VOCATIONAL
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL SILENCE
Sinan
Girgin
Istanbul
Okan University, Turkey
E-mail: sinan.girgin@hotmail.com
Ali
İlker Gümüşeli
Istanbul
Okan University, Turkey
E-mail: ilker.gumuseli@okan.edu.tr
Submission: 5/21/2020
Revision: 7/3/2020
Accept: 7/27/2020
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the
organizational silence perceptions of teachers who work in public high schools
in the Bağcılar district, Istanbul province
of Turkey, and to specify whether they differ according to different variables.
The survey model was used in the study. The research was performed with 323
teachers working in vocational high schools in the Bağcılar
district of Istanbul in the 2017-2018 academic year. In the study, the random
sampling method was employed. The "Personal Information Form"
and "Organizational Silence Scale" were used as data
collection tools. In the research, descriptive statistics, the independent
samples t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and the Kruskal-Wallis test were
performed. The general organizational silence perceived by vocational high
school teachers was found to be "low." It was revealed that the
perceived organizational silence of vocational high school teachers did not
vary by gender, educational level, professional seniority, subject, and union
membership, while the perceived general organizational silence varied depending
on age.
Keywords: vocational high school; teacher; organizational silence; demographic variables
1.
INTRODUCTION
Organizations are
formations established to meet the needs of people. From this point of view, it
is obvious that the reason why organizations exist is human. To explain it in
more detail, the reason for the existence of organizations is to ensure that people
can achieve certain goals they set during their life together with more than
one person or a group. The organization also has a specific structure.
This structure plays an
important role in coordinating actions to be taken by the group for a certain purpose
and balancing these actions. In this respect, the organization is a means of
coordinating the actions of people and making them concerted to each other (Grunig & Grunig, 2008). Under
the effect of the global competition, organizations want employees to express
what they think, what they want to say, their experiences and opinions within
the organization, and to work in team cohesion and group solidarity in order to
achieve the objectives of the organization (Koçel,
2014).
However, this is not
always possible, and employees prefer to keep silent instead of speaking out as
expected by the organization (Özdemir & Sarioğlu Uğur, 2013).
Individuals get the knowledge of the organization's policies, procedures,
identity, and rules within the organization, in which they are involved, by
speaking. By keeping silent, they avoid difficult or annoying situations. In
this case, organizational silence occurs. Organizational silence is a condition
when individuals refrain from disclosing what they know to their supervisors (Mcgowan, 2003).
A possible point of
confusion about organizational silence may be the way of keeping silent. What
is meant by silence is not the absence of noise or sound in an environment. It
is employees' not telling their opinions, which would carry the organization
they are involved to better positions, to those who can influence the situation
within the organization, such as their managers, supervisors, or boss,
knowingly and willfully, and their choosing to keep silent in the efforts to improve
willfully. Organizational silence results in people's failure to contribute to the organizational discourse freely (Bowen; Blackmon,
2003).
According to Saçılık (2014), organizational silence;
· Represents a dynamic process and
involves both personal and external factors;
· Occurs reactively with the feelings
and opinions of employees of an organization concerning certain situations;
· It is crucial that there is healthy
communication within the organization. It may occur when the communication of
employees within the organization is suppressed.
· It is quite difficult for
individuals, who are external to the organization, to understand the reactive
silence that occurs.
In general,
organizational silence is addressed in three sub-dimensions in the literature,
including acquiescent silence, defensive silence, and prosocial silence:
Acquiescent silence: In
this type of silence, individuals who are unwilling about and indifferent to
the organizational circumstances deliberately hide their ideas and opinions. In
this dimension, where the motivational capacity of individuals is low, they are
less aware of and willing about their silence (Pinder
& Harlos, 2001). Acquiescent silence involves
conscious inaction and hiding of information since it is thought to be
pointless to speak out.
Defensive silence: In
this type of silence, many employees know the truth about particular issues and
problems within the organization but dare not to speak out since they have
doubts about how their superintendents will react to it (Vakola
& Bouradas, 2005). It is a more proactive type of
silence, which involves the awareness and consideration of alternatives, shown
after a conscious decision (Van Dyne et al., 2003).
As the most important
factors leading employees to keep silent include stigmatization as a trouble
maker, the breakdown of the relationship, the fear of losing their job, or not
getting a promotion (Milliken, Morrison & Hewlin,
2003), it can be claimed that the behavior of silence is mostly exhibited to
defend oneself.
Prosocial silence: This
type of silence involves the hiding of information because this is safe and not
open to discussion. In this type of silence, the main goal is to protect
confidential and private information, including not disclosing the organization's
internal information and not mentioning the personal information of others in
every setting (Van Dyne et al., 2003). The individual worries that if he/she
does not keep silent, he/she will cause harm to himself/herself, other
colleagues within the organization, or the organization itself, and, thus,
he/she keeps silent (Durak, 2014).
As seen from the
above-mentioned sub-dimensions of silence, employee silence is not a one-time
thing but rather an ongoing process. As long as the motivation for silence is
stronger than the motivation for speaking out, silence increases (Brinsfield, 2009). The increasing silence of employees has
a negative impact on the level of welfare of employees by reducing their
productivity (Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2008).
