Silence in the workplace: what do we know from research?

We adopted the systematic literature review (SLR) methodology to address the three research questions. This approach synthesizes existing bodies of knowledge through a structured analysis of relevant research findings, using a specific search strategy (Snyder, 2019). SLR enables researchers to categorize and extract unique themes, identify gaps in the literature and recommend areas for future research (Motyka, 2018). To ensure rigor in the search process, we followed the preferred reporting items for systematic review guidelines. Our search focused on publications since 2013, reflecting our interest in acquiring the holistic understanding of research on silence in the workplace. We conducted separate searches for organizational silence and employee silence, each following the same three-stage process outlined below.

In the initial search stage, we identified 300 articles using three databases: ProQuest, Web of Science and Scopus. Our search criteria included only peer-reviewed, full text, English-language publications containing the keywords: organizational silence or organisational silence. We organized the search results by article titles and the authors’ first name, and then removed 206 duplicates found across the databases. In the second stage, we screened the abstracts of the remaining 194 publications by adding an additional inclusion criterion: only empirical studies that focused on employees in organizational contexts. This criterion helped us narrow the results down to 116 articles for further consideration. In the third stage, we excluded 35 inaccessible articles and those that were duplicates of employee silence studies. We then read the remaining 81 articles in full. After a careful review, we excluded two unrelated articles, leaving a total of 79 articles for final analysis (see Figure 1). Articles were assigned coded numbers at each stage to prevent missing data.

Our search for employee silence literature followed the same process, using the same databases and criteria as described earlier. Using one overarching term, employee silence, our initial search yielded 373 results. After removing duplicates, 250 articles remained for abstract screening. At this stage, we excluded 86 unrelated articles and nonempirical research (e.g. measurement development/validation study, conceptual paper, literature review), leaving 164 articles for further review. Subsequently, an additional 30 articles were removed due to inaccessibility or duplicate with organizational silence studies, and 21 more unrelated articles were excluded. Our multiple-round of screening led to a total of 113 articles for final analysis (see Figure 2).

To facilitate the analysis, we organized the articles on organizational silence and employee silence into two separate files, following Garrard’s (2007) matrix method. Each article was coded to extract information in the following areas: author(s), article title, publication year, methodology, methods, measurement, sample, key factors related to either organizational silence or employee silence and major findings. We then performed a thematic analysis, identifying major themes in response to the three research questions, which are reported in the following sections.

This section addresses definitional issues. Our analysis shows that some researchers treated organizational silence and employee silence as two different concepts, while others made no distinction. To avoid further confusion, below we discuss these two concepts separately.

Table 1 presents the definitions cited in the 79 studies we reviewed. In general, the terms – organizational silence and employee silence – were used interchangeably, making it difficult to identify a specific definition. Morrison and Milliken (2000) were the first to define organizational silence, describing it as a barrier to organizational change and development. Building on their work, Bagheri et al. (2012) incorporated individual intention into the definition. Bowen and Blackmon (2003), on the other hand, framed silence within a group context. Despite these variations, all three definitions recognize workplace silence as a collective social phenomenon with organizational-level impacts.

While not a primary focus of our research, examining how silence was measured by researchers provided valuable insights into the dimensions of silence that have attracted scholarly attention, helping us understand the reasoning behind different definitions. Our analysis of the quantitative studies led to three findings. First, more than half of the studies used measures that included motivational factors of silence, with Dyne et al. (2003) employee-level silence framework being the most widely used. Second, only a few studies used measurements related to organizational culture or climate factors. Finally, some studies used self-developed instruments or revised versions of existing measurements. Interestingly, although organizational silence is commonly recognized as a collective-level phenomenon, most of the studies on organizational silence examined silence behaviors at the individual level, often focusing on different motivations behind silence (see Table 2).

Table 3 presents popular definitions of employee silence. Among them, Dyne et al. (2003) conceptualization is the most frequently cited, followed by Pinder and Harlos (2001) and Morrison and Milliken (2000). However, Morrison and Milliken (2000) definition, which describes silence as a collective-level phenomenon (i.e. organizational silence), was sometimes used interchangeably when referring to employee silence. Compared to the organizational silence literature, employee silence is more often discussed in relation to voice behavior.

