Machine Translated by Google

820861JLOXXX10.1177/1548051818820861Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesZill et al.

research-article2018

Article

Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies
When Do Followers Compensate for 2020, Vol. 27(1) 65 -79
© The Authors 2018

Leader Silence? The Motivating Role Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1548051818820861
of Leader Injustice https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818820861
journals.sagepub.com/home/jlo

, and Bertolt Meyer1

Alexander Zill1*, Michael Knoll1*, Alexandra (Sasha) Cook1

Abstract
Leaders are important for overcoming silence in organizations, because they can serve as role models and facilitating
voices, for example, by being just. However, at times, the leaders themselves remain silent. In such instances, trickle-
down models of leadership and role-modeling theory suggest that leader silence results in follower silence. Drawing on
research on laissez-faire leadership and coping, we challenge these approaches proposing that team members can
compensate for their leader's silence. This compensatory effect, in turn, is proposed to be contingent on followers'
justice perceptions, although in a counterintuitive way: Drawing on the heuristic fairness and collective action research,
we propose that perceiving the leader as unjust makes it less likely that followers use their leader as a role model and
can motivate followers to overcome fear and resignation, eventually resulting in followers' speaking up in cases when
leaders fail to do so. Results from two studies in organizations support our assumption that jointly considering leader
and follower silence can reveal surprising effects and thus inspire new research complementing current approaches to
overcome silence and its detrimental effects for organizations and their stakeholders. Additionally, we discuss theoretical
and practical implications regarding the role of leaders, followers, and context as antecedents of silence.