First, the behavior of
keeping silent may spread throughout the organization and start a loop of
miscommunication (Milliken & Morrison, 2003). Silence may cause individuals
to pay a high psychological price, such as abasement, anger, grudge, and resentment.
It may break down interpersonal interaction, kill creativity, and, thus,
decrease productivity. Research has shown that keeping silent does not make it
right or make people more productive. It only suppresses differences beneath
the surface and strongly triggers destructive power.
Schools are
organizations where cooperation and social relationships are at the highest
level. Therefore, organizational silence is a very serious problem for schools
that can be described as an organization of communication and interaction. The
reason for this is the fact that schools, where many teachers from different
fields of study work together, are unable to actively make use of teachers,
especially on the subjects concerning their own fields of study, and lead them
to keep silent, which means the inability to use the existing potential (Ayduğ, Himmetoğlu &
Turhan, 2017).
It can be claimed that
particularly vocational high schools are among organizations where there is the
highest number of fields of study and the highest diversity. It is considered
important for these educational organizations where there is a great diversity
of fields of study to reach large segments of society and to reveal the levels
of silence of teachers teaching in these fields of study. Therefore, this
study's goal was to determine the level of the organizational silence perceived
by teachers working in public vocational high schools and whether it varied
depending on different variables. Therefore, answers to the following questions
were sought:
1. What is the level of organizational silence
perceived by teachers working in vocational high schools?
2. Does the level of organizational
silence of vocational high school teachers vary depending on the variables of
gender, age, educational level, professional seniority, the length of
employment in the school, subject, and union membership?
2.
METHOD
This section of the
study includes the study model, study population and sample, data collection
tools, and data analysis.
2.1.
Study Model
The study was designed
using the survey model. Survey models are approaches aiming to describe a past
or current situation as it is. The incident, individual, or object, which is
the subject of the study, is tried to be described according to its own
conditions and as it is. No effort is
made to change or influence it in any way. There is what is desired to be
known. What is important is to observe
and identify it properly (Karasar, 2014). In the
study, the data collected using data collection tools were analyzed to
investigate the teachers' levels of organizational silence.
2.2.
Study Population and
Sample
The target population
of the study consisted of teachers working in vocational and technical high
schools located in the Bağcılar district,
Istanbul, in the 2017-2018 academic year. According to the data obtained from
the Bağcılar District Directorate of
National Education, there were 13 vocational and technical Anatolian high
schools in the Bağcılar district, and there
were a total of 857 teachers employed in these high schools.
As indicated by Balcı (2013), the theoretical sample size for
populations of different sizes is 277 people in a population of 1000 people
with a tolerable margin of error of 5% and at a confidence interval of 95%.
Considering the theoretical sample size for populations of different sizes, it
is observed that 277 individuals are sufficient for a population of 857
people.
According to Yıldırım and Şimşek
(2011), it is possible to select a sample size, which is statistically
sufficient to represent the population, through statistical calculations by a
totally random method, from a population. The random sampling method was used
in the study. The quantitative data collection tools were distributed to 450
teachers working in the vocational high schools in the Bağcılar
district, and 410 data collection tools were received back.
Eighty-seven out of 410
data collection tools were excluded from the assessment since they were
incomplete or incorrect. Three hundred twenty-three data collection tools were
assessed in the study. The distribution of the teachers included in the study
by their demographic characteristics is given in Table 1.
Table 1:
Frequency and percentage distribution of teachers by their demographic
characteristics (N=323)
|
Variables |
Group |
f |
% |
|
Gender |
Female |
170 |
52.6 |
|
Male |
153 |
47.4 |
|
|
Age |
24 to
29 years |
78 |
24.1 |
|
30 to
39 years |
142 |
44.0 |
|
|
40 to
49 years |
84 |
26.0 |
|
|
50
years and above |
19 |
5.9 |
|
|
Educational
Level |
Bachelor's
Degree |
247 |
76.5 |
|
Postgraduate |
76 |
23.5 |
|
|
Professional
Seniority |
0 to 5
years |
106 |
32.8 |
|
6 to 10
years |
96 |
29.7 |
|
|
11 to
15 years |
37 |
11.5 |
|
|
16 to
20 years |
39 |
12.1 |
|
|
21
years and above |
45 |
13.9 |
|
|
Subject |
Non-Math
or Sciences |
107 |
33.1 |
|
Math/Sciences |
74 |
22.9 |
|
|
Profession |
142 |
44.0 |
|
|
Union
Membership |
Yes |
230 |
71.2 |
|
No |
93 |
28.8 |
Table 1 shows that 52.6% of the high
school teachers included in the study are female, and 47.4% of them are male.
The mean age of the teachers aged between 24-64 years is 35.54±7.61. Moreover,
the age of 30 to 39 years is the largest age group with a percentage of 44.0%.