The majority of the studies used Dyne et al. (2003) measurement or Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) adaptation, which was based on Dyne et al. (2003) measurement. Similarly, Knoll and Van Dick (2013) and Jain’s (2015) measurements were rooted in Dyne et al. (2003) work. Although less frequently used, the measurements, developed by Detert and Edmondson (2011), Zheng et al. (2008), Vakola and Bouradas (2005) and Brinsfield (2013), share dimensions similar to those in the more widely used measurements (see Table 4).

In this section, we compare the similar and distinct antecedents of employee silence and organizational silence that emerged from the literature review, providing valuable insights into the factors influencing these silence behaviors at different levels within the workplace. As shown in Table 5, the similar antecedents (i.e. organizational support, positive work environment, organizational politics, organizational justice, different types of leadership) are categorized at the organizational level and were identified in both literature on employee silence and organizational silence. Given the extensive number of studies included in our final analysis, we primarily focused on key articles related to each theme.

Among the 192 studies in our final pool, only one study (Emelifeonwu and Valk, 2019) examined how macro-level contextual factors, such as sub-Saharan African culture and labor market conditions, contributed to employee silence in Nigeria. In this specific context, Nigeria’s culture of tribalism sometimes makes it difficult for employees to express their opinions.

Organizational culture affects both employee silence and organizational silence. For instance, the Chinese Chaxu atmosphere, where leaders classify members as in-group or out-group based on relationship intimacy, was found to increase employee silence and reduce organizational responsibility behavior (Zhang et al., 2021). In the hostile industrial relations climate, employees who do not align with management values may increase their defensive silence and decide to leave the organization (Jiang and Yao, 2020). Furthermore, organizations that emphasize customer participation in value co-creation may pressure employees to satisfy even unfriendly customers, leading to silence (Boadi et al., 2020). The use of authority and power by supervisors, especially in high-power distance organizations, can lead to communication problems and cause less powerful employees to remain silent (Dedahanov et al., 2016; Şahin et al., 2021). In collectivist organizational cultures, employees may choose to remain silent to avoid interpersonal conflict (Dedahanov et al., 2016). Moreover, punishment can foster fear among employees, making them reluctant to express disagreement on organizational issues or share information (Dedahanov et al., 2015; Rhee et al., 2014).

When employees perceive a lack of organizational justice or a breach of the psychological contract, they may respond with distrust and alleviate pressure by displaying negative work attitudes and behaviors, such as employee silence (Wu et al., 2021). However, Ölçer and Coşkun (2024) noticed that organizational justice positively affected organizational silence. This discrepancy in the results between the studies is due to cultural characteristics as the silence in Turkey is regarded as a respectful act (Ölçer and Coşkun, 2024). Because of strict organizational control, limited decision-making involvement or feeling unappreciated, managers also likely to remain silent (Dellve and Jendeby, 2022). In addition, individuals who perceive racial discrimination at work use silence as a coping behavior in stressful circumstances (Gu et al., 2021). Women facing career barriers, such as gender stereotypes or work environment barriers, may also prefer to remain silent, especially when seeking promotion (İnandi et al., 2017).

On the other hand, recognizing and praising employees’ personality, competence or job performance (i.e. through positive workplace gossip) can reduce silence behavior (Liao et al., 2022). An organization’s caring ethical climate can not only enhance employees’ psychological safety and positive attitude toward organizations but also decrease acquiescent and defensive silence (Zhang and Cao, 2021). In addition, a voice climate in the workplace can help reduce acquiescent silence (Knoll et al., 2021). Furthermore, fair treatment of employees fosters psychological safety and organizational trust, which eventually reduces silence behavior (Wu et al., 2021).

