a coherent body of knowledge on employee silence in different cultures. In the first large-scale study examining differentially-motivated employee silence, we validated scales in 21 languages that can facilitate international silence research. We further provided scores for 33 countries that can function as a benchmark for future research in these countries as well as orientation for practitioners doing business in increasingly diverse economic settings. Making a first step toward explaining international differences and similarities in silence motives, we linked culture dimensions from the GLOBE framework to silence. Results suggest that silence motives (with the exception of quiescent silence) are related to power distance, institutional collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance. Results also suggest that relationships between cultural dimensions and silence are more complex than previously believed, and that stereotypical assumptions regarding cultural dimensions and the use of silence in specific countries need to be reconsidered. We recommend that—besides replicating our findings with stratified random samples—future research could benefit from complementing social scientific with ethnographic approaches, extending silence research geographically and conceptually, considering units of culture other than nations and cultural frameworks beyond GLOBE, and examining culture not just as an antecedent but as moderator between more proximal antecedents and silence. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank Editor Mark F. Peterson and two anonymous reviewers for their challenging and supportive comments. We would also like to thank Maria Chatziagorou, Michelle Donzallaz, and Laurenz L. Meier for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Furthermore, we would like to express our gratitude to Andrina Frank, Chantal Hamilos, and Liz Katherine Torres Pajuelo for their assistance in our data collection efforts, and Dominik Dilba for his help with the visualizations in the Online Appendix. The work by Elisa Adriasola as part of this research was supported by the Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica de Chile, CONICYT FONDECYT/INI11160859. Juliana Malagon acknowledges financial support from Universidad de Los Andes, Fondo de Apoyo para Profesores Asistentes [grant number P17.100322.004]. ORCID Michael Knoll https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1148-0260 Martin Götz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1415-1240 Elisa Adriasola https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-0762 Amer Ali Al-Atwi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1799-0066 Alicia Arenas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5918-8760 Kokou A. Atitsogbe https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3469-1738 Anindo Bhattacharjee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3824-365X Norman D. Blanco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2690-7060 Grégoire Bollmann https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4169-219X Janine Bosak https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5701-6538 Cagri Bulut https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3291-673X Madeline Carter https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3232-2317 Matej Černe https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5049-588X Susanna L. M. Chui https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0574-6787 Donatella Di Marco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2612-7961 Gesa S. Duden https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3196-0755 Vicki Elsey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9334-4595 Paola Gatti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6174-5052 Chiara Ghislieri https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4002-8756 Steffen R. Giessner https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8035-5092 Kenta Hino https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3022-9944 Joeri Hofmans https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6619-0706 Thomas S. Jønsson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5098-996X Pazambadi Kazimna https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9081-9172 Kevin B. Lowe https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0929-7018 Juliana Malagón https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9198-6359 Hassan Mohebbi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3661-1690 Anthony Montgomery https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1118-7398 Lucas Monzani https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3375-068X Anne Nederveen Pieterse https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0405-1898 Emir Ozeren https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4219-8401 Deirdre O'Shea https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9107-1434 Christina Lundsgaard Ottsen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4084- 5246 Jennifer Pickett https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3181-9786 Anna A. Rangkuti https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9853-9968 636 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Sylwiusz Retowski https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6133-0658 Farzad Sattari Ardabili https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9734-7921 Silvia A. Silva https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1304-2923 Ana Šimuni chttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0476-8415 Niklas K. Steffens https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3990-2592 Susana M. Tavares https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0146-8433 Rolf van Dick https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6308-9466 Sut I. Wong https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0663-4496 Hannes Zacher https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6336-2947 ENDNOTE 