Most of the teachers (76.5%) hold a bachelor's degree, while 23.5% of them hold
a master's degree. The mean professional seniority of the teachers is
10.50±7.53 years (ranging from 1 year to 44 years). At the same time, the group
of teachers with the professional seniority of 0 to 5 years is the largest
group, which constitutes 32.8% of the study population. Of the teachers, 33.1%
and 22.9% are non-math or sciences and math/sciences teachers, respectively,
and the remaining 44.0% teach vocational courses, and 71.2% of the teachers are
union members.
2.3.
Data Collection Tools
The personal
information form, which was prepared by the researchers, and the
"Organizational Silence Scale," which was developed by Van Dyne et
al. (2003) and translated into Turkish by Taşkıran
(2011), were used to reveal the level of organizational silence of teachers.
2.3.1.
Personal Information Form
The personal
information form prepared by the researchers was used to obtain the
socio-demographic information of the participants. The personal information
form includes questions about gender, age, educational level, professional
seniority, subject, and union membership.
2.3.2.
Organizational Silence Scale
The level of
organizational silence of teachers was measured by the scale, which was developed
by Van Dyne et al. (2003) and translated into Turkish by Taşkıran
(2011). The original version of the Organizational Silence Scale consists of 15
items and 3 sub-dimensions. The sub-dimensions are acquiescent silence (items
1, 2, 3, 4, 5), defensive silence (items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), and prosocial silence
(items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). The scale was prepared in the form of a 5-point
Likert-type rating scale. The items on the 5-point Likert-type scale are rated
as follows: "(1) Strongly disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Neither agree nor
disagree, (4) Agree, (5) Strongly agree".
The answer codes
assigned to each item in the scale range between 1.00 to 5.00 in the order from
negative to positive according to these rates. By assuming the intervals in the
assessment instrument, first, the lower and upper limits for the options were
determined. In interpreting arithmetic means, the intervals were determined to
be 1.00-1.80 "very low," 1.81-2.60 "low," 2.61-3.40
"satisfactory," 3.41-4.20 "high," and 4.21-5.00 "very
high." The suitability of the
Organizational Silence Scale for this study conducted with teachers was
investigated by checking its confidence through item analysis and is presented
in Table 2.
Table 2:
Confidence analysis for the Organizational Silence Scale
|
Dimension/Scale |
Item Number |
Cronbach's
Alpha (α) |
|
Organizational
silence scale |
15 |
0.819 |
|
Acquiescent
silence |
5 |
0.804 |
|
Defensive
silence |
5 |
0.885 |
|
Prosocial
silence |
5 |
0.839 |
Table 2 presents the results of the
confidence analysis conducted for the Organizational Silence Scale consisting
of three sub-dimensions. Accordingly, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach's
alpha) for "Acquiescent silence," which is the first sub-dimension of
the scale, was found to be α=0.804,
while the reliability coefficients for "Defensive silence," which is
the second sub-dimension, and "Prosocial silence," which is the third
sub-dimension, were found to be α=0.885 and α=0.839, respectively.
Finally, when all items
(15 items) were analyzed together, the reliability coefficient for the
Organizational Silence Scale (Cronbach's alpha) was found to be α=0.819.
This value shows that the reliability of the overall scale is very high. The
item analyses conducted for the Organization Silence Scale and its
sub-dimensions showed that the reliability level of the scale and its
sub-dimensions was satisfactory for this study.
2.4.
Data Analysis
SPSS statistical
package software was used in analyzing and assessing the study findings. The
data collected were analyzed statistically for the purposes of the study, using
the frequency and percentage calculations to determine the sample group. The
t-test, which is a parametric test, was used for dual groups. At the same time,
the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), which is also a parametric test, and
the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test were used for three or more groups to
investigate whether the levels of perceived organizational silence varied by
demographic variables. In all statistical calculations, the level of
significance was considered to be .05, and the results were assessed
accordingly.
3.
FINDINGS
This section includes
the findings and interpretation of the study data.
3.1.
Findings and
Interpretation for the First Subproblem
The descriptive
statistics on the organizational silence perceived by vocational high school
teachers are presented in Table 3.
Table 3:
Descriptive statistics results of the level of organizational silence perceived
by vocational high school teachers (N=323)
|
Dimensions of Organizational Silence |
|
sd |
Level |
|
Organizational
silence (General) |
2.56 |
0.57 |
Low |
|
Acquiescent
silence |
2.14 |
0.73 |
Low |
|
Defensive
silence |
2.04 |
0.83 |
Low |
|
Prosocial
silence |
3.48 |
0.97 |
High |
Table 3 summarizes the level of organizational
silence perceived by the vocational high school teachers included in the study.
Accordingly, the level of organizational silence perceived by vocational high
school teachers was generally found to be "low" (=2.56).
In this study, the levels of acquiescent silence and defensive silence of
vocational high school teachers were also found to be "low" [( =2.14)
and ( =2.04)], respectively, while the level of prosocial silence ( =3.48)
was found to be "high."
3.2.