Because leaders have significant influence on organizational culture and employee behavior, different social environments are created based on how they treat employees (Fahie, 2019). In addition, leaders’ traits, personality, behaviors and attitudes impact employee silence (Brinsfield, 2013). For example, narcissistic leadership (Mousa et al., 2021; Hamstra et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2021) and abusive supervision have been shown to increase employees’ defensive and acquiescent silence (e.g. Afshan et al., 2022; Al-Hawari et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2024; Lam and Xu, 2019). Toxic leadership and destructive leadership, along with other negative forms, deplete employees’ resources and prompt them to remain silent (Wu et al., 2018). This leadership also impairs individuals’ perception of organizational justice, leading to organizational silence (Reyhanoglu and Akin, 2022). Leaders who focus exclusively on achieving bottom-line goals can cause employees’ emotional exhaustion in the pursuit of success, ultimately resulting in their silence (Wan et al., 2021). In addition, leaders who degrade subordinates via disrespectful body language, negative words (e.g. negative humors) and emotional expression may trigger subordinates’ desire for revenge, reduce their sense of psychological safety and increase employee silence (Afshan et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2022).

On the contrary, empowering leadership, where authority or power is shared with employees, boosts employees’ intrinsic motivation, enhances trust in supervisors and encourages participation in decision-making, thus reducing silence (Hassan et al., 2019; Ju et al., 2019). Furthermore, alignment between a leader’s words and actions builds trust and stimulates employees’ self-efficacy to contribute to their organization (Erkutlu and Chafra, 2019). Leaders who care about followers within and outside the work domain (i.e. benevolent leadership) and give high-quality leader-member exchanges (LMX) can decrease employees’ silence (Li and Xing, 2021). In addition, leaders who effectively manage both their own and employee’s emotions help break the barrier of subordinates’ silence behavior (Khan et al., 2022). Similarly, manager’s openness for voice also helps subordinates to reduce both acquiescent silence and quiescent silence (Knoll et al., 2021).

Research further shows that authentic leadership promotes employees’ constructive cognition, which eventually decreases acquiescent and quiescent silence, particularly on moral issues (Frömmer et al., 2021). Interestingly, ambidextrous leadership, which involves encouraging both exploratory and exploitative behaviors, when done properly, can reduce employee silence (Wu et al., 2022). Transformational leaders prevent organizational silence by creating a satisfying and productive work environment that supports the development of employees’ self-confidence and ability (Ahmadi et al., 2015; Atalay et al., 2019). Meanwhile, leaders’ communication skills (e.g. empathy, social relaxation and support) are important in motivating employees to participate in decision-making and express their opinions freely (DURNALI et al., 2019). In sum, leaders and managers play a critical role in influencing organizational silence (Alqarni, 2020).

Compared to organizational culture and leadership-related variables, less attention has been given to structural issue, job status and social relationship-related variables in studies on silence in the workplace. Under a centralized structure where decision-making power is concentrated by the top management, lower-level employees tend to be less empowered and more disengaged (Dedahanov et al., 2015). Structural reforms, such as mergers or splits of organizational units, can also trigger defensive silence among employees as they seek to avoid conflicts and eventually increases following repeated organizational structural reform (Wynen et al., 2020). In addition, when employees experience job insecurity, they are more likely to engage in acquiescent silence and defensive silence (Son et al., 2023) and this positive relationship was stronger for those who are in highly political work environment. Furthermore, damage to social relationships within the organization such as social undermining, workplace bullying, workplace mobbing, workplace incivility and ostracism, also increases both organizational and employee silence. Simply put, these negative social interactions can exacerbate silence behaviors and harm employees’ psychological health, trust and performance (e.g. Ayub et al., 2021; Dingren, 2020; Hüsrevsahi, 2015; Jung and Yoon, 2019; Khan et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020; Sahabuddin et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2022).

When individuals feel a sense of team commitment, they are motivated to work toward the team’s goals and consider speaking up as a key part of their responsibilities (Qian et al., 2021). Similarly, employee’s attachment to the organization helps reduce organizational silence (Bayramoglu and Cetinkanat, 2020). On the other hand, employee authenticity, a sense of being genuine and true to oneself in thoughts, feelings and actions, has been found to predict more voice behaviors and less employee silence (Knoll and Van Dick, 2013). However, some employees may choose to remain silent due to feelings of insecurity related to their newness on the job, past unsuccessful experiences or negative impacts from supervisors (Robinson and Shuck, 2019; Son et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2023). In addition, organizational silence was found in the nursing field when employees experience moral distress caused by constraints in the work environment (Pejmankhah and Pezhmankhah, 2022).