1 We also tested whether the fit of the four-correlated factors in each sample (Table S2). In general, the four-correlated factors fit the respective sample data well, but yielded suboptimal fit indices for Colombia, Pakistan, and Togo. Thus, we tested the competing measurement models as outlined above again in the full sample, this time excluding Colombia, Pakistan, and Togo—the results and conclusions regarding the choice of the four-correlated factors as the best fitting measurement model remained the same. REFERENCES Allard-Poesi, F., & Hollet-Haudebert, S. (2017). The sound of silence: Measuring suffering at work. Human Relations,70, 1442–1463. https://doi. org/10.1177/0018726717703449 Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,92, 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.92.2.307 Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,21, 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919210 Barry, B. (2007). Speechless: The erosion of free expression in the American workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,88, 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 Beugelsdijk, S., & Welzel, C. (2018). Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,49,1469–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118798505 Beugre, C. D. (1998). Understanding organizational insider-perpetrated workplace aggression: An integrative model. Sociology of Organizations, 15, 163–196. Bies, R. J. (2009). Sounds of silence: Identifying new motives and behaviors. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 157–171). Emerald Group Publishing. Bliese, P. (2016). multilevel: Multilevel Functions (Version 2.6) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=multilevel Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass. Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,25, 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022194252005 Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179 Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin,119, 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111 Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly,23,84 –104. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0893318909335415 Brett, J. M. (2007). Negotiating globally: How to negotiate deals, resolve disputes, and make decisions across cultural boundaries (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2011). Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies,42, 436–445. https:// doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.62 Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2014). The ecological fallacy in national culture research. Organization Studies,35, 1063–1086. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0170840613517602 Brinsfield, C. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior,34, 671–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1829 Brinsfield, C. T., Edwards, M. S., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Voice and silence in organizations: Historical review and current conceptualizations. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 3–33). Emerald Group. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,1, 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 135910457000100301 Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., …Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,37, 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp. 2000.1451 Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & LePine, J. A. (2018). A meta-analysis of empowerment and voice as transmitters of high-performance managerial practices to job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,39, 1296–1313. https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.2295 Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The Cultural Mosaic: A metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 1128–1140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90. 6.1128 Chen, Y. R., Leung, K., & Chen, C. C. (2009). Bringing national culture to the table: Making a difference with cross-cultural differences and perspectives. Academy of Management Annals,3, 217–249. https://doi. org/10.5465/19416520903047244 Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Algesheimer, R., & Schmidt, P. (2018). Testing for approximate measurement invariance of human values in the European Social Survey. Sociological Methods & Research,47, 665–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117701478 Connelly, C. E., Cerne, M., Dysvik, A., & Skerlavaj, M. (2019). Understanding knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior,40, 779–782. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,8, 247–265. https://doi.org/10. 1037/1076-8998.8.4.247 Covarrubias, P. (2007). (Un)biased in Western theory: Generative silence in American Indian communication. Communication Monographs,74, 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701393071 Daniels, M. A., & Greguras, G. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance: Implications for micro- and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes. Journal of Management,40, 1202–1229. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0149206314527131 Davidov, E., Muthén, B. O., & Schmidt, P. (2018). Measurement invariance in cross-national studies: Challenging traditional approaches and evaluating new ones. Sociological Methods & Research,47, 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118789708 KNOLL ET AL.637 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Assertiveness. In R. J. House, P. J. Hange, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The Globe study of 62 societies (pp. 395–436). Sage. den Hartog, D. N., & Dickson, M. W. (2012). Leadership and culture. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed.) (pp. 393–436). SAGE Publications. Derr, R., Hartl, J., Mosser, P., Eppinger, S., Kindler, H., & Muther, A. (2017). Kultur des Hinhörens [A culture of listening]. Sprechen über sexuelle Gewalt, Organisationsklima und Prävention in stationären Einrichtungen der Jugendhilfe [Speaking about sexualized violance, organizational climate, and prevention in institutionalized youth work]. München: Deutsches Jugendinstitut. https://www.dji.