Findings and
Interpretation for the Second Subproblem
Whether there was a
significant difference between the levels of organizational silence perceived
by vocational high school teachers by the variable of gender was tested by the
t-test, the results of which are presented in Table 4.
Table 4:
Results of the t-test showing the variance of the organizational silence
perceived by vocational high school teachers by the variable of gender (N=323)
|
Dimension/Scale |
Gender |
Descriptive
Statis. |
t-test |
||||
|
n |
|
sd |
t |
sd |
p |
||
|
Organizational
silence (General) |
Female |
170 |
2.59 |
0.57 |
1.22 |
321 |
0.223 |
|
Male |
153 |
2.51 |
0.58 |
||||
|
Acquiescent
silence |
Female |
170 |
2.14 |
0.71 |
0.07 |
321 |
0.948 |
|
Male |
153 |
2.15 |
0.75 |
||||
|
Defensive
silence |
Female |
170 |
2.09 |
0.83 |
0.95 |
321 |
0.345 |
|
Male |
153 |
2.00 |
0.82 |
||||
|
Prosocial
silence |
Female |
170 |
3.55 |
0.94 |
1.42 |
321 |
0.158 |
|
Male |
153 |
3.40 |
0.99 |
||||
As seen in Table 4, no
significant difference was found between the levels of organizational silence
[t(321)=1.22; p>.05] and its sub-dimensions of acquiescent silence
[t(321)=0.07; p>.05], defensive silence [t(321)=0.95; p>.05], and
prosocial silence [t(321)=1.42; p>.05], as perceived by vocational high
school teachers according to gender.
Whether there was a
significant difference between the levels of organizational silence perceived
by vocational high school teachers by the variable of age was tested by the
non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, the results of which are presented in Table
5.
Table 5:
Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test showing the variance of the organizational
silence perceived by vocational high school teachers by the variable of age
(N=323)
|
Dimension/Scale |
Age |
Descriptive
Statis. |
Kruskal-Wallis
test |
M-W test |
|||
|
n |
Seq. Mean |
Χ² |
sd |
p |
|||
|
Organizational
Silence (General) |
Age of
24 to 29 (1) |
78 |
185.60 |
9.20 |
3 |
0.027* |
1 and 4 |
|
Age of
30 to 39 (2) |
142 |
161.15 |
|||||
|
Age of
40 to 49 (3) |
84 |
163.58 |
|||||
|
Age of
50 ≥ (4) |
19 |
141.16 |
|||||
|
Acquiescent
silence |
Age of
24 to 29 (1) |
78 |
187.60 |
8.55 |
3 |
0.036* |
1 and 4 |
|
Age of
30 to 39 (2) |
142 |
157.19 |
|||||
|
Age of
40 to 49 (3) |
84 |
159.50 |
|||||
|
Age of
50 ≥ (4) |
19 |
146.92 |
|||||
|
Defensive
silence |
Age of
24 to 29 (1) |
78 |
175.05 |
4.25 |
3 |
0.236 |
- |
|
Age of
30 to 39 (2) |
142 |
165.05 |
|||||
|
Age of
40 to 49 (3) |
84 |
146.23 |
|||||
|
Age of
50 ≥ (4) |
19 |
155.34 |
|||||
|
Prosocial
silence |
Age of
24 to 29 (1) |
78 |
177.60 |
4.92 |
3 |
0.178 |
- |
|
Age of
30 to 39 (2) |
142 |
154.96 |
|||||
|
Age of
40 to 49 (3) |
84 |
153.96 |
|||||
|
Age of
50 ≥ (4) |
19 |
186.11 |
|||||
As shown in Table 5, it was found
that the level of the general organizational silence varied by the age of
vocational high school teachers [X²(3)=9.20; p<.05] and that the level of
the general organizational silence of the vocational high school teachers in
the age group of 24 to 29 years (mean rank =185.60) was found to be higher than
that of the vocational high school teachers in the age group of 50 years and
above (mean rank=141.16).
No significant
difference was revealed between the perceived level of defensive silence
[X²(3)=4.25; p>.05] and prosocial silence [X²(3)=4.92; p>.05]. However, a
significant difference was identified between the levels of acquiescent silence
by the age of vocational school teachers [X²(3)=8.55; p<.05]. The post-hoc
Mann-Whitney test revealed that the level of acquiescent silence of the
vocational school teachers in the age group of 24 to 29 years (mean rank
=187.60) was higher than that of the teachers in the age group of 50 years and
above (mean rank =146.92).
Whether there was a
significant difference between the levels of organizational silence perceived
by vocational high school teachers by the variable of educational level was
tested by the t-test, the results of which are presented in Table 6.
