Acquiescent and Defensive Silence in an Indonesian Context

Corina D. Riantoputra, Widya Maharisa, Tytania Faridhal

Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia

Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia

Volume 20 Number 2, December 2016

Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia Volume
20Number 2 Article 5 12-1-2016 Acquiescent and defensive silence in an Indonesian
context Acquiescent and defensive silence in an Indonesian context Corina D. Riantoputra
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia, [email protected]
Widya Maharisa Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia
Tytania Faridhal Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/hubsasia Recommended
Citation Recommended Citation Riantoputra, C. D., Maharisa, W., & Faridhal, T. (2016).
Acquiescent and defensive silence in an Indonesian context. Makara Human Behavior
Studies in Asia, 20(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v20i2.3493 This Original
Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by UI Scholars Hub. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia by an authorized editor of
UI Scholars Hub.

M ak a ra Hub s-Asi a , 20 16, 20(2): 121-129 DO I: 1 0 .7 454 / mssh . v2 0i2.349 3 Dec e mb

er 2 0 1 6 | Vol. 2 0 | No . 2 121 Acqui es centa nd Defensi ve Sil encei n an Indo nesi an Co
ntex t C orina D. Ri antoput ra*, W id ya Maha risa, and T yt ania Faridhal Facult y o f P s
ycho lo g y, U niver sitas I nd o ne sia, Dep o k 1 6 4 2 4 , I nd o nesia *E-ma il: co rin a . r@u
i.a c. id Abstract Alt ho ug h e mp lo yee sile nce is alr ea d y well-k no wn to ca use har
ms to b o th e mp lo yee s an d o r ganizatio ns, les s is k no wn ab o ut the ind i vid ual and
sit uat io nal fac to r s t hat ca n i nf lue nc e it. T his s tud y r evea l s t he r el atio ns hip s a
mo n g ac q uiesce nt silence , d efe nsi ve sile nce , p s yc ho lo gical co ntr ac t b r ea ch es, j
o b-b ased p s yc ho lo gical o wner s hip , vo ice e ff icac y, .co nd ucted a sur ve y o n a
samp le o f o f 2 6 0 p ub lic emp l o yee s o f an I nd o nes ia ind icate s t hat ( 1 ) ind ivid ual
fac to r s ( vo ice ef ficac y a nd p s yc ho lo gical co ntr ac t b r ea ch) and situatio nal fac to r
s ( tas k co hesio n and p s yc ho lo gical s afet y) wo r k ha nd in ha nd to af fec t sile nce
b eha vio r ; a nd ( 2 ) j ob-b ased p syc ho lo gical o wner sh ip ha s no r elatio n sh ip
with ac q uie sce nt a nd d ef ensi ve sile nce . T his p ap er d iscu sse s ( 1 ) the i mp o r ta
nce inco r p o r ating ind i vid ua l and situa tio nal fac to r s in u nd er sta nd in g sile nce b
eha vio r ; and ( 2 ) the co llectivistic nat ur e o f I nd o nesia n p eo p le t hat ma y c o ntr ib
ute to the i mp o r ta nce o f sit uatio nal fac to r ( i.e . , tas k co hesio n) o n sile nce b eha
vio r well a nd b e yo nd p s yc ho lo gica l o wner sh ip . A cqu iescen t an d Defen sive Sil
en ce d i In d on esia Abstrak Sekalip un telah d i keta hu i b ah wa silen ce ( p er ilak u d ia