In organizations, employees’ involuntary extra-role work activities, known as compulsory citizenship behavior, can create significant pressure and negative emotions, ultimately triggering employee silence (He et al., 2019; Su et al., 2021). Bari et al. (2020) identified that when employees observe their coworkers or supervisors concealing knowledge, they become hesitant to speak up and choose to remain silent in response. This reaction is influenced by the perception that they are being mistreated by their colleagues.

The high acceptance of unequal power distribution within an organization positively affects employees’ silence behaviors, often driven by resignation and fear. Research evidence shows that when an individual attempts to align with a popular figure in the organization or seeks mutual support among peers to increase their organizational power, it primarily influences their prosocial silence rather than defensive silence (Gencer et al., 2018).

Employees who strongly identify with their organization and feel a sense of belonging tend to be emotionally connected to the organization, leading to reduced silence behavior (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Hassan et al., 2019). Conversely, individuals with a strong relational self-identity are more likely to engage in prosocial silence when the colleague in question is part of their social network (Hawass, 2016).

Some studies within the employee silence and organizational silence literature indicate that silence is influenced by demographic characteristics such as gender, age, tenure, education, marital status, total working time and the size of the organization (Labrague and De los Santos, 2020; Sağlam et al., 2019). For instance, Yuan et al. (2021) found that migrant workers with dependent children tend to remain silent even when facing violations of their rights and interests in the workplace. Their silence is driven by the need to sustain their livelihood in a foreign country. However, other studies revealed no significant relationship between demographic variables and organizational silence (Girgin and Gümüşeli, 2021; Köse and Köse, 2019). These contradictory results seem to stem from cultural and contextual differences in the context where the studies were conducted.

Employees with narcissistic personality traits tend to remain silent as a self-protection strategy due to their vulnerable self-esteem and excessive care about how others perceive them (Wan et al., 2021). While emotional intelligence is often seen as a positive competence that fosters better interpersonal relationships and effective communication, Saeed et al. (2021) pointed out its dark side. Specifically, their study revealed that individuals with high emotional intelligence might be more likely to become morally disengaged, using their emotional sills to manipulate others for personal gain, which can lead to silence in certain situations.

Family support, as a form of social support, plays a pivotal role in mitigating the adverse impacts of the work environment on employees. Understood from the spillover theory, family support extends its influence to employee silence within the workplace by alleviating negative work attitudes, such as work cynicism (Zhang et al., 2019). Furthermore, enhancing social capital, which emphasizes relationships, interactions and shared norms among individuals, can reduce organizational silence and enhance organizational voice (Soreshjani et al., 2018).

Interestingly, only one study examined team-level variable as an antecedent of employee silence at the individual level. In this study (Pilař et al., 2014), the researchers found that clear team goals and vision, support for innovative ideas from team members, progress toward development and regular contact with the team members encouraged the development of employee initiative and reduced employees’ tendency to withhold new ideas due to fear (Pilař et al., 2014).

In this section, we compare similar and different consequences of employee silence and organizational silence identified in the literature review, offering valuable insights into the effects of silence behavior at different levels in the workplace. Unlike the antecedents of silence in the workplace, the consequences tend to overlap at the individual level. Similar outcomes such as burnout, turnover intention, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, self-efficacy, counterproductive work behavior, were found in both employee silence and organizational silence literature (see Table 6).

According to Oyerinde (2020), a low degree of organizational silence positively impacts institutional effectiveness – achievement of organizational goals and objectives. In other words, employees’ active engagement in organization management enhances organizational effectiveness. Based on this finding, we can safely assume that a high degree of organizational silence is likely to be associated with low organizational effectiveness. In the case of healthcare professionals, organizational silence has been shown to impair performance and reduce synergy (Harmanci Seren et al., 2018; Yurdakul et al., 2016).