Table 6:
Results of the t-test showing the variance of the organizational silence
perceived by vocational high school teachers by the variable of educational
level (N=323)
|
Dimension/ Scale |
Educational Level |
Descriptive
Statis. |
t-test |
||||
|
n |
|
sd |
t |
sd |
p |
||
|
Organizational
silence (General) |
Bachelor's
Degree |
247 |
2.58 |
0.57 |
1.32 |
321 |
0.188 |
|
Postgraduate |
76 |
2.48 |
0.57 |
||||
|
Acquiescent
silence |
Bachelor's
Degree |
247 |
2.16 |
0.72 |
0.61 |
321 |
0.540 |
|
Postgraduate |
76 |
2.10 |
0.75 |
||||
|
Defensive
silence |
Bachelor's
Degree |
247 |
2.14 |
0.84 |
2.18 |
321 |
0.039* |
|
Postgraduate |
76 |
1.85 |
0.78 |
||||
|
Prosocial
silence |
Bachelor's
Degree |
247 |
3.49 |
0.96 |
0.36 |
321 |
0.716 |
|
Postgraduate |
76 |
3.44 |
1.00 |
||||
As observed in Table 6, no
significant difference was found between the levels of organizational silence
[t(321)=1.32; p>.05] and its sub-dimensions of acquiescent silence
[t(321)=0.61; p>.05] and defensive silence [t(321)=0.36; p>.05] by the
personal attainment of vocational high school teachers according to educational
level. However, a significant difference was found between the levels of
defensive silence of vocational high school teachers holding a bachelor's
degree and postgraduate degree, which was in favor of teachers holding a
bachelor's degree [t(321)=2.18; p<.05]. The analysis of the mean scores of
educational levels showed that teachers holding a bachelor's degree (=2.14)
had a higher level of defensive silence than teachers holding postgraduate
degrees (=1.85).
Whether there was a
significant difference between the levels of organizational silence perceived
by vocational high school teachers by the variable of professional seniority
was tested by the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, the results of which are
presented in Table 7.
Table 7:
Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test showing the variance of the organizational
silence perceived by vocational high school teachers by the variable of
professional seniority (N=323)
|
Dimension /Scale |
Professional
Seniority |
Descriptive
Statis. |
Kruskal-Wallis
test |
|||
|
n |
Seq. Mean |
Χ² |
sd |
p |
||
|
Organizational
Silence (General) |
0 to 5
years |
106 |
171.70 |
1.95 |
4 |
0.745 |
|
6 to 10
years |
96 |
160.05 |
||||
|
11 to
15 years |
37 |
157.26 |
||||
|
16 to
20 years |
39 |
156.74 |
||||
|
21
years and above |
45 |
151.76 |
|
|||
|
Acquiescent
silence |
0 to 5
years |
106 |
170.21 |
1.68 |
4 |
0.795 |
|
6 to 10
years |
96 |
159.76 |
||||
|
11 to
15 years |
37 |
160.70 |
||||
|
16 to
20 years |
39 |
160.46 |
||||
|
21
years and above |
45 |
149.83 |
||||
|
Defensive
silence |
0 to 5
years |
106 |
169.08 |
2.32 |
4 |
0.678 |
|
6 to 10
years |
96 |
166.51 |
||||
|
11 to
15 years |
37 |
148.03 |
||||
|
16 to
20 years |
39 |
153.76 |
||||
|
21
years and above |
45 |
154.32 |
||||
|
Prosocial
silence |
0 to 5
years |
106 |
166.57 |
4.10 |
4 |
0.392 |
|
6 to 10
years |
96 |
150.06 |
||||
|
11 to
15 years |
37 |
159.26 |
||||
|
16 to
20 years |
39 |
158.06 |
||||
|
21
years and above |
45 |
182.38 |
||||
As seen in Table 7, no significant
difference was found between the levels of organizational silence [X²(4)=1.95;
p>.05] and its sub-dimensions of acquiescent silence [X²(4)=1.68; p>.05],
defensive silence [X²(4)=2.32; p>.05], and prosocial silence [X²(4)=4.10;
p>.05], as perceived by vocational high school teachers according to
professional seniority.
Whether there was a
significant difference between the levels of organizational silence perceived
by vocational high school teachers by the variable of subject was tested by the
parametric one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the results of which are
presented in Table 8.
Table 8:
Results of the ANOVA test showing the variance of the organizational silence
perceived by vocational high school teachers by the variable of subject (N=323)
|
Dimension/Scale |
Subject |
Descriptive
Statis. |
ANOVA |
|||
|
n |
|
sd |
F |
p |
||
|
Organizational
Silence (General) |
Non-Math
or Sciences |
107 |
2.58 |
0.55 |
0.19 |
0.826 |
|
Math/Sciences |
74 |
2.53 |
0.42 |
|||
|
Profession |
142 |
2.55 |
0.66 |
|||
|
Acquiescent
silence |
Non-Math
or Sciences |
107 |
2.20 |
0.68 |
0.58 |
0.563 |
|
Math/Sciences |
74 |
2.15 |
0.68 |
|||
|
Profession |
142 |
2.10 |
0.79 |
|||
|
Defensive
silence |
Non-Math
or Sciences |
107 |
2.08 |
0.86 |
0.79 |
0.455 |
|
Math/Sciences |
74 |
2.12 |
0.70 |
|||
|
Profession |
142 |
1.98 |
0.86 |
|||
|
Prosocial
silence |
Non-Math
or Sciences |
107 |
3.46 |
0.96 |
2.01 |
0.136 |
|
Math/Sciences |
74 |
3.31 |
0.83 |
|||
|
Profession |
142 |
3.58 |
1.03 |
|||
As observed from Table 8, no
significant difference was found between the levels of organizational
silence [F(2;320)=0.19; p>0.05] and
its sub-dimensions of acquiescent silence
[F(2;320)=0.58; p>0.05], defensive silence [F(2;320)=0.79; p>0.05], and prosocial
silence [F(2;320)=2.01; p>0.05], as perceived by vocational high school
teachers according to subject.