m) m end atan gka n ker u gia n b agi in d ivid u d an o r gani sasi, te tap i tid ak b an ya k d
iketa h ui fa kto r ind ivid u d a n fa kto r situa si yan g me mp e ngar uh in ya. St u d i ini me
ng u ng kap h ub u nga n antar a a cq u isce n t silen ce ( d iam kar ena mer asa tid a k b er d
a ya) , d efen sive silen ce ( d ia m u n tuk me lind un gi d ir i) , p er sep si p elang gar an ko
ntr ak p si ko lo gi s, kep e mil ika n p siko lo gis ter k ait p eker j aa n, efikas i u ntu k m eng
u ng kap ka n p end ap at, r asa a man p s iko lo g is d an keko he sifa n d ala m p ela ksa naa
n t u g as. Sur ve i ter had ap 2 6 0 p ega wai d ar i sat u ke me nter ian d i I nd o nesia d ila
ku ka n d en ga n a lat u kur ya ng me mp u n yai r eli ab ilitas ya n g b aik . ,8 sa mp ai 0,9 5
) . Hasil anal isi s men u nj uk ka n b ah wa ( 1 ) fa kt o r ind ivid u ( e fika si u nt uk meng u
ng kap ka n p e nd ap at d an p er sep si p elan ggar a n ko ntr a k p siko lo gi s) b er sa ma-
sa ma d e nga n fa kto r sit uasi (ke ko hes i fan d ala m p ela ksa naa n t uga s d an r asa a
ma n p si ko lo gis) me mp e n gar u hi p er ilak u d ia m; d an ( 2 ) kep emil ika n p si ko l o
gis ter kai t p eker j aa n tid ak b er hub u nga n d en ga n p er ilaku d ia m. Nas ka h i ni
mend i sk u si kan ( 1 ) p entin g n ya me mp er ti mb a n gka n b ai k fak to r ind i vid u
maup un fa kto r sit ua si unt u k me maha mi p er ilak u d ia m sec ar a ko mp r ehen si f; d
an ( 2 ) p entin gn ya fakto r sit uas i ( yait u k eko hes ifa n d ala m p ela ksa naa n tuga s) ,
ya ng meleb i hi p en gar uh fa kto r ind iv id u ( yai tu kep emili ka n p siko lo gis ter kait p
ek er j aa n) d alam me mp e ngar uh i p er ilaku d ia m ke mu n g kina n d i seb ab kan kar
ena k ult ur kole kt if b an gsa I nd o ne sia. Key wo rd s: A cq u iescen t silen c e, d efen sive
silen ce , I n do n esia, ta sk co h esio n , vo ice effica cy , p syc h o lo g ica lo wn ersh ip Cit a
t io n: Rian to p utr a, C. D. , Ma har isa, W ., & Far id hal, T . ( 2 01 6 ) . Or ga nizatio nal
sile nce in a n I nd o nesia n co ntext. Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia , 2 0(2 ) : 121131, DOI : 1 0 . 74
5 4 /ms sh. v2 0 i2.34 93 1. In trod u ction p ar lia ment to sec ur e b y gi ft 2 0 % sta ke
( nea r l y $ US4 b illiocomp a nies, wh ic h o p er ates in I nd o nesia, failed b ec ause t he mi
ni ng co mp a n y lo ca l Dir ec to r d ec ided to sp ea k up ab o ut it to make sure that
public was aware of this move (Mulholland, 2 0 1 5) . T he situatio n wo uld b e d iffer en t
had that lo ca l d ir ec to r d ec id ed to sta y s ilen t. T he d etr i me ntal e f fec t o f silence
can be seen in the case of the United Statesecond lar gest lo ng d ista nce telep ho ne co mp
a n y, W o r ld Co m. T wo o f its ac co unt in g managers were actually aware of

R ia n to p u tra , et a l. Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia Dec e mb er 2 0 1 6 | Vo l. 2 0 | No . 2 122 Chie