To gain a competitive advantage, organizations must foster creativity and innovation. Employees’ ability to generate new knowledge or apply existing knowledge for problem-solving is a key asset. Knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing are crucial as they promote information exchange and collective learning within an organization (Elrehail et al., 2018). Because key knowledge management processes such as knowledge transfer and sharing) rely on social interactions among organizational members, organizational silence can significantly inhibit creativity, knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and even organizational learning (Atalla et al., 2022; Sadeghi and Razavi, 2020).

Similar consequences are found in the employee silence and organizational silence literature, particularly regarding individual’s psychological constructs. For example, Knoll et al. (2019) noted a positive relationship between resignation and fear-motivated silence with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, a subconstruct of burnout. Regarding self-efficacy, two studies reported conflicting results. Chou and Chang (2020) demonstrated that when individuals withhold information for personal gain while disregarding harm to others (i.e. opportunistic silence), it negatively impacts job self-efficacy, as it undermines their perceived ability to perform effectively in their roles. Conversely, Alheet (2019) found that the participants in his study used silence (by not publicly expressing their opinions) as a strategy to avoid mistakes and harm. In this sense, employees used silence to control and solve problems, which increased their self-efficacy.

Fear and repression in the workplace reduce employee’s organizational commitment, which is influenced by perceptions of alignment with the organization’s goal, the belief that one can make a difference for the organization and the belief that one’s efforts are respected (e.g. Cetin, 2020; Delhomme et al., 2008; Sadeghi and Razavi, 2020). Also, organizational silence negatively affects person-organization fit (Sariboga and Serin, 2020). Employees who are exposed to such a negative environment perceive the organization as less attractive, leading to higher intentions to leave or lower job satisfaction and performance (e.g. Aiman-Smith et al., 2001; Reyhanoglu and Akin, 2022). Furthermore, employees who are dissatisfied with organizational communication experience poor information exchanges within the organization (Doo and Choi, 2021). Lacking support from other members, they feel lonely, isolated and undervalued (Cetinkaya and Karayel, 2019). When employees choose to withhold their expression for self-protection (i.e. quiescent silence), they feel powerless and demotivated to initiate changes that will improve organizational effectiveness, which leads to decreased organization-based self-esteem (Chou and Chang, 2020).

Employee silence prevents smooth communication between employees and hinders innovative work behavior, which relies heavily on knowledge sharing (Chen et al., 2022; Islam et al., 2022; Maqbool et al., 2019). Consistent experiences of uncomfortable silence can lead to increased stress, reduced task performance and an uptick in deviant behaviors (Dong and Chung, 2021). Moreover, employee silence can lower contextual performance, which involves voluntary behaviors beyond formal job duties, and lead to job burnout (Shaukat and Khurshid, 2022). When employees remain silent due to disengagement, they become more vulnerable to bullying, with responses ranging from aggressive counterproductive work behavior to defensive silence driven by fear (Kim et al., 2020). On a more positive side, Shahjehan and Yasir (2017) highlighted the importance of balancing prosocial silence (withholding information to protect each other) with prosocial voice (speaking up to improve the organization) to display citizenship behavior in the workplace. However, defensive silence has been shown to reduce nurses’ willingness to report errors in their workplace (Kim et al., 2014).

Among the existing literature we reviewed, Yurdakul et al. (2016) study is the only one that examines the impact of silence on performance quality improvement and employee development. By focusing on nurses and midwives, the researchers revealed that organizational silence limits opportunity for improvement and development.

As shown in Tables 5 and 6, silence in the workplace is influenced by external, organizational, team and individual factors, and it negatively impacts both organizations and individuals. Addressing this issue is essential for promoting employee well-being and maintaining a healthy organization. In this section, we compare the moderators of employee silence and organizational silence based on a literature review (see Table 7). Moderators differ from antecedents because they affect the strength of the relationship between variables. As depicted in Table 7, organizational politics and organizational identification were identified as key factors that can help mitigate silence in the workplace.