Keywords
silence, leader, follower, laissez-faire leadership, justice

Silence in organizations (ie, the withholding of ideas,
views, and concerns regarding work-related issues from
others who could affect change; Pinder & Harlos, 2001)
impedes individual and collective learning and decision
making and can sustain inefficient or even unethical cir-
cumstances (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). The two most
prominent reasons for silence are fear (eg, of upsetting
others, disturbing the smooth operation of the group) and
the expectancy that addressing critical issues is futile (for
a review, see Morrison, 2014). Therefore, organizations
and researchers expect leaders to encourage and facilitate
the expression of work-related ideas and concerns (Detert
& Burris, 2007; Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992).
Leaders are supposed to improve the status quo, thereby
functioning as role models (Bandura, 1986; Schaubroeck
et al., 2012), and they are expected to establish a climate
in which their followers feel comfortable and confident to
speak up, for example, by being perceived as just
(Takeuchi, Chen, & Cheung, 2012).
Unfortunately, leaders sometimes withhold their views
and avoid leadership responsibilities (Bass & Avolio,
1990; Chang, Chou, & Han, 2018; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). Chemnitz, Wilhelm-Raabe-Straße 43, 09107 Chemnitz, Germany.
Because of their specific role in initiating improvements
and preventing their followers from harm, leaders' silence
in the face of critical issues—a behavioral facet of laissez-
faire leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Skogstad,
Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2014)—is potentially
problematic for organizations ( eg, Buch, Martinsen, &
Kuvaas, 2015; Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 200
Moreover, when leaders remain silent and passive in the
face of, for instance, inefficacy, inertia, or unethical behav-
iors, followers can see their leader's silence as exemplary,
which can establish silence as the appropriate follower
response to critical issues (Bandura, 1986; Harland,
Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005). While it seems
safe for followers to comply with their leader's silence,
such avoidant coping (Roth & Cohen, 1986) might come
with a price. Leader silence on critical issues can create a
1Technische Universität Chemnitz, Chemnitz, Germany
*Authors Alexander Zill and Michael Knoll contributed equally to
the research presented in this article.
Corresponding Author:
Alexander Zill, Institute of Psychology, Technische Universität
Email: alexander.zill@psychologie.tu-chemnitz.de
Machine Translated by Google
66
A climate of inconsistency, can result in more work for
folks who need to make up for inefficient processes,
deprives followers of organizational support, and can
create toxic workplace environments (Frost, 2004;
Kelloway, Sivanathan, Francis, & Barling, 2005; Lutgen-
Sandvik & Arsht, 2014). Consequently, followers
sometimes have rea-sons for overcoming fears and
feelings of futility and com-pensate for their leader's
silence, for example, by being the one who breaks the
silence in meetings (Cable & Judge, 2003; Carsten & Uhl-
Bien, 2013; Deluga, 1990). The cur-rent article focuses on
conditions under which followers surmount their avoidant
coping styles. It thus aims at estab-lishing a basis for
understanding when compensatory fol-lower behavior
becomes more likely which, eventually, will increase
chances to prevent or reduce maladaptive develop-ments that would have endured due to leader silence.
Recent meta-analyses and reviews on silence and
voice in organizations suggest that favorable conditions,
such as working with a leader who perceives as just,
reduces employees' uncertainty regarding the efficacy of
voice and helps in overcoming silence that is based on
fear and resistance -nation (Chamberlin, Newton, & LePine,
2017; Morrison, 2014). This research, however, focused
exclusively on followers' silence (or voice), thereby
neglecting how the respective leader behaves (ie, does or
does not address critical issues). This can be problematic,
because working for a leader who does not address
critical issues but is per-ceived as just may tempt
employees to remain silent as well. As it functions as a
social heuristic (van den Bos, 2001), a just role-model
thus bears the risk that maladap-tive developments go
unchecked. Considering this poten-tially sedating effect
of perceived justice, research on collective action (van
Stekelenburg & Klandermans, 2013; van Zomeren,
Postmes, & Spears, 2008) suggests a poten-tial bright
side of injustice, as dark as it otherwise might be (eg,
Pinder & Harlos, 2001). As injustice leads to arousal and
approach behaviors, it is a potential motivator for fol-
lowers to overcome fear and quit and speak up when their
superiors do not (Bal & van den Bos, 2017; Colquitt et al., 2013).
In the current article, we integrate research on coping
with laissez-faire leadership, justice, and collective action
to increase knowledge on the relationship between leader
and follower silence. Applying a multilevel approach that
allows for jointly considering leaders' and followers'
responses to critical issues, we examine two counterintui-
tive assumptions—a potentially negative relationship
between leader and follower silence and the (conditional)
silence-reducing effect of leader injustice—in two organi-
zations that went through significant changes previous to
the time of our study, which makes the occurrence of
critical issues likely (Fugate, Prussia, & Kinicki, 2012;
Kiefer, 2005).
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27(1)
Theoretical Background
Leader Silence and Its Consequences
For leaders, there is a social consensus that they should
intervene when they notice critical issues, such as
ineffica-cies or unethical behaviors. Creating an effective
work environment and finding ways to increase productivity
is a central leadership task (Lord, 1977; Morgeson, DeRue,
& Karam, 2010). Leaders are also responsible for protecting
their followers from harm, guaranteeing safety and ethical
standards, and assigning workload at an appropriate level
(Frost, 2004; Hackman & Wageman, 2005). At times, how-
ever, leaders fail to meet these expectations, for example,
by not confronting followers' or fellow managers' short-
comings, not addressing inefficient processes within the
team or at the interface to another team, or being reluctant
to sanction bullying within their team (eg, Frischer &
Larsson, 2000; Leyman, 1996).
Leader silence when encountering critical issues is
one behavioral facet of passive or so-called laissez-faire
leader-ship, as indicated, for example, by respective items
used in established questionnaires such as the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; eg, “My manager takes
no action even when problems become chronic”; Bass &
Avolio, 1990). Laissez-faire leadership functions as an
umbrella term for a range of leader behaviors including a
leader being absent when needed, a leader who avoids
deci-sions or does not intervene in critical situations, a
leader who delays decisions and/or fails to provide
followers with feedback (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Chang et
al., 2018; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939).
Notably, similar to situations in which leaders commit
destructive actions (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007;
Tepper, 2007), laissez-faire leadership can have detrimental
effects: A meta-analysis and a large study show links
between laissez-faire leadership and role conflict, role
ambiguity, conflicts with coworkers, low follower job
satisfaction, exposure to bullying, and low follower
satisfaction with the leader (Judge & Piccolo, 2004;
Skogstad et al., 2007). These effects were explained by
the fact that follow-ers of leaders who neglect critical
issues are likely to work in ambiguous, nonsupportive,
and even toxic environments and/or need to invest scarce
resources (eg, time, energy) to make up for inefficiencies
(Frost, 2004; Kelloway et al., 2005; Skogstad et al., 2007).
Followers' Coping With Leader Silence
Employees do not necessarily respond passively to work-
related stressors and demands (Britt, Crane, Hodson, &
Adler, 2016; Lazarus, 1991). When examining followers'
responses to forms of leadership that negatively affect
follow-lowers, prior research distinguished between approaches- and
Machine Translated by Google
Zill et al.
avoidance-oriented coping strategies (May, Wesche,
Heinitz, & Kerschreiter, 2014; Roth & Cohen, 1986;
Yagil, Ben-Zur, & Tamir, 2011). Avoidance behaviors
are directed away from the source of stress and include
absenteeism, avoiding contact with the leader, and
some forms of counterproduc-tive work behavior
(Webster, Brough, & Daley, 2016; Yagil et al., 2011).
Approach behaviors, in turn, are directed toward the
source of stress and include attacking the supervisor
or trying to solve the situation by speaking up (Cable & Judge, 2003; Hagedoorn, Buunk, & van de Vliert, 1998).
Followers are proposed to tailor their coping
strategies to the context in which they experience
demands and stress-ors, and to consider cues regarding
which strategies to use by watching how their manager
tries to lead (Bonanno, Pat-Horenczyk, & Noll, 2011;
Britt et al., 2016; Cable & Judge, 2003). Active forms of
negative leadership such as abusive leadership limit
the scope of followers' responses (eg, by intimidating
or threatening followers), increase the likeli-hood of
avoidance behaviors, and may even pressure foll-
lowers into silence (Frieder, Hochwarter, & DeOrtentiis, 2015; Morrison,
In contrast, passive forms of negative leadership (eg,
lais-sez-faire leadership) provide room for followers to
influence wield and do not prompt that change is
impossible (Hollander & Offerman, 1990; Vanderslice,
1988). By remaining silent and absent in the face of
critical issues, leaders create a vacuum that followers
can take advantage of by seizing the initiative
themselves. Moreover, leaders who remain silent when
confronted with critical issues fail to prove that they
can protect the group from harm, and thus, lose
legitimacy as a leader (Hollander & Julian, 1969; van
Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). Lacking legitimacy, in
turn, makes it less likely that followers use their leader's consequences (ie, being confronted with addi-tional
behavior (here: silence) as a model for their own
behavior (Suddaby, Bitektine, & Haack, 2017). As a
consequence, if followers are less likely to copy their
leader's silence, and if they want to avoid suffering
from the negative conse-quences of the critical issues
that their leader neglects, fo-lowers need to overcome their fear
Our assumption that followers are less likely to
respond to leader silence with avoidance-oriented
coping behavior is supported by the few studies that
examined followers' responses to passive or laissez-
faire leadership—leadership styles that include leader
silence. Using a scenario approach, Deluga (1990)
found that—compared with participants who were assigned treated
Those who were assigned to laissez-faire leaders were
less likely to remain passive (but opted to obtain the
support of other people in the organization). Cable and
Judge (2003) achieved similar results with a survey
study that examined the tactics managers use when
they try to influence their own superiors (thus providing
a rare example for a study that examines managers in their role
67
Their supervisor displayed a laissez-faire leadership
style, managers used more demanding tactics (eg,
building coalitions, using demands and threats) than
when their supervisor displayed transformational
leadership. Based on our theoretical arguments and
the limited evidence avail- able, we expect:
Hypothesis 1: Follower silence is negatively related
to leader silence.
Perceived (In)justice as a Trigger for Follower
Coping
While leader silence and laissez-faire leadership in
general create a vacuum that invites followers to take
advantage of, it is far from certain that followers use
this leeway and com-pensate for their leader's silence
(Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2013; Uhl- Bien & Carsten, 2007).
Speaking up when one's leader remains silent requires
effort, for instance, for figuring out ways to improve the
situation, See,
and one&may
Pan,be 2015; Xu,toLoi,
asked & Lam, 2015).
implement one's
suggestions, probably on top of one's regu-lar workload
(Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Chiaburu, Marinova, & Van
Dyne, 2008). In addition to an increased workload,
breaking the silence leads to uncertain outcomes. While
copying a leader's silence can be a relatively safe
option (at least with regard to immediate consequences),
breaking the silence may annoy superiors or peers who
were responsible for, tolerated, or benefited from the
status quo (Burris, 2012; Kim, Rosen , & Lee, 2009). The