f E xec u tive Of ficer , Chie f Fi na ncial O f ficer , and it s r ep o r t ( Akh igb e, Ma r ti n, &
W h yte, 2 0 0 5 ) . Ho we ver , the y cho se to r e mai n s ilen t, le ttin g W o r ld Co m to lo
se a to tal asse t o f $ US 1 1 b illio n and d ec lar ed b an kr up tc y wit h 2 0 . 0 0 0 emp lo
yee s lo st t heir j o b s ( Ak higb e et a l., 2 0 0 5) . T hese eve nts ar e e xa mp les t o b usi
ness co mp an ies al l o ver the wo r ld that ap p ar en tl y s ilence is no t al wa ys go ld en.
T hese ca ses ar e o nl y a fe w o f tho usa nd s o t her similar events that tells us ho w
precio us the infor matio n e mp lo yee s ma y have a nd h o w d ea d l y t he s ilence o f
emplo yee is,bothtoco mpany andemplo yees. inte ntio nal l y wit h ho ld in g r elevant id
ea s, in fo r ma tio n o r opinio ns that are potentially beneficial for their co mpanies (Van
Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). Based on the motivation underlying it, researchers d
ifferentiate acquiescent silence and defensive silence (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Acquiescent
silence i s d isen ga ged b ehavio r b ased o n r esignatio n a nd lo w sel f-ef ficac y, while d
efe nsi ve sile nce is a fo r m o f self-p r o tective b e hav io r b ased o n fea r ( Va n D yne et
a l., 2 0 0 3) . E mp lo yee s wh o choose to do acquiescent silence do not have co nviction t
hat t h e y ar e ab le to chan ge the situa tio ns ar o u nd the m. T he y then te nd to extend
the ir to ler ance o f wha t t he y p er ce ive a s wr o n g, a nd ac ce p t that s itua tio n as
what it is. O n the o ther hand , e mp lo yee s wh o d o d efensi ve sile nce ch o o se to b e
silent b ec ause they believe that they will r eceive negative co nsequences if t he y sp ea k
up . P r evio us r esear c h has ind icat ed that e mp lo yee sile nce ma y ca use ne gati ve i
mp ac t s to co mp anies, li ke hi gh turnover, slow and ineffective organizational
development. It also b r ing s b ad co nseq ue nc es a mo ng e mp lo yee s, li ke lo w mo ti
vatio n, lo w j o b sati sfac tio n, wi thd r a wal, lo w rate of well-being, stress, and strain
(Knoll & Van Dick, 2 0 1 3 ; Sehito gl u & Zehir , 2 0 1 0 ; Vako la & B o ur ad as, 2 0 0 5) .
Discu ssio n r elate d to e mp lo yee sile nce b ec o me s mo r e i mp o r tan t b ec au se eli
mi nati ng e mp lo yee sile nce ma y b r ing ad va ntage, suc h a s the p o te ntial to id en
tify tr o ub les i mmed iatel y o r to co llect co nstr uct ive id ea s fo r o r ganizatio n succ e
ss. T ho se p o tentials ma y o nl y hap p en if e mp lo yee s d o no t cho o se to r emai n s
ilen t. I n o ther wo r d s, eli mina tin g e mp lo yee silence co uld b e the ke y o f o r
ganizatio n succ e ss. Scho lar s ha ve in vest igated ho w so me p er so nal and situa tio nal
fac to r s a f fec t e mp l o yee sile nce . So me o f t he p er so nal fac to r s ar e co mmit m
ent, j o b satisfac tio n, wel l-b eing, str ain, tr u st, wo r k-gr o u p id enti ficatio n, p er ce i
ved j ustice, and p o litica l s kil ls ( Kno ll & Va n Dic k, 2 0 1 3 ; Tangirala & Ramanujam,
2008). The previously investigated situa tio nal fac to r s ar e s up er v iso r statu s, o r gan
izatio nal cli mate o f si lence , p u ni sh me nt, p r o ce d ur al j ustice, and chance o f vo ice (
K no ll & V an Dic k, 2 0 1 3 ) . Ho wever , li mited st ud ies ha ve i nte gr ate d p er so nal
and sit uatio na l co ntext s i n o r d er to see t heir effec t o n b o th ac q uiesce nt and d