Union support serves as an external resource that can mitigate the negative effects of workplace exclusion (Dingren, 2020). According to the conservation of resource theory, union support plays a key role in alleviating resource loss caused by workplace ostracism, reducing emotional exhaustion and eventually decreasing employee silence (Dingren, 2020).

An organization’s ethical culture provides employees with a chance to cope with observed racial discrimination by upholding shared norms and fostering the perception that the organization is a safe place to speak up (Gu et al., 2021). However, even in a strong ethical culture, employees may remain silent about racial discrimination to protect their social resources, particularly in light of social movements such as Black Lives Matter. In a forgiveness-oriented organizational climate, employees expect to receive rewards and support for demonstrating tolerance and kindness toward offenses. Liu et al. (2020) found that a forgiveness climate weakens the negative impact of workplace bullying on psychological safety, eventually increasing affective commitment and decreasing employee silence. In a hospital setting, a knowledge sharing climate increased nurses’ willingness to report near misses, even among those who tend to remain silent due to fear (Kim et al., 2014). In addition, employees who perceive career growth opportunities within the organization tend to feel confident and optimistic, which reduces job insecurity, resource depletion and silence behavior (Yu et al., 2023). Employees who perceive fairness in decision-making procedures and interpersonal treatment are also more likely to experience positive effect, further helping to reduce employee silence (Huang and Huang, 2016).

Madrid et al. (2015) argued that when employees experience unpleasant feelings, such as high-activated negative core affect, they may engage in withdrawal behavior like silence to protect their well-being. However, in job situations that require diagnosing and solving complex problems, as well as preventing and recovering from errors, the need to confront challenges decreases employee silence.

Although a supervisor’s narcissism and a follower’s negative perception may lead to silence behavior, trust between leaders and their individual followers within a group or organization can mitigate the negative influence of supervisor narcissism (Wang et al., 2018). In contrast, high-quality LMX relationships can exacerbate the negative effects of social undermining, leading to increased emotional exhaustion and employee silence (Xu et al., 2022). In the context of Chinese culture, guanxi, a strong reciprocal relationship between supervisor and subordinate based on mutual trust, support and understanding, reduces the negative impacts of perceived compulsory citizenship behavior on subordinate’s moral disengagement and decreases the probability of engaging in silent behavior (He et al., 2019).

Employees working in an environment characterized by abusive supervision and high-power distance culture tend to exhibit silence behavior and are reluctant to share knowledge. However, employees with a strong sense of psychological ownership and a tight connection to the organization are more inclined to contribute to its success, resulting to a reduction in silence behavior (Islam et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2018). Furthermore, individuals who prioritize maintaining consistency with their moral self and promote ethical behavior are less likely to be affected by workplace ostracism, which, in turn, reduces their engagement in silence behavior (Sahabuddin et al., 2023). In addition, when individuals experience stress due to time constraints in their daily work-related tasks, it can help mitigate the negative effects of employee silence on innovative work behavior (Maqbool et al., 2019). However, Maqbool et al. (2019) called for additional managerial and organizational interventions to effectively address and eliminate silence behavior in the workplace.

When employees demonstrate psychological detachment, such as having the intention to leave the organization, the impact of abusive supervision on their tendency to remain silent and withhold information is reduced (Xu et al., 2020).

Employees with emotional intelligence, characterized by the ability to understand and regulate both their own and others’ emotions, are better equipped to cope with workplace ostracism and less likely to use of adopting defensive silence as a response (Ayub et al., 2021). In addition, employees with higher political skill are more adept at navigating dynamics of their workplace relationships, which strengthens their relational identification with an integrity-driven leader and reduces silence behavior (Erkutlu and Chafra, 2019).

Coworker support acts as a buffer, mitigating the negative effect of leader’s aggressive humor on subordinate’s psychological security, ultimately reducing employee silence (Wei et al., 2022). In addition, coworker support can help individuals better deal with job insecurity by reducing stress and ego depletion, thus preventing silence behavior in the workplace (Yu et al., 2023). Employees who have established strong friendships at work experience greater social support, decreased silence and are better prepared to cope with the negative effects of workplace bullying (Rai and Agarwal, 2018).