prospect of both positive (ie, preventing themselves
from the negative effects that may follow from the
critical issues their leader neglects) and negative
workload and facing negative consequences from peers
and their leader) raises questions Regarding the factors that trigger
We propose that followers' perceptions of leader
justice influence this decision. Fairness and justice
are central char-acteristics when followers evaluate
theirand resignation,
leaders (Gillilandand thus1999;
& Day, , not remain
Graen &silent.
Scandura,
1987), and perceived leader justice is connected to
affect-based and cognition-based trust in the leader's
actions which, in turn , affects lower attitudes,
motivation, and behavior (Bligh & Kohles, 2013; De
Cremer, van Dijke, & Bos, 2006). If leaders are perceived
as just, followers can trust that their suggestions are
to be followers
appropriately,
of transformational
and that they leaders—
will not be punished
for coming up with reasonable ideas (Lind & Tyler,
1988; van den Bos & Lind, 2002). In line with that
reasoning, leader justice has been associated with
voice (Chamberlin et al., 2017; Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2008), whereas injus-tice has been associated with
silence (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). This research, however,
focused
as followers).
exclusivelyWhen
on the follower side of the leadership equation
Machine Translated by Google
68
Contributions to a dynamic and interdependent system
(Cable & Judge, 2003; Hollander & Julian, 1969; Salancik
& Pfeffer, 1977). We propose that followers' perceptions
of leader (in)justice can have a different effect when they
are considered in combination with the leaders' actions.
More specifically, we are interested in the effect of
Method
followers' per-ceptions of leader (in)justice on follower
Samples
silence depending on whether leaders tend to remain silent or not.
While we do not question the negative relationship
between leader justice and follower silence in general, we
propose that perceiving the leader as just may have a
down-side. As followers tend to trust a just leader, they
assume that the leader has a reason for his or her behavior
and thus also for his or her remaining silent (Colquitt et
al., 2013; Jost & Kay, 2010). Moreover, perceiving the
leader as just serves as a heuristic device helping to
decide how to react toward events related to the leader
(Choi, 2008; van den Bos, 2001). In such a case, followers'
motivation to com-pensate for their leader's silence should
be low. Perceptions of injustice, in turn, are likely to
trigger arousal and negative emotions such as anger
which, in turn, activate the approach (rather than the
avoidance) behavioral system (see, Carver & Harmon-
Jones, 2009; van Zomeren et al. al., 2008). Arousal and
activation of the approach system have been proposed to
be basic preconditions for overcoming the state of
silence (Grant, 2013; Morrison et al., 2015) and par-ticipation inprovider
Collective action research suggests that, while perceptions
of justice can increase a group's acceptance of even
nega-tive situations, injustice is likely to motivate action
(Bal & van de Bos, 2017; van Zomeren et al., 2008).
Besides motivating action, injustice perceptions should
also affect whether or not a leader is accepted as a role
model (Bligh & Kohles, 2013; Colquitt et al., 2013). To be
considered role models and thus function as a legitimate
source of information about appropriate behavior, leaders
need to appear just and credible and treat their followers
fairly and considerately (Brown, Trevino, & Harrison, 2005;
Suddaby et al., 2017). If they are perceived as just, even
laissez-faire leaders may function as role models, and
followers use fairness perceptions as social heuristics to
interpret leader-related events (van den Bos, 2001). If lead-
ers are perceived as unjust, in turn, they are evaluated
less positively, lack legitimacy, and followers are less
likely to use their behavior as a reference for their own
behavior (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Choi, 2008; Graen
& Scandura, 1987).
Because of these two effects of perceived leader injus-
tice—the motivating role of perceived leader injustice and
the lower tendency among followers to use unjust leaders
as role models—we expect:
Hypothesis 2: Followers' perceptions of leader justice
moderate the relationship between leader and follower
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27(1)
silence. The negative relationship between leader
silence and follower silence is stronger when the
leader is perceived as unjust.
In summer 2016, we were part of two consulting projects
aiming at helping two organizations, an energy company
and a state-level public administration unit, through
periods of organizational change. Both organizations went
through mergers and restructuring within the last years
and during the time of the project. The changes caused a
significant amount of uncertainty among employees at all
levels, although employees were told that no layoffs would
occur. As prior research showed that restructuring after
mergers and out-placement threatens both leaders' and
followers' status, prior investments, and the value of
qualifications (eg, Fugate et al., 2012; Kiefer, 2005), we
posit that these orga- nizations provide appropriate
contexts (Johns, 2006) for examining leader silence and
potential compensatory behavior by followers.
In Study 1, we examine our basic assumption, namely
that leader silence is not necessarily accompanied by
false-lower silence (Hypothesis 1), in a German energy
collective action
that (van Zomeren
undertook et al., to
restructuring 2008).
keep up with
changing demands in the energy sector. The company
comprised two large divisions: power supply operations
and trade and distribution of electricity, gas, waste water,
drinking water, and thermal energy. In both divisions, we
surveyed employees with a diverse range of qualifications
such as engineers, foreman, consultants, administrative
staff, and blue-collar workers. We took arrangements to
preserve the anonymity of the respondents (eg, by
reporting only aggregated data to the organization, using
identification numbers in the data set). The variables in
Study 1 are part of a large employee survey that we
conducted in the organization. All 1,070 employees were
invited to participate in the voluntary sur-vey and
employees could choose to complete the survey either as
a paper-and-pencil or an online survey. With 675
employees responding, the overall participation rate was
63%. Of the 675 participants, 554 were included in the
study because of their status as followers, whereas 22 did not state their c
employee), and 99 stated that they were in a leadership
position. We excluded cases in a stepwise manner, as
some cases fulfilled more than one exclusion criteria:
150 partici-pants did not state their team membership
and were there-fore excluded. Of the remaining 404
participants, only 356 provided data regarding follower
silence. Because of miss-ing leader data, we had to
exclude 159 cases. Missing leader data could have been
caused by the leader not taking part in the questionnaire at all, not mentio
Machine Translated by Google
Zill et al.
by him or her, or the leader not answering the items for
the calculation of the study variables. The specific
reason for the missing leader data per team could not
be determined in the study. Of the remaining 197 cases,
11 participants did not fill out the demographic data for the control variables.
As not all team members and leaders stated their team
membership, and due to other missing data, our final
sam-ple consisted of 39 leaders and 186 followers for
multilevel hypotheses testing. Of the followers, 72 were
female and 114 were male. Age was measured in
intervals and was distributed as follows: younger than
25 years (n = 14), 26 to 35 years (n = 32), 36 to 45 years
(n = 31), 46 to 55 years (n = 71) , and older than 55 years
(n = 36). Two participants did not report their age. Of
the leaders, 9 were female. Age distribution among
leaders was 26 to 35 years (n = 2), 36 to 45 years (n =
15), 46 to 55 years (n = 17), and older than 55 years (n = 5). 2. To control for silence forms that are more strongly
In Study 2, we aimed at replicating and qualifying the
proposed compensatory effect of reduced follower
silence in a different setting. The second sample
consisted of members of a public administration in
which three for-mally independent divisions at different
locations had been merged into a single organization in
a federal state in Germany. Although the merger had
taken place 5 years prior to the study, employee
representatives and the leadership of the organization
felt that many employees do not iden-tify with the new
organization and cooperation across units suffered. We
were asked to examine these issues and used the
opportunity to replicate and extend Study 1. All the
1,490 organization's employees were invited to par-
ticipate in the employee survey. Overall participation
rate was 60% with 894 employees responding using
either the paper and pencil or the online survey. Of the
894 partici-pants, 94 stated that they were in a
leadership position. We excluded cases in a stepwise
manner: Of the 800 employ-ees/followers, 98 participants
did not state their team membership and were therefore
excluded. Of the remaining-ing 702, 195 did not fill out
the items on follower silence and/or perceived leader
justice. Of the remaining 507 par-ticipants, 266 could
not be included in the study because the data of the
respective leader were missing. Finally, 20 participants
were excluded because they did not state the
demographics data for the control variables. After elimi-
nating cases with missing values (except for age), the
final sample consisted of 43 leaders and 221 followers
who pro-vided information about their team membership
and could therefore be included in the multilevel
analyses. Of the followers, 146 were women. Age
distribution among fol-lowers was as follows: younger
than 25 years (n = 5), 26 to 35 years (n = 38), 36 to 45
years (n = 55), 46 to 55 years (n = 81), and 55 years or older (n = 39).coefficient
69
leaders were 36 to 45 years (n = 6), 46 to 55 years (n =
21), and older than 55 years (n = 16).
Measures
Leader and Follower Silence was measured with the
three-item subscales for fear- and resignation-based
silence (ie, quiescent and acquiescent silence) that are
part of the motives for silence at work scale (Knoll & van Dick, 2013
We combined quiescent and acquiescent silence,
because these forms of silence are caused by external
factors (eg, organizational climate, leadership) to a
larger extent and are thus particularly relevant for our
research topic (Kurzon, 2007). Indeed, quiescent and
acquiescent silence were highly correlated, with r(225)
= .53, p < .01 in Study 1 and r(264) = .67, p < .01 in Study
rooted in individual differ-ences (eg, prosocial and
selfish motivation), we further-more included the three-
item subscales for prosocial and opportunistic silence
as control variables. In a brief intro-duction, participants
read that people in organizations sometimes face
problematic situations and that they may deal with these
situations in different ways: Some may voice their
concerns to people who have the chance to change the situation, w
Following the item root: “I remained silent at work. . “
We asked participants how often they remained silent
and what motivated them to do so. Sample items were
“. . . because of a fear of negative .
consequences” (quiescent silence); “. . Because nothing
will change, anyway” (acquiescent silence). We assessed
silence on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5
(very often), in Study 1 and, due to requirements of the
second survey format, on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to
Reliability of the Leader and Follower Silence score was ÿ
= .89 in both samples. Because of recent critiques
regard-ing the use of Cronbach's alpha as the sole
measure of reliability (McNeish, 2017), we also computed
the Revelle's omega total (ÿRT ), which was .93 in Study
1 and .94 in Study 2, indicating a good reliability of the
scale (Revelle, 2016). Regarding control variables,
reliability scores were ÿ = .88 and ÿRT = .88 for prosocial
silence in both studies, and ÿ = .69 and ÿRT = .70 in Study 1 and ÿ =
= .71 in Study 2 for opportunistic silence.
Perceived Leader Justice was measured with two
items: “Please assess, how unjust [Item 1] / fair [Item 2]
your direct supervisor is” which were derived from an
overview on measuring justice and fairness (Colquitt &
Rodell, 2015). The Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (to a
very large extent) to 5 (to a very small extent). As the
scale consisted of two items only, we computed the
standardized coeffi-cient alpha, as well as the Spearman–
Brown Three false-lowers
(Eisinga,did
de not report their
Grotenhuis, age. Of2013),
& Pelzer, the leaders
which inc
in
Machine Translated by Google