Whether there was a
significant difference between the levels of organizational silence perceived
by vocational high school teachers by the variable of union membership was
investigated by the t-test, the results of which are presented in Table 9.
Table 9:
Results of the t-test showing the variance of the organizational silence
perceived by vocational high school teachers by the variable of union
membership (N=323)
|
Dimension/Scale |
Union Membership |
Descriptive
Statis. |
t-test |
||||
|
n |
|
sd |
t |
sd |
p |
||
|
Organizational
Silence (General) |
Yes |
230 |
2.53 |
0.59 |
1.40 |
321 |
0.162 |
|
No |
93 |
2.63 |
0.53 |
||||
|
Acquiescent
silence |
Yes |
230 |
2.12 |
0.75 |
1.07 |
321 |
0.287 |
|
No |
93 |
2.21 |
0.68 |
||||
|
Defensive
silence |
Yes |
230 |
2.04 |
0.84 |
0.04 |
321 |
0.970 |
|
No |
93 |
2.05 |
0.80 |
||||
|
Prosocial
silence |
Yes |
230 |
3.40 |
1.01 |
2.06 |
321 |
0.044* |
|
No |
93 |
3.64 |
0.84 |
||||
As seen from Table 19, no
significant difference was found between the levels of organizational
silence [t(321)=1.40; p>.05] and its
sub-dimensions of acquiescent silence
[t(321)=1.07; p>.05] and defensive silence [t(321)=0.04; p>.05] perceived by
vocational high school teachers according to union membership. However, a
significant difference was determined between the levels of prosocial silence
of vocational high school teachers who were union members and those who were
not, which was in favor of teachers who were union members [t(321)=2.06;
p<.05]. The analysis of the mean score related to union membership shows
that the level of prosocial silence of teachers who are not union members (=3.64)
is higher in comparison with those who are union members (=3.40).
4.
CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND
SUGGESTIONS
The level of the
general organizational silence perceived by vocational high school teachers was
found to be "low." Afşar (2013), Karabağ Köse (2014), and Kolay (2012) found low levels of organizational silence in
their studies. In the present study, the levels of acquiescent and defensive
silence of vocational high school teachers were "low," while the
level of prosocial silence was found to be "high".
According to these
results, it can be claimed that teachers exhibit the behavior of silence for
protection purposes and choose to keep silent to protect their organization and
colleagues. In their study conducted on research fellows, Kutlay
(2012) found a high level of silence in the dimension of prosocial silence,
while they concluded that the level of silence was high in the dimensions of
acquiescent and defensive silence.
According to Yanık (2012), the mean score of prosocial silence is
higher than those of the other sub-dimensions. When the findings obtained from
the study are compared to those obtained from the previous studies, it is
observed in parallel to the findings of this study that employees do not keep
silent much with the low level of perceived organizational silence (Oruç, 2013; Bildik, 2009).
This can be considered
favorable. It is not wrong to claim that a democratic environment is attempted
to be created in organizations, and everybody expresses their opinions freely.
On the other hand, Milliken and Morrison (2003) emphasized that it should be
determined well when the tendency to keep silent is functional and when it is
dysfunctional or harmful, by indicating that the freedom of individuals in an
organization to such an extent that they express their opinions randomly may
create an extremely chaotic environment.
In accordance with the
findings of the study, the perceived level of organizational silence is low in
schools where vocational high school teachers are employed. In other words, teachers
express their opinions, suggestions, and problems at a high level. Therefore,
voice diversity, which may create chaos, as emphasized by Milliken and Morrison
(2003), in vocational high schools, can be mentioned.
No significant
difference was determined in the levels of organizational silence of vocational
high school teachers according to gender. In other words, it can be argued that
the variable of gender is not a differential variable for organizational
silence. According to Bayram (2010), Kılıçlar and Harbalıoğlu
(2014), Kahveci and Demirtaş
(2013), Özdemir and Sarıoğlu
Uğur (2013), Taşkıran
(2010), Sezgin Nartgün and Kartal (2013), Ruçlar (2013), Alparslan (2010), Kaygın and
Atay (2014), and Yanık
(2012), no significant difference was revealed in the level of organizational
silence in terms of the variable of gender. The results of the study support
these findings.
It was found that the
general levels of organizational silence of vocational high school teachers
varied by age. Moreover, vocational high school teachers at the age of 24 to 29
had a higher level of organizational silence than teachers at the age of 50
years and above. According to Bayram (2010), Ruçlar (2013), and Kutlay (2012),
research fellows with a lower age average exhibit more organizational silence
than those with a higher age average. No significant difference was found
between their perceptions of defensive silence and prosocial silence.