Employees with high conscientiousness are responsible, organized and thorough in their work-related tasks and responsibilities. When the leader prioritizes profit maximization and imposes this focus on their employees, subordinates may experience emotional exhaustion and engage in silence behavior. However, those with high conscientiousness can buffer the negative effects of such detrimental leadership behavior and effectively cope with resource depletion in the workplace (Wan et al., 2021).

Individuals with a promotion-focused regulatory focus tend to seek positive outcomes when facing organizational challenges. Liao et al. (2022) showed that in environments where job performance and competence are acknowledged and praised, employees experience increased psychological safety that helps reduce silence in the workplace. In fact, psychological safety is found to be particularly helpful in reducing silence for individuals with a high promotion-focused regulatory focus.

This systematic review aimed to provide evidence-based clarity regarding the similarities and differences between the two debated concepts, organizational silence and employee silence. In this section, we discuss our key findings and their implications for research and practice by taking a closer look at the antecedents and consequences of these two concepts. First, the antecedents of both organizational silence and employee silence exist at two levels: organizational (contextual) level and individual level. At the organizational level, factors such as organizational structure, culture and leadership were key antecedents. Hence, we conclude that silence in the workplace is influenced by internal and external contextual factors, including organizational structure, culture, climate and leadership. Leaders play a crucial role in shaping organizational culture and employees’ work behavior. When leaders show respect and care for employees, organizational silence is likely reduced. On the contrary, when leaders dismiss employees’ input or act unfairly, both organizational and employee silence would be increased.

Because Dyne et al. (2003) and Pinder and Harlos (2001) proposed the concept of employee silence based on Morrison and Milliken (2000) conceptualization of organizational silence, these two terms share some commonalities. However, the individual level of antecedents showed a clear difference between the two concepts. Most of the organizational silence studies focus on general characteristics of individuals such as demographics and behaviors that cause silence in the workplace. On the contrary, most of the employee silence studies focused on individual psychological aspects, such as motivation, autonomy and identification. This supports Morrison and Milliken (2000) and Harlos’s (2016) argument that organizational silence is primarily about collective behavior of employees rather than employees’ psychological aspects. Notably, compared to research on employee silence, organizational silence studies paid much less attention to antecedents that might reduce organizational silence.

Our review shows that consequences of organizational silence can be seen at both organizational and individual levels. Organization-level consequences were related to organizational performance and effectiveness, while the individual-level consequences were associated with organizational commitment. In contrast, consequences of employee silence are only identified at the individual level. The reviewed literature suggests that employee silence negatively impacts individuals’ psychological health and performance, leading to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, job burnout and lack of innovative work behavior. These findings reaffirm that organizational silence is a collective-level phenomenon, while employee silence pertains to individual-level behavior.

According to our review, the perception of silence in organizations is overwhelming negative, evidenced by only 2 out of 192 studies framed it positively (Alheet, 2019; Srivastava et al., 2019). Nevertheless, we argued that organizational silence can be considered as an opportunity or strategy to avoid potential conflict, stress, mistakes and harm caused by speaking up in the workplace. By remaining silent, employees can also conserve their resources.

Despite the multidimensional nature of employee silence, most studies included in this review treated it as a one-dimensional construct. This makes it difficult to examine the distinct antecedents or consequences of each form of employee silence. While various motives behind employee silence (e.g. resignation, fear and cooperation) have been identified, more research is needed, given that this area of study is still in its infancy. Further systematic investigations will help reveal the root causes of silence among organizational members and enable organizational leaders and HRD practitioners to address this workplace issue in a timely and effective manner.

With the heightened awareness that silence impact on diverse organizational and individual-related outcomes, HRD practitioners are better positioned to leverage social capital within organizations (Nakamura and Yorks, 2011) and develop interventions that will promptly prevent the occurrence of silence in the work context and/or effectively address its unintended consequences. As our findings show, both employee silence and organizational silence are shaped by organizational leaders who set the tone and culture for employees. Thus, to maintain organizational competitiveness, leaders must make a concerted effort to support employees by empowering them to share their opinions and voice concerns. Leaders should also model desirable behavior by actively expressing their authentic opinions and listening to employees with sincerity.