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ bibs2017/derr_hartl_kultur_des_hinhoerens.pdf Dickson, M. W., BeShears, R. S., & Gupta, V. (2004). The impact of societal culture and industry on organizational culture. In R. J. House, P. J. Hange, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The Globe study of 62 societies (pp. 74–93). Sage. Diez-Roux, A. (1998). Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 216–222. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.88.2.216 Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review,23, 601–620. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr. 1998.926629 Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business,47, 504–518. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004 Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,1,23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych- 031413-091305 Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review,32, 1246–1264. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586086 Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed. On (not) getting by in America. Metropolitan. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press. Evans, J. M., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2015). Withholding the ace: The individual- and unit-level performance effects of self-reported and perceived knowledge hoarding. Organization Science,26, 494–510. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0945 Ewing, J., & Bowley, G. (2015). The engineering of Volkswagen's aggressive ambition. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/ 12/14/business/the-engineering-of-volkswagens-aggressive- ambition.html Fischer, R., & Schwartz, S. (2011). Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artefactual sources. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,42,1127–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381429 Fontes, L. A. (2007). Sin vergüenza: Addressing shame with Latino victims of child sexual abuse and their families. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16,61–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v16n01_04 Frese, M. (2015). Cultural practices, norms, and values. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology,46, 1327–1330. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022022115600267 Gelfand, M., Bhawuk, D., Nishii, L. H., & Bechtold, D. (2004). Individualism and collectivism. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations. The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 437–512). Sage. Gelfand, M. J., Aycan, Z., Erez, M., & Leung, K. (2017). Cross-cultural industrial organizational psychology and organizational behavior: A hundred-year journey. Journal of Applied Psychology,102(3), 1–16. Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross cultural organizational behaviour. Annual Review of Psychology,58, 479–514. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559 Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 1225–1244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6. 1225 Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan, Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P., Cabecinhas, R., Chan, D., Chhokar, J., D'Amato, A., Ferrer, M., Fischlmayr, I. C., …Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science,332, 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754 George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal,59(6), 1880–1895. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4007 Gibson, R., & Singh, J. P. (2003). Wall of silence: The untold story of the medical mistakes that kill and injure millions of Americans. LifeLine Press. GLOBE. (2020). Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study. GLOBE phase 2 aggregated societal level data for society culture scales: May 17, 2004. https://globeproject.com/study_ 2004_2007?page_id=data#data Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research,22, 510–543. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior,24, 905–922. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.226 Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City: Anchor/Double. Hanges, P., & Dickson, M. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations. The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122–151). Sage. Hasegawa, T., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Silence in Japan and The United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,29, 668–684. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022022198295005 Hawass, H. H. (2016). Examining the antecedents of prosocial silence: A relational perspective. EuroMed Journal of Business,11, 248–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-07-2015-0031 Henze, N., & Zirkler, B. (1990). A class of invariant consistent tests for multivariate normality. Communications in Statistics –Theory and Methods, 19, 3595–3617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610929008830400 Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers' minds versus respondents' minds. Journal of International Business Studies,37, 882–896. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400233 Hofstede, G. J. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage. Hofstede, G.J. (2020). Dimension data matrix. https://geerthofstede.com/ research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/ House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd ed.). Routledge. Inglehart, R. F. (2018). Cultural evolution: People's motivations are changing, and reshaping the world. Cambridge: University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/9781108613880 638 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Jain, A. K. (2015). An interpersonal perspective to study silence in Indian organizations: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Personnel Review,44, 1010–1036. https://doi.org/10.1108/ PR-12-2013-0220 Jetten, J., & Hornsey, M. J. (2014). Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology,65, 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpsych-010213-115151 Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review,31, 386–408. https://doi.org/10. 5465/amr.2006.20208687 Joshi, S. (2016, November 13). India needs a massive public campaign to break the silence around child sexual abuse. Huffington Post. https:// www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/11/13/india-needs-a-massive-public- campaign-to-break-the-silence-aroun_a_21604963/ Accessed March 9, 2021. Judge, T. A., & Long, D. M. (2012). Individual differences in leadership. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), Thenatureofleadership(pp. 179–217). Sage. Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations. Vision: Journal of Business Perspective,13,1–9. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/097226290901300101 Kim, E. S., Cao, C., Wang, Y., & Nguyen, D. T. (2017). Measurement invariance testing with many groups: A comparison of five approaches. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,24, 524–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1304822 Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal,52, 744–764. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009. 43669971 Kirrane, M., O'Shea, D., Buckley, F., Grazi, A., & Prout, J. (2017). Investigating the role of discrete emotions in silence versus speaking up. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,90, 354–378. https:// doi.org/10.1111/joop.12175 Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior,29, 163–193. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002 Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Knoll, M., Hall, R. J., & Weigelt, O. (2019). A longitudinal study of the relationships between four differentially motivated forms of employee silence and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,24, 572–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000143 Knoll, M., & van Dick, R. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 012-1308-4 Knoll, M., Wegge, J., Unterrainer, C., Silva, S. A., & Jønsson, T. (2016). Is our knowledge of voice and silence in organizations growing? Building bridges and (re)discovering opportunities. German Journal of Human Resource Management,30, 161–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2397002216649857 Korkmaz, S., Goksuluk, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2014). MVN: An R package for assessing multivariate normality. The R Journal,6, 151–162. https:// doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-031 Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Papers. Peabody Museum of American Archeology & Ethnology (Vol. 47). Cambridge, Mass: University Press. Kurzon, D. (2007). Towards a typology of silence. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1673–1688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.003 Kwon, B., & Farndale, E. (2020). Employee voice viewed through a crosscultural lens. Human Resource Management Review,30. Advance online publication Lam, L. W., & Xu, A. J. (2019). Power imbalance and employee silence: The role of abusive leadership, power distance orientation, and perceived organizational politics. Applied Psychology,68, 513–546. https://doi. org/10.1111/apps.12170 Leana, C. R., Mittal, V., & Stiehl, E. (2012). Organizational behavior and the working poor. Organization Science,23, 888–906. https://doi.org/10. 1287/orsc.1110.0672 Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C.-Y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology,55, 689–714. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.55.090902.141927 Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,100, 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022151 Lewin, D. (2015). The intersection of ADR and NER: A conceptual analysis and FedEx case. In P. J. Gollan, B. E. Kaufman, D. Taras, & A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Voice and involvement at work: Experience with non-union representation (pp. 341–365). Routledge. Lüdecke, D., Makowski, D., Waggoner, P., Patil, I., & Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2021). performance: Assessment of regression models performance (Version 0.7.0) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/ package=performance Lytle, A., Brett, J., Barsness, Z., Tinsley, C., & Janssens, M. (1995). A paradigm for confirmatory cross-cultural research in organizational-behav- ior. Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews,17, 167–214. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,1,86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 Marcus, J., Kahraman, F., Su, S., & Fritzsche B. A. (2019). Capturing intranational cultural variation in international business research: Microsocietal differences in collectivism across Turkey. Journal of World Business,54(6), 101020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2019. 101020 Maree, J. (2016). From a culture of silence to a culture of insurgence: Black employee voice in South Africa over half a century. In A. Pyman, P. J. Gollan, A. Wilkinson, C. Xu, & S. Kalfa (Eds.), Employee voice in emerging economies (Vol. 23). Advances in Industrial and Labour Relations. (pp. 137–192). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.. https://doi.org/10. 1108/S0742-618620160000023006 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review,98, 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224 Marsh, H. W., Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Nagengast, B., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B. O., & Dicke, T. (2018). What to do when scalar invariance fails: The extended alignment method for multi-group factor analysis comparison of latent means across many groups. Psychological Methods,23, 524–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000113 Maxfield, D. (2016, December 7). How a culture of silence eats away at your company. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr. org/2016/12/how-a-culture-of-silence-eats-away-at-your-company. Accessed March 9, 2021. McCrae, R. R., Chan, W., Jussim, L., De Fruyt, F., Löckenhoff, C. E., De Bolle, M., Costa, P. T. Jr., Hřebícˇková, M., Graf, S., Realo, A., Allik, J., Nakazato, K., Shimonaka, Y., Yik, M., Ficková, E., Brunner-Sciarra, M., Reátigui, N., de Figueora, N. L., Schmidt, V., …Terracciano, A. (2013). The inaccuracy of national character stereotypes. Journal of Research in Personality,47, 831–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.006 McNeish, D. M. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods,23, 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/ met0000144 Mendoza-Denton, R., & Mischel, W. (2007). Integrating system approaches to culture and personality: The cultural cognitive–affective processing system. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 175–195). Guilford Press. Merkin, R. S. (2018). Saving face in business. Palgrave Macmillan. https:// doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59174-6 KNOLL ET AL.639 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Merkin, R. S., Taras, V., & Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in crosscultural communication research: A systematic and meta-analytic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,38,1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.10.004 Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809495 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387 Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., …Mudd, B. (2017). A revision of Hofstede's individualism-collectivism dimension: A new national index from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management,24, 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0197 Mondillon, L., Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Rohman, A., Dalle, N., & Uchida, Y. (2005). Beliefs about power and its relation to emotional experience: A comparison of Japan, France, Germany, and the United States. Society for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31, 1112–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205274900 Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,1, 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000. 3707697 Morrison, E. W., & Rothman, N. B. (2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 111–134). Emerald. Muthén, B. O., & Asparouhov, T. (2018). Recent methods for the study of measurement invariance with many groups: Alignment and random effects. Sociological Methods & Research,47, 637–664. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0049124117701488 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user's guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. NHS Survey Coordination Centre. (2017). 2017 NHS staff survey. http:// www.nhsstaffsurveys.com/Page/1064/Latest-Results/2017-Results/ Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research,30, 599–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093650203257841 Perlow, L., & Repenning, N. (2009). The dynamics of silencing conflict. Research in Organizational Behavior,29, 195–223. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.riob.2009.06.007 Peterson, M. F., & Barreto, T. S. (2014). The like it or not proposition: Implications of societal characteristics for the cultural expertise and personal values of organization members. Journal of Organizational Behavior,35, 1134–1152. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1977 Peterson, M. F., Søndergaard, M., & Kara, A. (2018). Traversing cultural boundaries in IB: The complex relationships between explicit country and implicit cultural group boundaries at multiple levels. Journal of International Business Studies,49, 1081–1099. https://doi.org/10. 1057/s41267-017-0082-z Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 20) (pp. 331–369). Elsevier. Prasad, V. (2018). If anyone is listening, #MeToo: Breaking the culture of silence around sexual abuse through regulating non-disclosure agreements and secret settlements. Boston College Law Review,59, 2507–2549. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol59/iss7/8 R Development Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.3) [Computer software]. https:// cran.r-project.org/ Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2019). Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educational and Psychological Measurement,79, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417725127 Revelle, W. (2018). Using R and the psych package to find ω. http://www. personality-project.org/r/psych/HowTo/R_for_omega.pdf Rhee, J., Dedahanov, A., & Lee, D. (2014). Relationships among power distance, collectivism, punishment, and aquiescent, defensive, or prosocial silence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,42, 705–720. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.705 Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,48,1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss. v048.i02 Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement,74,31–57. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013164413498257 Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership. Hoboken: Wiley. Scherbaum, C. A., & Pesner, E. (2019). Power analysis for multilevel research. In S. E. Humphrey & J. M. LeBreton (Eds.), The handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 329–352). APA. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000115-015 Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,40, 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology,5, 137–182. https://doi.org/ 10.1163/156913306778667357 Schwartz, S. H. (2008). The 7 Schwartz cultural value orientation scores for 80 countries [Internet Source]. Dataset: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/304715744_The_7_Schwartz_cultural_ value_orientation_scores_for_80_countries Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,45,5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113490830 Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Sherf, E. N., Parke, M. R., & Isaakyan, S. (2021). Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological safety, and burnout. Academy of Management Journal,64, 114–148. Sheriff, R. E. (2000). Exposing silence as cultural censorship: A Brazilian case. American Anthropologist,102, 114–132. https://doi.org/10. 1525/aa.2000.102.1.114 Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross Cultural Research,29, 240–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719502900302 Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., & Schwartz, S. H. (2002). Cultural Values, Sources of Guidance, and their Relevance to Managerial Behavior: A 47-Nation Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,33, 188–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033002005 Spector, P. E., Liu, C., & Sanchez, J. I. (2015). Methodological and substantive issues in conducting multinational and cross-cultural research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414- 111310 Stoel, R. D., Garre, F. G., Dolan, C., & van den Wittenboer, G. (2006). On the likelihood ratio test in structural equation modeling when parameters are subject to boundary constraints. Psychological Methods,11, 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.439 Szabo, E., Brodbeck, F. C., den Hartog, D., Reber, G., Weibler, J., & Wunderer, R. (2002). The Germanic Europe cluster: Where employees have a voice. Journal of World Business,37,55–68. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S1090-9516(01)00074-8 Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture's consequences: a three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review 640 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology., 95, 405–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018938 Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Approaches, challenges, limitations and suggestions based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. Journal of International Management,15,50–75. Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2016). Does country equate with culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural entities. Management International Review,56, 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11575-016-0283-x Ting-Toomey, S. (2010). Applying dimensional values in understanding intercultural communication. Communication Monographs,77, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751003790428 Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J. G., & Yee-Jung, K. (2001). Self-construal types and conflict management styles. Communication Reports,14,87–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210109367741 Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist,51, 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.51.4.407 Triandis, H. C. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology,35(2), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075900399448 Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management,33, 426–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206307300818 Tung, R. L., & Stahl, G. K. (2018). The tortuous evolution of the role of culture in IB research: What we know, what we don't know, and where we are headed. Journal of International Business Studies,49, 1167–1189. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0184-2 Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019214 United Nations. (2014). Concluding observations on the second periodic report of the Holy See. https://www.refworld.org/docid/52f8a1544. html Urbach, T., Den Hartog, D. N., Fay, D., Parker, S. K., & Strauss, K. (2020). Cultural variations in whether, why, how, and at what cost people are proactive: A followership perspective. Organizational Psychology Review. Advance online publication Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,46, 319–335. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022022114563611 van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies,40, 1359–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- 6486.00384 van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17) (pp. 215–285). JAI Press. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,3,4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002 Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R., …Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the ‘east–west’dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,145, 966–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/ xge0000175 Ward, A.-K., Ravlin, E. C., Klaas, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., & Buchan, N. R. (2016). When do high-context communicators speak up? Exploring contextual communication orientation and employee voice. Journal of Applied Psychology,101, 1498–1511. https://doi.org/10.1037/ apl0000144 Weiss, M., & Morrison, E. W. (2019). Speaking up and moving up: How voice can enhance employees' social status. Journal of Organizational Behavior,40,5–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2262 Wilkinson, A., Sun, J.-M., & Mowbray, P. K. (2020). Employee voice in the Asia Pacific. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Early view, 58, 471–484. World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). World report on violence and health. World Health Organization. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Michael Knoll is researcher and lecturer at Leipzig University. His research focuses on issues related to employee silence and voice, leadership, organizational development, and culture. Martin Götz is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Zurich's Department of Psychology. His research interests include (workplace) deviance, questionable research/reporting practices, and quantitative methods. Elisa Adriasola is a researcher and lecturer at Universidad Adolfo Ibanez, Chile. Her research focuses on issues related to leadership in teams, motivation, leader development, diversity and multilevel phenomena. Amer Ali Al-Atwi is a professor of organizational behavior at Al Muthanna University. His research focuses broadly on leadership, organizational misbehavior, work stress, organizational identification, and issues in social network. Alicia Arenas is associate professor at Universidad de Sevilla. Her research is currently focused on diversity and occupational health, paying attention to develop diversity policies in order to create more inclusive, sustainable, and healthy workplaces. Kokou A. Atitsogbe is a graduate of Msc in work and organizational psychology and currently a PhD student and a Junior FNS researcher in career counseling at the University of Lausanne. His domains of research include career counseling and occupational integration, career development, cross-cultural psychology, psychometrics, and personality psychology. Stephen Barrett is researcher at Technical University Dublin. His research focuses on applied machine learning and statistics. Anindo Bhattacharjee is an assistant professor of General Management at Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (NMIMS), Mumbai, India. His research focuses on leadership, management of public/private health systems in emerging markets, organizational psychology, and ethics. He also actively speaks on ancient wisdom for modern management to youth and business leaders in various forums and has been a TEDx speaker in 2019. KNOLL ET AL.641 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Norman Blanco is a political scientist and student of the master's degree in urban government at the National University of Colombia and member of the security and defense research group at the same university. He has research experience in security and defense, civil-military relations, citizen security, and organizational silence. Sabina Bogilovi cis researcher and lecturer at Faculty of Public Administration, University of Ljubljana. Her research focuses on issues related to creativity, innovation, knowledge exchange, and diversity. Grégoire Bollmann is senior lecturer at the University of Zurich. His research interests include contextual influences of unethical behaviors at work and dynamics of career events, resources, and well-being. Janine Bosak is professor of work and organizational psychology at Dublin City University. Her research interests lie in the areas of women and leadership, employee well-being in organizations, and culture. Cagri Bulut is a professor and director of the Strategy and Excellence Office at Yasar University. His research focuses on strategic orientations, innovation management, and employee attitudes. Madeline Carter is an organizational psychologist and a senior lecturer at Northumbria University. Her research focuses on workplace bullying and incivility, training and learning, and employee silence in healthcare. Matej Cerne is associate professor at the University of Ljubljana. His research interests include the study of creativity and innovation, knowledge hiding, leadership, digital work, and multi-level issues in management. Susanna L. M. Chui is an assistant professor of the Department Management at the Hang Seng University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include leadership and identity, leadership development, social entrepreneurship, and hybrid organizing. Donatella Di Marco is assistant professor at Universidad de Sevilla (Spain) and researcher at the Business Research Unit of Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (Portugal). Her research focuses on participation at work, diversity management, and inclusive organizations. Gesa Solveig Duden is a researcher at the University of Osnabrueck, the University of Leipzig, Germany, and the Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil. Her research centers around culture and psychology, mostly related to questions of transcultural psychiatry, mental health, migration, and intercultural communication. Vicki Elsey is an associate professor of occupational and organizational psychology at Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK. Her research focuses on sustainable employability and factors that impact on career development and choice. Makoto Fujimura is an associate professor at Fukuoka Jo Gakuin University. Her research areas are social psychology and organizational psychology. Paola Gatti is a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Torino Department of Psychology (Italy). Her research interests focus on leadership and followership, well-being and motivation at work, and identity dynamics on the job. Chiara Ghislieri is an associate professor at the University of Torino Department of Psychology (Italy). Her research addresses a variety of issues associated with employee well-being at work, leadership and followership, work-family balance, and vocational guidance. Steffen R. Giessner is professor of organizational behavior and change at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. His primary research topics are employee support during organizational merger, follower's perceptions of leadership, antecedents of leader behavior, and non-verbal communication of power. Kenta Hino is a researcher and professor at Komazawa University. His research concern is organization theory and organizational behavior, especially leadership studies. Joeri Hofmans is professor of work and organizational psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. His primary research interests focus on the role of personality, leadership, and motivation at work, with particular emphasis on within-person fluctuations and temporal dynamics. Thomas F. Jønsson is an associate professor at Aarhus University, Denmark. His research focuses on psychological perspectives on employee involvement and leadership. Pazambadi Kazimna is a researcher and lecturer at the Department of Applied Psychology, University of Lomé, Togo. His research focuses on issues related to work design and career development. Kevin B. Lowe is the professor in leadership at the University of Sydney Business School. His research focuses on leadership, followership, and cross-cultural management. Juliana Malagón is researcher and assistant professor at Universidad de Los Andes School of Management. Her research focuses on issues related to financial markets, idiosyncratic risk, and price dynamics. 