70 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27(1)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics Study 1.

M SD 1 2 3 4 6 7

Leader level
1. L2 Tenure 24.72 12.44
2. L2 Sexb 1.23 .43 ÿ.26
3. L2 Opportunistic silencec 1.37 .45 ÿ.15 ÿ.27
4. L2 Prosocial silence 1.98 .94 ÿ.25 .23 .43*
5. L2 Silence 1.75 .61 ÿ.11 ÿ.05 .46** .41*
Follower level
6. L1 Tenure 22.10 13.53
7. L1 Sex 1.39 .49 ÿ.21**
8. L1 Silence 2.21 .99 .10 .12

Note. SD = standard deviation.

b
aVariables 1 to 5 on Level 2 (NLeader = 39), Variables 6 to 8 on Level 1 (NFollower = Sex coded as 1 = male and 2 = female. cAdditionally included
186). Silence types to control for individual tendency to remain silent.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

respectively good reliability (ÿ = .76, ÿ = .84) of the scale. Table 2. Study 1 Random Coefficient Models Regressing Level 1 Follower
Silence on Standardized Independent and Control Variables.

Model 1 Model 2
Analysis Strategy
Fixed-effects Level 2 leader
In both studies, follower ratings were nested within teams
Tenure <.01 <ÿ.01
headed by a single leader. Followers and leaders stated
Sex(female)b <.01 ÿ.01
their team affiliation on a voluntary basis, which allowed
Opportunistic silencec .12 .20+
us to match follower ratings (Level 1) to the respective
Prosocial silencec ÿ.01 ÿ.04
leader rat-ings (Level 2). Because of the hierarchical
Leader silence ÿ.21*
structure of the data and the cross-level nature of the Fixed-effects Level 1 follower
hypotheses, we used mixed models using the nlme 2.05** 2.10**
Intercept
package (Pinheiro, Dates, DebRoy, & Sarkar, 2017) in the Tenure .16* .17*
R environment (R Development Core Team, 2015) . .33+ .33+
Sex (female)
Random-effect variances
.27 .21
Results Intercept
Residential .95 .96
2
.04 .07
Study 1 Marginal pseudo-R
2
Conditional pseudo-R .11 .11
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the study variables.
a b
Intraclass coefficients (ICCs) did not indicate that follower Level 2 (NLeader = 39), Level 1 (NFollower = Sex coded as 1 = male;
silence was nonindependent within teams, ICC(1) = .04, 186). 2 = female. cAdditionally included silence types to control for
individual tendency to remain silent.
F(38, 147) = 1.17, p = .20. Teams were moderately distin- +
p < .10. *p < .05 **p < .01.
guishable regarding follower silence, ICC(2) = .15.
As there was no key predictor at the follower level
(Level 1) in Study 1, we fitted random-intercept models an additional 3% of the variance in comparison with Model
with the standardized predictor and control variables for 1. Of all included control variables, only follower tenure
hypothesis testing. Model 1 included only the control was related to the outcome variable, ÿ = .17, p < .05, sup-
vari- ables and Model 2 included the control variables and porting prior findings that proposed that tenure diminishes
leader silence as the main predictor (Table 2). We voice (Avery, McKay, Wilson, Volpone, & Killham, 2011).
2
values
computed that quantify the variance explained by the
RGLMM To rule out multicollinearity, we compute the variance
models' fixed factors (Nakagawa & Schielzeth, 2013) using inflation factors (VIFs) for the predictor and control vari-
the R-package MuMIn (Burnham & Anderson, 2002). As ables. The values were VIF = 1.53 for leader silence, VIF =
proposed in Hypothesis 1, leader silence was negatively 1.68 for prosocial silence, and VIF = 2.01 for opportu-
related to follower silence, ÿ = ÿ.21, p < .05. nistic silence, indicating that multicollinearity was not a
Adding leader silence as a predictor in Model 2 explained problem (Dorman et al., 2013).
Machine Translated by Google

Zill et al. 71

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics Study 2.

M SD 1 2 3 4 6 7 8

Leader level
1. L2 Tenure 180.21 112.71
2. L2 Sexb 1.42 .50 .08

3. L2 Opportunistic silencec 1.32 .55 ÿ.15 .14

4. L2 Prosocial silencec 2.43 1.39 .08 .14 .49**
5. L2 Silence 2.22 1.46 ÿ.07 .17 .56** .60**
Follower level
6. L1 Tenure 181.69 117.60
7. L1 Sexb 1.66 .47 .17*

8. L1 Perceived justice 9. 1.83 1.14 ÿ.27** ÿ.19*

L1 Silence 1.79 1.09 .01 .21** ÿ.42**

b
aVariables 1 to 5 on Level 2 (NLeader = 43), Variables 6 to 9 on Level 1 (NFollower = Sex coded as 1 = male; 2 = female. cAdditionally included
221). Silence types to control for individual tendency to remain silent.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Study 2 Table 4. Study 2 Random Coefficient Models Regressing Level 1 Follower

Silence on Standardized Independent and Control Variables.
Study 2 aimed at replicating Study 1 findings and
qualifying the results with regard to when followers'
Model 1 Model 2
compensa-tory behavior is particularly likely. Table 3
presents descriptive statistics of the study variables. ICCs Fixed-effects Level 2 leader
did not indicate nonindependence of follower silence Tenure .06 .04

within teams, ICC(1) = .05, F(42, 178) = 1.26, p = .15, Sex(female)b .21 .22

whereas teams were moderately distinguishable regarding Opportunistic silencec .07 .06