Furthermore, silence can cause serious harm to both individuals and organizations. With this heightened awareness, HRD practitioners must provide diverse opportunities such as training programs and counseling sessions, to equip employees with the skills needed to manage their psychological well-being. Programs focused on self-management, stress management, conflict management and mediation skills can be particularly beneficial. At the same time, HRD professionals should actively promote a friendly work environment that fosters strong positive relationships among employees at all levels. HRD interventions like team building, reverse mentoring and 360° feedback sessions can help create a supportive and transparent organizational culture that benefits all members.

Finally, the literature we reviewed did not address the potential impact of silence in the workplace on mental health in the workplace. Given the growing concern about mental health issues across industries, particularly during and post the COVID-19 pandemic, developing a solid understanding of silence as a potential contributor to the ongoing mental health crisis is vital. Silence behaviors, whether at the organizational or individual level, can be one of the primary factors leading to mental health problems such as stress, anxiety and degression in the workplace. To this end, we call for more research on these sensitive yet important phenomena. Research on organizational and employee silence, particularly their negative health effects, can provide valuable insights into how these behaviors contribute to workplace disengagement and poor mental health outcomes. Findings from research along this line can inform policies and interventions aimed at improving employee well-being and reducing silence-driven mental health problems. To achieve this goal, we encourage multi-disciplinary collaborations among scholars and practitioners, including HRD, healthcare, organization management, to name a few.

Although this SLR provided novel findings, it has limitations embedded in our methodological choice. In this section, we discuss four limitations and offer future research recommendations to address each of them.

First, while we were able to provide a broad understanding of the antecedents and consequences of silence in the workplace through an SLR, we did not conduct an in-depth analysis of each variable. We encourage future research to explore each factor in greater detail. For example, researchers could investigate the cause of each dimension of employee silence to suggest appropriate interventions for both employee silence and organizational silence.

Second, as mentioned earlier, we found only two studies that examined silence in organizations from a positive perspective. Therefore, there is a need for more empirical evidence that will help us gain a better understanding of the positive outcomes of silence in the workplace. To this end, we encourage collaboration between researchers and practitioners to identify and study cases of success where organizational silence or employee silence was used as a defensive strategy and yielded positive outcomes. Third, most of the studies we reviewed are quantitative. While qualitative evidence provides broad and generalizable understanding of silence in the workplace, it does not offer, rich individual perceptions and stories. To address this gap, we recommend using qualitative approaches to generate descriptive narratives that will uncover the root causes of organizational and individual silence in various contexts and provide deep insights into individual experiences.

Finally, previous literature reviews or meta-analysis on silence have primarily focused on identifying antecedents, effects and different forms of employee silence (Chou and Chang, 2020; John and Manikandan, 2019). Given the different backgrounds of these two concepts, in this article, we distinguished the characteristics of employee silence and organizational silence by examining their respective antecedents and consequences. We call for more silence studies in this area that clearly distinguish between these two concepts. Because employee silence concept was originally proposed to explain bottom-up silence in organizations, studies on employee silence have focused more on individuals’ psychological aspects than on organization-level factors. In this sense, employee silence may be seen as a precursor to organizational silence. The lack of research on the antecedents of various forms of employee silence may explain why organizational silence research has paid less attention to factors that could reduce silence at the organizational level.

Based on empirical evidence from 192 studies on organizational silence and employee silence, we provided a comprehensive list of the antecedents and consequences of these two interrelated yet distinctly different workplace phenomena. Using the SLR methodology, we discovered that organizational silence operates as a collective-level phenomenon, whereas employee silence is an individual-level behavior. Therefore, while there are commonalities between these two concepts, we conclude that they should be treated as two separate constructs in future silence research. By unpacking the damage caused by organizational and individual silence, we hope to motivate organizational leaders and HRD practitioners to proactively address these detrimental workplace issues.

Disclosure statement: No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the author.