However, a significant
difference was identified between the levels of acquiescent silence according
to the age of vocational school teachers. The level of acquiescent silence of
teachers at the age of 24 to 29 years is much higher than that of teachers at
the age of 50 years and over. Afşar (2013) and Bayram (2010) stated that the young age group of 20 to 30
years exhibits more silence behaviors in general, indicating that this age
group exhibits a higher level of silence, particularly on issues such as
administrative problems and employee performance.
This finding implies
that the age group of 24 to 29 years is more affected by inner dissatisfaction,
stress and alarming conditions, unjust and authoritarian attitudes of
administrators, by choosing to keep silent instead of speaking out in difficult
situations and keep even more silent on matters in which they have insufficient
knowledge and experience.
Furthermore, it can be
asserted that teachers believe that they will be regarded as a troublemaker and
grievant due to their reactions to events and conditions. The results are
supported by the findings obtained from the study conducted on teaching
assistants in the sub-dimensions of work-related issues and the lack of
experience by Ruçlar (2013) and the findings acquired
from the study carried out by Çakıcı
(2008).
No significant
difference was revealed in the levels of organizational silence of vocational
high school teachers by educational attainment. According to Ruçlar (2013) and Yanık
(2012), no significant difference was determined in the level of organizational
silence for the variable of educational attainment.
However, a significant
difference was found between the levels of defensive silence of vocational high
school teachers with a bachelor's degree and postgraduate degrees, which was in
favor of teachers with a bachelor's degree. The analysis of the mean scores of
educational attainment showed that teachers holding a bachelor's degree had a
higher level of defensive silence than teachers holding postgraduate degrees.
It can be claimed that
vocational high school teachers in the bachelor's degree group make a risk
analysis for inconveniences, which may be caused by their opinions on the
matters about which they will speak out. Thus, they get the idea that speaking
out may result in unfavorable outcomes. In other words, it can be argued that
vocational high school teachers in the postgraduate group are more successful
in self-expression.
No significant
difference was determined in the levels of organizational silence of vocational
high school teachers according to professional seniority. The results show that
all sub-dimensions of the scale used are perceived similarly by the groups of
seniority. In other words, it can be claimed that the variable of professional
seniority is not a differential variable for organizational silence. According
to Özdemir and Sarıoğlu
Uğur (2013), Kahveci
(2010), Kahveci and Demirtaş
(2013), Sarıkaya (2013), Sezgin
Nartgün and Kartal (2013), Koray (2013), no significant difference is found in the
level of organizational silence in terms of the variable of seniority.
No significant
difference was revealed in the levels of organizational silence of vocational
high school teachers according to the field of study. The levels of
organizational silence of vocational high school teachers having different subjects
are similar. In other words, it can be argued that the variable of subject is
not a differential variable for organizational silence.
No significant
difference was identified in the levels of organizational silence of vocational
high school teachers according to union membership. In other words, it can be
claimed that the variable of union membership is not a differential variable
for organizational silence. However, a significant difference was found between
the levels of prosocial silence of vocational high school teachers who were
union members and those who were not, which was in favor of teachers who were
not union members.
The analysis of the
mean score related to union membership shows that the level of prosocial
silence of teachers who are not union members is higher than that of teachers
who are union members. It can be asserted that vocational high school teachers
withhold their ideas, information, or opinions about the job they perform to
benefit other people or the organization based on feelings of altruism and
cooperation.
The following
suggestions can be made in line with the findings obtained from this study
conducted to determine the level of the organizational silence perceived by
teachers and whether it varies depending on different variables.
Suggestions for
research
· The level of the general
organizational silence perceived by vocational high school teachers was found
to be "low." The levels of acquiescent and defensive silence of
vocational high school teachers were "low," while the level of prosocial
silence was found to be "high." It is observed that teachers keep
silent to protect the interests of their schools or the social circle in their
school. The personal and organizational impacts of this may be investigated.
Advantages and disadvantages for an individual and the organization may be
revealed.
· It was observed that the levels of
the general organization silence and acquiescent silence of vocational high
school teachers at the age of 24 to 29 were higher than those of older
teachers. School administrators can treat younger teachers in a more sensitive
manner. Furthermore, more orientation may be provided to the teachers in this
group.
· Suggestions for researchers
· The subject of the study can be
applied to teachers serving at different levels of education in public and
private schools.
· The study can be conducted in
schools in cities and districts with different social, economic, and cultural
conditions to make a comparison.
· The study may be carried out using a
mixed method.
REFERENCES
Alparslan, A. M. (2010). Örgütsel
sessizlik iklimi ve iş gören sessizlik davranışları arasındaki
etkileşim: Mehmet Akif Ersoy üniversitesi öğretim elemanları
üzerinde bir araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Isparta: Süleyman
Demirel Üniversitesi. Available:
https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Ayduğ, D., Himmetoğlu, B., & Turhan E. (2017). Öğretmenlerin
örgütsel sessizliğe ilişkin görüşlerinin nitel bir
araştırma ile incelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3),1120-1143.