follower silence, ICC(2) = .21. Prosocial silencec .01 .01

Leader silence (LS) ÿ.17+ ÿ.18+

As Study 2, in contrast to Study 1, included a main pre-
Fixed-effects Level 1 follower
dictor on the employee level (Level 1) of analysis (per-
Intercept 1.52** 1.51**
received justice), we fitted simple models with the Level 1
Tenure ÿ.08 ÿ.07
moderator perceived justice as sole predictor in order to
Sex (female) .29* .31*
Identify the random-effects structure of the baseline model.
Perceived justice (PJ) ÿ.45** ÿ.43**
Comparing the ÿ2 log-likelihood-based model fits showed
Interactions
that a random-intercepts-and-slopes model allows the
LS × PJ .22**
relationship between follower-perceived leader justice and
Random-effect variances
follower silence to vary freely between teams fit the data .28 .21
Perceived Justice
significantly better compared with the random-intercepts .14 .11
2 Intercept
. p < .01. Therefore, we used a ran-
model, ÿÿ( ) 7= 13 75, Residential .91 .91
dom-intercepts-and-slopes model as the baseline model 2
.22 .26
Marginal pseudo-R
for further analyses. We then fitted two random-intercepts- Conditional pseudo-R
2
.31 .31
and-slopes models, including all cases with complete data
a b
on all study variables with a known team affiliation. Model Level 2 (NLeader = 43), Level 1 (NFollower = Sex as coded 1 = male;
221). 2 = female. cAdditionally included silence types to control for
1 regressed follower silence on the standardized predictor, individual tendency to remain silent.
moderator, and control variables. In Model 2, we added +
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
the interaction term to the model. Table 4 shows the
results of the analyses.
Results for Model 1 show that follower–perceived significant. Thus, the well-known silence-reducing effect
leader justice was negatively related to follower silence of leader justice seems to be stronger than the
supporting prior research that suggests that followers compensatory effect. However, when occurring together
who work for an unfair leader show more silence behaviors with leader silence, justice perceptions had a different
(eg, Pinder & Harlos, 2001). When controlling for the strong effect. In line with Hypothesis 2, the interaction between
influence of follower-perceived leader justice, the leader silence and perceived leader justice emerged as a
relationship between leader silence and follower silence was only marginally
significant pre-dictor of follower silence, ÿ = .22, p < .01. Adding the
Machine Translated by Google
72
Figure 1. Plot of the interaction between standardized leader silence and follower–perceived leader justice on follower silence.
interaction term to the model increased the marginal
2
pseudo R which can be considered as relevant increase in
by 4%
explained variance in a field study (Champoux & Peters,
1987; Evans, 1985). Again, we computed VIFs to rule out
multicollinearity with VIF = 1.86 for the leader silence, VIF
= 1.86 for prosocial silence, and VIF = 1.95 for oppor-
tunistic silence, which are less than the recommended
threshold values (Dorman et al., 2013). ).
We plotted the interaction for slope analyzes (Figure 1)
and ran simple slope tests with an online tool for multilevel
slope analysis (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Leader
silence had a significantly negative impact on follower
silence when perceived leader justice was low, ÿ1 SD, z =
ÿ3.24, p < .01. When justice was perceived as high, there
was no significant effect of leader silence on follower
silence, +1 SD, z = .35, p = .72.
Discussion
The changing nature of work and organizations can cause
a significant amount of uncertainty for employees at all
levels (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Okhuysen et al., 2013).
An important function of leaders is to support their
followers when dealing with change and accompanying
hardships. If leaders neglect critical issues, followers have
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27(1)
to deal with these issues on their own or suffer the conse-
quences (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008; Schweiger & DeNisi,
1991; Skogstad et al., 2007). Our findings suggest that,
when leaders do not address critical issues, followers can
fill the vacuum by compensating for their leader's silence.
After showing the proposed negative relationship between
leader and follower silence (Hypothesis 1) in Study 1, we
qualified these findings with respect to perceptions of
leader justice in Study 2, thus identifying a condition
under which the proposed compensatory effect occurs.
While our findings support prior research associating
leader injustice with follower silence (Pinder & Harlos,
2001), we found that if leaders are perceived as unjust and
do not address critical issues, followers are more likely to
overcome their own hesitations to speak up. In line with
Hypothesis 2, our findings suggest that when leaders are
perceived as unjust, their behavior is less likely to be used
by followers as a reference for their own behavior and
perceiving their leader as unjust functions as an impetus
for followers to compen-sate for leader silence (Bal & van den Bos, 2017).
Theoretical Applications
Our research provides insights into the less researched
field of followers' responses to one behavioral facet of
Machine Translated by Google
Zill et al.
laissez-faire leadership, particularly, for situations in which
leaders do not address critical issues that potentially harm
their followers (ie, leader silence). Our results furthermore
suggest that jointly considering leader and follower silence
can challenge two basic tenets of silence research, namely,
that leader justice necessarily results in less silence and
that followers will overcome silence only if context
conditions are favorable.
A first implication of our research is that the relationship Our findings thus support and extend elaborations of
between laissez-faire leadership and follower behavior is
more complex than the relationships between abusive and
positive leadership and follower behavior. If confronted
with abusive leadership, followers are likely to feel threat-
ened and intimidated which causes them to engage in
avoid-ant behavior, and they are more likely to copy their
leader's behavior (May et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2015). If
followers are confronted with positive types of leadership
such as trans-formational or ethical leadership, followers
seem to feel safe and potentially encouraged by their
leader; they will engage in approach behavior and, as role
model theory (Bandura, 1986) suggests, use their leader's
behavior as a reference for their own behavior (Harland et
al., 2005; Schaubroeck et al., 2012). In contrast to abusive
and posi-tive leadership types, passive or laissez-faire
leaders who, as in our example, do not address critical
issues, create a vacuum, and thus, opportunities for
followers to gain influ-ence, which is particularly relevant
when critical issues occur (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008; Skogstad (Chamberlin
Our finding that followers overcome barriers to speaking
up (in our case: fear and resignation) shows that—under
certain conditions—followers use this leeway. Drawing on
this finding, future research could specify which kind of
approach behaviors (which include voice but also taking
charge or diverse forms of prosocial rule breaking;
Morrison, 2006) followers of laissez-faire leaders prefer,
and which conditions (besides the condition of The injustice
that we focused on makes either one particularly likely.
Moreover, as we examined just one facet of laissez-faire
leadership, future research could include further faces (eg,
neglect of feedback, delayed decision making; Bass &
Avolio, 1990) and thereby examine similarities and
differences-ences in followers' coping styles .
Our approach to jointly consider leader and follower
silence furthermore shows that some of the conditions
under which compensatory follower behavior may manifest
will go unnoticed when leaders and followers are examined
in isolation. Specifically, our finding that compensatory
foll-lower behavior occurred when context conditions were
unfavorable (ie, when leaders were perceived as unjust)
supports suggestions that considering context can reveal
counterintuitive effects (Johns, 2006). As meta-analyses
and reviews (Chamberlin et al., 2017; Morrison, 2014) show,
previous approaches to voice and silence are grounded in
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Rusbult, Farrell,
73
Rogers, & Mainous, 1988) suggest that employees show
voice behavior if the company provides satisfaction of
basic needs or balanced cost–reward structures whereas
they withhold their views when these preconditions are lacking.
In line with nascent theorizing in the field of collective
action (Bal & van den Bos, 2017; van Zomeren et al., 2008),
our findings suggest that unfavorable circumstances can
also motivate followers to overcome fear and passivity.
leadership scholars potentially suggest positive effects of
negative-actively connoted features (see Judge, Piccolo, &
Kosalka, 2009), and contradictory effects of positive leader
charac-teristics (in our case: leader justice; see Also
Bharanitharan, Chen, Bahmannia, & Lowe, 2018; for
contradictory effects of humble leadership). Our research
also contributes to a broader understanding of difficult
workplace conditions which might be more prevalent in
today's work-life than echoed in previous research
(Courpasson, 2016; Leana, Mittal, & Stiehl, 2012).
Practical Applications
Our findings suggest at least two implications for practice-
ners' attempts to overcome silence in organizations—one
referring to leaders, and one referring to followers. With
respect to leaders, our findings from Study 2 underscore
not only the importance of leaders being perceived as just
et al., 2017; Takeuchi et al., 2012) but also that
et al., 2007).
justice perceptions can mitigate active followership (Bal &
van den Bos, 2017; Bligh & Kohles, 2013; Hagedoorn et al.,
1998). As visible on the left-hand side of Figure 1, if leaders
are perceived as unjust, followers will not follow their
example but show a strong tendency to withhold their
views. While leader justice was negatively correlated with
follower silence in general (see Table 3), in cases when
false-lowers need to compensate for leader silence (as
seen on the right-hand side of Figure 1), justice seems to
have a buffer- ing effect. Although the (nonsignificant)
slope for leader justice (see Figure 1) needs to be interpreted
with care, the possibility exists that followers who perceive
their leader as just might hesitate to speak up when this
leader remains silent. We predicted this effect on the basis
of fairness heu-ristics theory (van den Bos, 2001). The
pattern of findings implies that, in teams in which leaders
are perceived as just, there might be a lack of activating
force that is needed to move followers to cross the tipping
point and compensate for their leader's silence (Bal & van den Bos, 201
Second, our findings emphasize how followers influence
the results of leadership. Few leaders are made of strengths
alone, and leader failure—be it caused by poor character,
lack of skills, or a mismatch between leader skill/character
and specific context demands—is not an uncommon phe-
nomenon (Kelloway et al., 2005 ; Schyns, Neves, Wisse, &
Knoll, 2018; Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2007). As leaders are not
Machine Translated by Google
74
easily replaceable, practitioners are interested in factors
that compensate for ineffective leadership (Howell, Bowen,
Dorfman, Kerr, & Podsakoff, 1990). Our findings show that
followers compensate for leaders' reluctance to deal with
critical issues, even under unfavorable circumstances.
Drawing on collective action research (Bal & van den Bos,
2007), we explained this by the greater approach
orientation followers develop while experiencing injustice.
As leader injustice cannot be recommended (even if it
can have moti-vating effects), practitioners will look for
other ways to increase approach motivation. A way might