642 KNOLL ET AL. 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Hassan Mohebbi's main research interests are individual differences, writing, and assessment literacy. He is an editorial board member of Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education (Springer), Language Testing in Asia (Springer), Language Teaching Research Quarterly (EUROKD), Frontiers in Psychology, and Frontiers in Communication. Anthony Montgomery is professor of work and organizational psychology at the University of Macedonia, Greece. His research focuses on issues related to job burnout, patient safety, quality of care, and organizational interventions in healthcare. Lucas Monzani is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at Ivey Business School in Western University (Canada). His research interests are positive leadership and promoting sustained excellence in organizations. Anne Nederveen Pieterse is associate professor of organizational behavior at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam. She has a PhD from Rotterdam School of Management. Her research interests include leadership, selfmanagement, team information processing, goal orientation, team diversity, and innovation. Muhammed Ngoma is a researcher and professor at Makerere University Business School. He holds a PhD in Business Administration. His current research interests are in the areas of firm internationalization/international entrepreneurship, cross-cultural issues in international business, employee silence, and graduate employability. Emir Ozeren is an associate professor of management and organization studies in the Faculty of Tourism at Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey. He has been also affiliated as a member of the research group in the Centre for Inclusive and Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Innovation (CISEI) at the University of Southampton, UK. He holds a PhD degree with “excellent cum laude”from the University of Rome “Tor Vergata,”Italy. His research focuses on issues related to equality, diversity, and inclusion in the workplace, gender, queer, and critical management studies, social sustainability, organization behavior, and tourism sociology. Deirdre O'Shea is senior lecturer in work and organizational psychology at the Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Ireland. Her research focuses on psychological resource based interventions, self-regulation, work motivation, trust, and various work-related behaviors, including proactive behavior, voice, silence, and incivility. Christina Lundsgaard Ottsen is a management consultant specializing in diversity and inclusive leadership. Previously a PostDoc at the Department of Psychology, Aarhus University, where she received her PhD. Jennifer Pickett, PhD, is a work psychologist, Alaskan fisherpoet, and freelance writer. She specializes in personality at work and enhancing employee well-being in maritime and extreme environments. Anna Armeini Rangkuti is a lecturer of psychology at Universitas Negeri in Jakarta, Indonesia. Her research focuses on learning, academic integrity, peer reporting, and silence. Now she is a PhD student at Faculty of Psychology Universitas Indonesia. Sylwiusz Retowski is researcher and lecturer at SWPS University (Poland). His research focuses on issues related to organizational attitudes, leadership, coping with situations of uncertainty, and organizational change. Farzad Sattari Ardabili is assistant professor in the Department of Management, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil Branch, Ardabil, Iran. His research focuses on leadership and organizational behavior, especially on managerial wisdom, career adaptability, ambidextrous behavior, and self-efficacy. Dr. Razia Shaukat is a research fellow at Comsats University, Islamabad. Her research focuses on issues related to employees' silence, interpersonal conflict, workplace well-being, and performance. Silvia A. Silva is associate professor and researcher at ISCTE - Instituto Universitário de Lisboa. Her research focuses on issues related to employee safety and health at work, climate, learning, silence, and voice. Ana Šimuni cis an assistant professor at the Department of Psychology of the University of Zadar, Croatia. She is involved in courses on psychometrics, scientific methodology, and ecological psychology. Her research interests are related to topics in organizational and ecological psychology, especially work-life integration issues. Niklas K. Steffens is Australian Research Council DECRA fellow and senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland. His work centers on leadership and followership, group processes and team work, and health and well-being in applied contexts. Faniya Sultanova works as a specialist in educational and methodical work at Lomonosov Moscow State University. Her research interests focus on mental health and its cognitive and emotional bases. Daria Szücs was born in Timis¸oara and received her BSc from Chemnitz University of Technology. She is currently doing her MSc in psychology at the University of Hamburg. Susana M. Tavares is researcher at the Business Research Unit of ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Portugal. Her research focuses on issues related to innovation and employee creativity, organizational identification, well-being at work, work-family interface, and entrepreneurship. KNOLL ET AL.643 10991379, 2021, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2512 by Universidad De Sevilla, Wiley Online Library on [09/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License