Balcı, A. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem,
teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem
Brinsfield, C. (2009). Employee silence: Investigation of dimensionality, development of
measures and examination of related factors. Doctoral Dissertation. Columbus:
Ohio State University. Available:
https://www.proquest.com/
Bildik, B. (2009). Liderlik tarzları, örgütsel sessizlik ve örgütsel bağlılık ilişkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Kocaeli: Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals
of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal
of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393-1417.
Bayram, T. Y. (2010). Üniversitelerde örgütsel sessizlik. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Çakici, A. (2008). Örgütlerde sessiz kalınan konular, sessizliğin nedenleri ve algılanan sonuçları üzerine bir araştırma. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1), 117-134.
DURAK, İ. (2014). Örgütsel sessizliğin demografik ve kurumsal
faktörlerle ilişkisi: Öğretim elemanları üzerine bir
araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 28(2), 89-108.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig,
L. A. (2008). Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future.
In Public Relations Research), 327-347.
Karasar, N. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (26. Baskı).. Ankara: Nobel.
Kahveci, G. (2010). İlköğretim okullarında örgütsel sessizlik ile örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişkiler. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Elâzığ: Fırat Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Kahveci, G., Demirtaş, Z. (2013). Okul yöneticisi ve öğretmenlerin örgütsel sessizlik algıları. Eğitim ve Bilim,38(167), 50-64.
Kaygin, E., & Atay, M. (2014). Mobbingin örgütsel güven ve örgütsel sessizliğe etkisi-kamu kurumunda bir uygulama. Çukurova Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 18(2), 95-113.
Kutlay, Y. (2012). Araştırma görevlilerinin örgütsel adanmışlık ve öz-yeterliliklerinin örgütsel sessizlikleri üzerine etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Isparta: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Koçel, T. (2014). İşletme yöneticiliği: Yönetim ve organizasyon, organizasyonlarda davranış, klasik-modern-çağdaş ve güncel yaklaşımlar. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
Kolay, A. (2012). Endüstri meslek liselerinde görev yapan öğretmenlerin örgütsel sessizlik ve örgütsel bağlılıkları arasındaki ilişki. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: Yeditepe Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Karabağ-Köse, E. (2014). Dezavantajlı okullarda öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılıkları ile örgütsel sessizlik arasındaki ilişkiler. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 2(2), 28-36.
Kiliclar, A., & Harbalioğlu, M. (2014). Örgütsel sessizlik ve örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı arasındaki ilişki: Antalya’daki beş yıldızlı otel işletmeleri üzerine bir araştırma. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(1), 328-346.
Kaygin, E., & Atay, M. (2014). Mobbingin örgütsel güven ve örgütsel sessizliğe etkisi-kamu kurumunda bir uygulama. Çukurova Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 18(2), 95-113.
Milliken, F. J., & Morrison, E. W. (2003).
Shades of silence: Emerging themes and future directions for research on
silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6),1563-1568.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee
silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of
Management Studies, 40(6),1453-1476.
Mcgowan, R. A. (2003). Organizational discourses: Sounds of silence and voice in
organizational life stream. 3rd international critical management studies
conference lancaster university, UK 7-9 July 2003.
Oruç, M. (2013). Örgütsel bağlılık ve örgütsel sessizlik arasındaki ilişki: bir firmada araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Özdemir, L., & Sarioğlu-Uğur S. (2013). Çalışanların örgütsel ses ve sessizlik algılamalarının demografik nitelikler açısından değerlendirilmesi: Kamu ve özel sektörde bir araştırma. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 27(1), 257-281.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos,
K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to
perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20. p. 331-369.
Ruçlar, K. (2013).
Örgüt kültürü ve örgütsel
sessizlik arasındaki ilişki-Sakarya üniversitesi örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Sakarya: Sakarya Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Sarikaya, M. (2013). Karar verme süreçleri ve örgütsel sessizlik. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Saçilik, T. (2014). Örgüt kültürü ve örgütsel sessizlik arasındaki ilişki ve bir araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Sezgin-Nartgün, Ş., Kartal, V. (2013). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel sinizm ve örgütsel sessizlik hakkındaki görüşleri. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2), 47-67.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee Silence on critical work issues: The cross-level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37-68.
Taşkiran, E. (2010). Liderlik tarzının örgütsel sessizlik üzerindeki etkisinde örgütsel adaletin rolü ve bir araştırma. Doktora Tezi. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Taşkiran, E. (2011). Liderlik ve örgütsel sessizlik arasındaki etkileşim. İstanbul: Beta.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C.
(2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional
constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
Vakola, M., & Bouradas,
D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organizational silence: an empirical
investigation. Employee Relations,
27(5), 441-458.
Yanik, C. (2012). Örgütsel sessizlik ile güven arasındaki ilişki ve eğitim örgütlerinde bir araştırma. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: Yeditepe Üniversitesi. Available: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.