be to combine insights from silence and voice research
(eg, Chamberlin et al., 2017; Knoll, Wegge, Unterrainer,
Silva, & Jønsson, 2016) with research on substitutes for
leader-ship (Kerr & Jermier, 1978 ). The latter provides
practical advice regarding how individual, task, and
organizational features can neutralize leader behaviors or
attributes and substitute for lacking leader behavior
(Howell et al., 1990; but see Dionne, Yammarino, Howell,
& Villa, 2005). Using these strategies might help
practitioners even if the moder-ating and mediating
processes between leader and follower silence are not
well understood yet—an issue we discuss in the following section.or because further resource loss looms due to a leader
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Our research aimed at extending current knowledge by
showing that leader silence does not necessarily result in
follower silence, and we aimed to provide an example for
a condition in which such compensatory behavior is
particu-larly likely to occur. Although the results of our
two studies support our reasoning, the nature of our data
and the scant knowledge on the phenomenon of leader
silence call for a cautious interpretation. Four points seem
to be particularly relevant and deem further investigation.
First, we proposed that lower scores in follower silence
are a compensation for leader silence. However, it is also
possible that followers' tendency to speak up makes
leader vocal redundant (Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Kerr
& Jermier, 1978). This pattern was particularly likely in
orga- nizations with high worker empowerment and/or
particu-larly humble leaders (Bharanitharan et al., 2018;
Spreitzer, 1995). Based on our experiences with the public
service unit where we conducted Study 2, we doubt that
high employee empowerment is an adequate alternative
explanation. We would not rule out humble leadership,
but this is associated with leader justice, and thus, does
not provide the motivating effect of leader injustice that we found.
However, based on our cross-sectional design (we exam-
ined both parties' tendency to withhold their views within
the same time frame, namely 6 weeks prior to the employee
survey), we cannot rule out these possibilities. Longitudinal den Bos, 2017; van Zomeren et al., 2008). With respect to
studies with several measurement points and experiments
that allow for clearly identifying the exact time when
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27(1)
Leaders and followers remained silent could solve this
potential ambiguity. These studies could also include fur-
ther motives for leader and follower silence (see Chang et
al., 2018). For example, leader silence that aims at pro-
viding followers with room to make their own decisions
(and maybe learn from errors) should have different
effects than silence that aims at undermining follower
development (Covarrubias, 2007; Tannen, 1985).
Second, we provide evidence for just one factor that
reduces followers' tendency to remain silent when they
are confronted with leader silence (ie, followers' injustice
per-ceptions), and we suggest two processes driving this
effect (ie, followers' lower tendency to rely on an unjust
leader's role modeling and injustice-induced motivation approach).
There might be other relevant processes for followers'
com-pensating behavior. For instance, conservation of
resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) proposes that followers'
motivation to protect against resource loss motivates
them to invest resources (eg, time and effort). If leaders
remain passive in the face of critical issues, followers
need to be concerned of resource loss (eg, because they
need to cope with current inefficient processes or bullying,
that does not take action; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008;
Skogstad et al., 2007). Similar to our application of
research on collective action, conservation of resources
theory has received comparatively little attention in
silence research, yet (for an exception, see Ng & Feldman,
2012). Future research could examine the potential of
these and additional processes (eg, team-level moderators
such as cohesion and shared leadership; Kozlowski &
Chao, 2012) potentially moderating and mediating the relationship-ship be
Third, we focused on dyads of leader and follower
silence, because we did not have responses from all team
members. Our studies are based on employee surveys
which achieved a response rate of slightly more than 60%.
Consequently, we cannot assume that the followers
ascribed to a specific leader constituted the entire team.
Future research needs to complement this approach by
examining how followers as a whole team respond to leader silence.
These approaches need to consider that team-level
follower silence as a response to leader silence could be
conceptualized either as a composition or compilation
model (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). In a composition model,
we would expect consensus among followers with respect
to their response to leader silence. Our research can
function as a starting point for studying composition
models as all team members may experience arousal,
strong emotions, and approach behavioral tendencies
when working under an unjust leader—the reasoning that
is also inherent in research on collective action (Bal & van
compilation models of team-level follower silence, our studies are less inf
Compilation models would suggest different responses to
Machine Translated by Google
Zill et al.
leader silence among members of the same team, poten-
tially driven by team members experiencing different
levels of motivation when the leader neglects critical
issues (eg, because some of them are more threatened to
lose resources than others).
Finally, more research is needed on followers' ability
to estimate leader silence. Because of its covert nature,
silence is more difficult to assess than voice (van Dyne,
Ang, & Botero, 2003), and thus, followers may have
difficulties estimating whether their leader remained
silent. That is why we did not rely on followers' self-
reports of perceived leader silence but asked leaders
about their responses to critical issues. However,
leadership research draws heavily on the assumption that
followers can judge leader behavior (Lord & Dinh, 2014)
and that their perception of leader behavior (or its
absence) affects follower behavior (eg, Cable & Judge,
2003; Deluga, 1990, for laissez-faire lead-ership). Future
research could combine self- and other rat-ings of leader
silence, may be using recently developed observational
methods (Cook & Meyer, 2017; Meinecke, Klonek, &
Kauffeld, 2016). This research could apply a design similar
to existing experimental research that already showed
how an individual's concealing of information impedes
partner- and observer-rated perceptions of this individual
and the overall relationship quality (Newheiser & Barretto,
2014). While these effects are rather implicit and based
on experiments, research in the leadership domain (eg,
Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Skogstad et al., 2007) also
suggests that employees are sensitive when it comes to
leaders' inaction (which includes but is not identical with leader silence).A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:
Conclusion
So far, research on silence in organizations mainly
focused on follower silence alone without considering
simultaneously whether leaders do or do not address critical issues.
Our research suggests that jointly considering leader
and false-lower silence can enrich current approaches in
at least two ways. First, we showed that leader silence is
not necessarily accompanied by follower silence. Our
findings suggest that followers may compensate for
leader silence by showing less silence behavior, a finding
we predicted based on the negative effects that may
follow from leaders neglecting critical issues (Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 2008; Skogstad et al., 2007) and the leeway
laissez-faire leaders provide (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Lewin
et al., 1939). Second, we found support for our assumption
that conditions that are generally associated with more
silence, in our case, perceived leader injus-tice, can
actually reduce silence—a finding we predicted based on
collective action research (Bal & van den Bos , 2017; van
Zomeren et al., 2008) and injustice-induced approach
motivation (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009; Colquitt et al., 2013). Unfavorable
75
function as a trigger, motivating followers to mobilize the
resources needed to speak up when context conditions
(here: a laissez-faire leader who does not address critical
issues) require them to do so. Thus, jointly considering
leader and follower silence can reveal provocative effects,
and thus, inspire new research complementing current
approaches to overcome silence in organizations and its
detrimental effects for organizations and their stakeholders.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural
and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social
Justice Research, 1, 177-198. doi:10.1007/BF01048015
Avery, DR, McKay, PF, Wilson, DC, Volpone, SD, & Killham,
EA (2011). Does voice go flat? How tenure diminishes
the impact of voice. Human Resource Management, 50,
147-158. doi:10.1002/hrm.20403
Bal, M., & van den Bos, K. (2017). From system acceptance to
embracing alternative systems and system rejection—
Tipping points in processes of radicalization. Translational
Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 241-253. doi:10.1037/tps0000123
Bandura,
A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1990). Manual for the multifactor leader-
ship questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist
Press.
Bharanitharan, K., Chen, Z., Bahmannia, S., & Lowe, K. (2018).
Is the leader humility a friend or foe, or both? An
attachment theory lens on leading humility and its contradictory outco
Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3925-z
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Bligh, M. C., & Kohles, J. C. (2013). Do I trust you to lead the
way? Exploring trust and mistrust in leader-follower relations.
In H. S. Leonard, R. Lewis, A. M. Freedman, & J. Passmore
(Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology
of leadership, change, and organizational development (pp. 89-112).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Bonanno, G. A., Pat-Horenczyk, R., & Noll, J. (2011). Coping
flex-ibility and trauma: The Perceived Ability to Cope with
Trauma (PACT) scale. Psychological Trauma: Theory,
Research, Practice, and Policy, 3, 117-129. doi:10.1037/a0020921
Britt, T. W., Crane, M., Hodson, S. E., & Adler, A. B. (2016).
Effective and ineffective coping strategies in a low-
autonomy work environment. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology,
21, 154-168.
conditions doi:10.1037/a0039898
can obviously
Machine Translated by Google
76
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct
development and testing. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134. doi:10.1016/j.
obhdp.2005.03.002
Buch, R., Martinsen, Ø. L., & Kuvaas, B. (2015). The destruc-
tiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior: The mediating
role of economic leader-member exchange relationships.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22, 115-
124. doi:10.1177/1548051813515302
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and
multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic
approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up:
Responses to voice in organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 851-875. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0562
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward influence
tactic strategies: The role of manager personality and
supervi-sor leadership style. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 197-214. doi:10.1002/job.183
Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: An
examination of followership beliefs and crimes of obedience.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 49-61.
doi:10.1177/1548051812465890
Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-
related effect: Evidence and implications. Psychological
Bulletin, 135, 183-204.
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & LePine, J. A. (2017). A meta-
analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibited forms:
Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future
research directions. Personnel Psychology, 70, 11-71.
doi:10.1111/peps.12185
Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size, and
power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 60, 243-255. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1987. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 207-216. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002
tb00257.x
Chang, T., Chou, S. Y., & Han, B. (2018). Silent leaders in the
workplace: Forms of leadership silence, attributions of
leadership silence, and accuracy of attributions. International
Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publi-
cation. doi:10.1177/2329488418777041
Chiaburu, D. S., Marinova, S. V., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Should I
do it or not? An initial model of cognitive processes predict-
ing voice behaviors. In L. T. Kane & M. R. Poweller (Eds.),
Citizenship in the 21st century (pp. 127-153). New York, NY:
Nova Science Publishers.
Choi, J. (2008). Event justices perceptions and employees'
reactions: Perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 513-528. doi:10.1037/0021- Frischer, J., & Larsson, K. (2000). Laissez-faire in research
9010.93.3.513
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Measuring justice and
fairness. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (Eds). The
Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace (pp. 187-202).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Colquitt, JA, Scott, BA, Rodell, JB, Long, DM, Zapata, CP,
Conlon, DE, & Wesson, MJ (2013). Justice at the millennium,
a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and
affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology,
98, 199-236. doi:10.1037/a0031757
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27(1)
Cook, A. S., & Meyer, B. (2017). Assessing leadership behavior
with observational and sensor-based methods: A brief over-
view. In B. Schyns, P. Neves, & R. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of
methods in leadership research (pp. 73-102). Cheltenham,
England: Edward Elgar.
Courpasson, D. (2016). Looking away? Civilized indifference
and the carnal relationships of the contemporary workplace.
Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1094-1100. doi:10.1111/
joms.12175
Covarrubias, P. O. (2007). (Un)Biased in western theory:
Generative silence in American Indian communication.
Communication Monographs, 74, 265-271. doi:10.1080/03637750701393071
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M. H., & Bos, A. R. (2006). Leader's
procedural justice affecting identification and trust.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 27,
554-565. doi:10.1108/01437730610692416
Deluga, R. J. (1990). The effects of transformational, transactional
and laissez-faire leadership characteristics on subordinate
influencing behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
11, 191-203. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1102_6
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and
employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 869-884. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2007.26279183
Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Howell, J.P., & Villa, J.
R. (2005). Substitutes for leadership, or not? Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 169-193. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.012
Dorman, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G.,
Carré, G., . . . Lautenbach, S. (2013). Collinearity: A review
of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating
their performance. Ecography, 36, 27-46. doi:10.1111/j.1600-
0587.2012.07348.x
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive
lead-ership behavior: A definition and conceptual model.
Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability
of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-
Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637-642.
doi:10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of cor-
related method variance in moderated multiple regression
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36, 305-323. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90002-0
Frieder, R. E., Hochwarter, W. A., & DeOrtentiis, P. S. (2015).
Attenuating the negative effects of abusive supervision:
The role of proactive voice behavior and resource
management ability. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 821-837. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2015.06.001
education—An inquiry into a Swedish doctoral program.
Higher Education Policy, 13, 131-155. doi:10.1016/S0952-
8733(99)00022-7
Frost, P. J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: New challenges for
leaders and their organizations. Organizational Dynamics,
33, 111-127. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.001
Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (2012). Managing
employee withdrawal during organizational change: The
role of threat appraisal. Journal of Management, 38, 890-914.
doi:10.1177/0149206309352881
Machine Translated by Google
Zill et al.
Gilliland, S. W., & Day, D. V. (1999). Business management. In
F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, S. Dumais, S. Lewandowsky,
& T. J. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 315-
342). New York, NY: Wiley.
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology
of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-208). and Human Performance, 22, 375-403. doi:10.1016/0030-
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady:
The role of emotion regulation in employee voice.
Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1703-1723. doi:10.5465/
amj.2011.0035
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., & Parker, S.K. (2007). A new model of
work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain
and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 327-347. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). When and how team
leaders matter. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 37-
74. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26002-6
Hagedoorn, M., Buunk, B. P., & van de Vliert, E. (1998).
Opening the black box between justice and reactions to
unfavorable outcomes in the workplace. Social Justice Research, 11, and41-their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113,
57. doi:10.1023/A:1022180903964
Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J.R., & Reiter-Palmon, R.
(2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11,
2-14. doi:10.1177/107179190501100202
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of
“nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to leader
reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 1234-1248. doi:10.1037/a0012875
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new
attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist,
44, 513-524. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513
Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends
in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological
Bulletin, 71, 387-397. doi:10.1037/h0027347
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leader-
ship in organizations: Relationships in transition.
American Psychologist, 45, 179-189. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.179
Howell, J. P., Bowen, D. E., Dorfman, P. W., Kerr, S., &
Podsakoff, P. M. (1990). Substitutes for leadership:
Effective alternatives to ineffective leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 3, 21-38. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(90)90046-R
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organiza-
tional behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-
408. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.20208687
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: history, theory,
and research. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp.
1122-1165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their
rela-tive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755-768. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright
and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical
extension of the leader trait paradigm. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 855-
875. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004
77
Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005).
Poor leadership. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R.
Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 89-112).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership:
Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior
5073(78)90023-5
Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences
of negative emotions in ongoing change. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 875-897. doi:10.1002/job.339
Kim, T.-Y., Rosen, B., & Lee, D. (2009). South Korean manage
real reactions to voicing discontent: The effects of
employee attitude and employee communication styles.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1001-1018. doi:10.1002/job.612
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. J. (2000). From micro to meso:
Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel
research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211-236.
doi:10.1177/109442810033001
Knoll, M., & van Dick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle. . .? A
first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence
349-362. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1308-4
Knoll, M., Wegge, J., Unterrainer, C., Silva, S., & Jønsson, T.
(2016). Is our knowledge on voice and silence in growing
organiza- tions? Building bridges and (re)discovering
opportunities. German Journal of Human Resource
Management, 30, 161-194. doi:10.1177/2397002216649857
Kozlowski, S. J., & Chao, G. T. (2012). The dynamics of
gender: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial
and Decision Economics, 33, 335-354. doi:10.1002/mde.2552
Kurzon, D. (2007). Towards a typology of silence.
Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1673-1688. doi:10.1016/j.
pragma.2007.07.003.
Lazarus, R. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. Journal
of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 1-13.
Leana, C.R., Mittal, V., & Stiehl, E. (2012). Organizational
behavior and the working poor. Organization Science, 23,
888-906. doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0672
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggres-
sive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”.
Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271-299. doi:10.1080/002
24545.1939.9713366
Leymann, H. (1996). The content and development of mobbing
at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5, 165-184. doi:10.1080/13594329608414853
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of
pro-cedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lord, R. G. (1977). Functional leadership behavior:
Measurement and relationship to social power and
leadership perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly,
22, 114-133. doi:10.2307/2391749
Lord, R. G., & Dinh, J. E. (2014). What have we learned that is
critical in understanding leadership perceptions and
leader-performance relations? Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 7, 158-177. doi:10.1111/iops.12127
Lutgen-Sandvik, P., & Arsht, S. S. (2014). How unaddressed
bullying affects employees, workgroups, workforces, and
organizations: The widespread effects of toxic
Machine Translated by Google

78 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27(1)

communication climates. In L. M. Crothers & J. Lipinski Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006).
(Eds.), Bullying in the workplace: Symptoms, causes and Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple
remedies (pp. 51-68). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
Francis. analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,
May, D., Wesche, J. S., Heinitz, K., & Kerschreiter, R. (2014). 31, 437-448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437
Coping with destructive leadership: Putting forward an R Development Core Team. (2015). R: A language and
integrated theoretical framework for the interaction environment for statistical computing [Version 3.2.3
process between leaders and followers. Zeitschrift für Computer soft-ware]. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org
Psychologie, 222, 203-213. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000187 Revelle, W. (2016, May). Using R and the psych package to
McNeish, D. (2017). Thanks alpha coefficient, we'll take it from find ÿ. Retrieved from http://personality-project.org/r/psych/
here. Psychological Methods, 23, 412-433. HowTo/omega.pdf
Meinecke, A.L., Klonek, F.E., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Using Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and
observational research methods to study voice and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813-819.
silence in organizations. German Journal of Human doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.7.813
Resource Management, 30, 195-224. doi:10.1177/2397002216649862Rusbult, C.E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A.G., III.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice,
Leadership in teams: A functional approach to loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses
understanding leadership structures and processes. to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 599-
Journal of Management, 36, 5-39. doi:10.1177/0149206309347376 627. doi:10.2307/256461
Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power—and how
pro-social rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32, 5-28. they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power.
Organizational Dynamics, 5, 2-21. doi:10.1016/0090-
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual 2616(77)90028-6
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Saunders, D. H., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Roth, J. (1992).
Behavior, 1, 173-197. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413 Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Responsibilities
-091328 and Rights Journal, 5, 241-259. doi:10.1007/BF01385051
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: Schaubroeck, JM, Hannah, ST, Avolio, BJ, Kozlowski, S.
A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. WJ, Lord, RG, Trevino, LK, . . . Peng, A. C. (2012).
Academy of Management Review, 25, 706-725. doi:10.5465/ Embedding ethical leadership within and across organiza-
AMR.2000.3707697 tional levels. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1053-
Morrison, E. W., See, K. E., & Pan, C. (2015). An approach– 1078. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0064
Inhibition model of employee silence: The joint effects of Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with
personal sense of power and target openness. Personnel employees following a merger: A longitudinal field
Psychology, 68, 547-580. doi:10.1111/peps.12087 experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34,
Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple 110-135. doi:10.2307/256304
2
method for obtaining R from generalized linear mixed- Schyns, B., Neves, P., Wisse, B., & Knoll, M. (2018). Turning
effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133- the blind eye to destructive leadership: The forgotten
142. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x destructive leaders. In R. Riggio (Ed.), What's wrong with leadership?
Newheiser, A.-K., & Barreto, M. (2014). Hidden costs of Improving leadership research and practice (pp. 189-206).
concealing stigma: Ironic interpersonal consequences New York, NY: Routledge.
of concealing a stigmatized identity in social interactions. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., &
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 58-70. doi:10.1016/j.Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire
jesp.2014.01.002 lead-ership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee voice Psychology, 12, 80-92. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of Skogstad, A., Hetland, J., Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2014).
framework-work resources. Journal of Organizational Is avoiding leadership a root cause of subordinate stress?
Behavior, 33, 216-234. doi:10.1002/job.754 Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadership
Okhuysen, G. A., Lepak, D., Ashcraft, K. L., Labianca, G. J., and role ambiguity. Work & Stress, 28, 323-341. doi:10.1080
Smith, V., & Steensma, H. K. (2013). Theories of work and /02678373.2014.957362
working today. Academy of Management Review, 38, 491- Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the
502. doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0169 work-place: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. (2001). Employee silence: Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. doi:10.2307/256865
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy.
Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice.
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Academy of Management Annals, 11, 451-478. doi:10.5465/
20, 331-369. doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20007-3 annals.2015.0101
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., & Sarkar, D. R Core Team Takeuchi, R., Chen, Z., & Cheung, S. Y. (2012). Applying uncer-
(2017). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. tainty management theory to employee voice behavior:
R package version 3.1-131. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R- An integrative investigation. Personnel Psychology, 65,
project.org/package=nlme 285-323. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01247.x
Machine Translated by Google
Zill et al.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on
critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural
jus-tice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 37-68. doi:10.1111/ Webster, V., Brough, P., & Daly, K. (2016). Fight, flight or
j.1744-6570.2008.00105.x
Tannen, D. (1985). Silence: Anything but. In D. Tannen & M.
Saville-Troike (Eds.), Perspectives on silence (pp. 93-111).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organiza-
tions: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 33, 261-289. doi:10.1177/0149206307300812
Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. (2007). Being ethical when the
boss is not. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 187-201. doi:10.1016/j. exploratory study. International Journal of Stress
orgdyn.2007.03.006
van den Bos, K. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Assessing
the information to which people are reacting has a pivotal
role in understanding organizational justice. In S. Gilliland, D. AuthorBiographies
Steiner, & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Theoretical and cultural
perspectives on organizational justice (pp. 63-84).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty manage-
ment by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1-
60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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.
doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00384
Van Stekelenburg, J., & Klandermans, P. G. (2013). The social
psychology of protest. Current Sociology, 61, 886-905.
doi:10.1177/0011392113479314
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership,
followership, and evolution—Some lessons from the past.
American Psychologist, 63, 182-196. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.63.3.182
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an
integrative social identity model of collective action: A
quantitative research synthesis of three socio-
psychological-ical perspectives. Psychological Bulletin,
134, 504-535. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
Vanderslice, V. J. (1988). Separating leadership from leaders:
An assessment of the effect of leader and follower
79
roles in organizations. Human Relations, 41, 677-696.
doi:10.1177/001872678804100903
freeze: Common responses for follower coping with toxic leadership.
Stress & Health, 32, 346-354. doi:10.1002/smi.2626
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it
all: How abusive supervision and leader-member exchange
interact to influence employee silence. Leadership
Quarterly, 26, 763-774. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.002
Yagil, D., Ben-Zur, H., & Tamir, I. (2011). Do employees cope
effectively with abusive supervision at work? An
Management, 18, 5-23. doi:10.1037/a0020548
Alexander Zill is a research fellow at the professorship of
organi-zational and economic psychology at the Chemnitz
University of Technology, Germany. His research interest
includes leadership, destructive leadership, colegitimacy,
personal uncertainty, and social exclusion in organizations.
Michael Knoll is a research fellow at the professorship of
organi-zational and economic psychology at the Chemnitz
University of Technology, Germany. Before joining Chemnitz
University of Technology, he held positions at University
Leipzig, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, and
Durham University Business School. His main research
interests include employee silence and voice, authenticity,
leadership, and the role of culture in organizations.
Alexandra (Sasha) Cook is a PhD candidate in organizational
and economic psychology at Chemnitz University of
Technology, Germany. Her research interests include
leadership, team processes, observational methods, and
social sensing. In her dissertation, she investigates stability and change of
Bertolt Meyer is a professor of work and organizational
psychol-ogy at Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany.
He holds a PhD in social psychology from Humboldt-University
Berlin. His research is focused on team processes, diversity,
and psychological-cal well-being at work.