efen sive sile nce . Sp ec ificall y, we o b ser ve t hat so me p er so nal fac to r s at ind ivid
ual le vel ha ve b ee n o ver lo o ked o r nee d fur t her exp lo r atio n. T hey ar e p s yc ho
lo gical co ntr ac t b r ea ch ( P CB ) , j o b b ased p syc ho lo gi ca l o wner s hip ( J P O) and
vo ice ef ficac y. P s yc ho lo gica l co ntr ac t b r ea ch r efer s to o r ga nizatio n fails to d eli
ver the ir o b ligati o n ( Agar wal & B har ga va, 2 0 1 3 ; Ng, Feld ma n, & B utts , 2 0
14 ) . T his co nstr uct i s b ased o n the co nce p t o f p s ych o lo gical co ntr ac t, wh ich i s
d efined as an ind i vid u al's b elief s r egar d in g t he ter ms and co nditions o f a
reciprocal exchange agreement b et wee n [ a] fo ca l p er so n a nd ano t her p ar t y. [ T
his] incl ud e[ s] the b elie f that a p r o mise has b ee n mad e and a co nsid er atio n o f fer
ed in e xc han ge fo r it, b ind in g the parties to so me set o f reciprocal obligatio ns" (Ro
usseau, 1 9 8 9 , p . 12 3 ) . P syc ho lo gical co ntr ac t is sub j ec tive a nd i mp licit, a nd ,
is us uall y mea sur ed in ter ms o f to what exten t e mp lo yee s p er ce ive t he o cc ur r e
nce o f co ntr ac t b r ea ch ( B al & Vin k, 2 0 1 0 ). W hen e mp lo yee s p er ce ive t hat
the o r ga nizatio n has failed to d eliver p r o mised m utua l o b ligatio n, the y ma y fi nd
the msel ves i n a state o f in j ustice and lack o f tr u st to their super visor s or organizatio
ns. E mp lo yees with a state o f i neq uit y ma y b e li mited i n e xp r essi ng co ns tr ucti ve
id ea s fo r the ir o r ganiza tio ns. I n o ther wo r d s, P CB ma y potentially induce silence,
both, acquiescent and defensive silence . T her efo r e, we h yp o t h esize that : H1a:
Psychological contractbreachispositivelyassociated wit h ac q uie sce nt sile nce . H1b:
Psychological contractbreachispositivelyassociated wit h d efe n sive sile nce. Job-based
psychological ownership (Job-based PO), known as individuals feeling of possession toward
their particular jobs (Mayhew, Ashkanasy, Bramble, & Gard ner, 2 0 0 7 ) , is ano ther p o
tential var iab le aff ec tin g sile nce that nee d s fur t her i nve sti gatio n. Fee lin g o f o
wner s hip is gener all y exp er ience d to war d an o b j ec t, b ut ac co r d ing to P ier ce ,
Ko sto va, and D ir k s ( 2 0 0 1 ) , it ca n al so b e felt to war d no n p h ysical o b j ec t,
such as t o an o r ganizatio n o r a j ob . W hen i nd iv id uals fee l that the ir o r ganizatio
ns ar e t heir s, the y co uld b e willi ng to p a y mo r e atte ntio n to t heir organizations,
andtoassistand progress their organizations (Beggan, 1992). Psychological ownership
triggers employees to co mmit extra wor k voluntar ily, to protect and to speak up fo r t he
b ene fit of their j o b s o r their o r gan izatio n s (Pierce, Kosto va, & Dirks, 2003; Pierce &
J ussila, 2011), even at their o wn expenses. Van Dyne and Pierce (2004) even d e mo nstr
ate t hat p s yc h o lo gical o wner s hip is ab le to p r ed ict to what exte nt e mp l o yee s ar
e willi n g to speak up o ver and ab o ve j o b satisfac tio n o r o r ganizatio nal co mmi t
me nt, whic h ha ve b ee n r ec o g nized as t wo wel l-

A cq u iescen t a nd d efen sive silen ce in an I nd o n esia n co n text Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 6 | Vo l. 2 0 | No . 2 123 estab lis hed p r ed icto r s fo r o r ganizatio nal
citize ns hip b ehavio r ( P o d sako ff, Ma cKe nzie, P aine, & B ac hr ac h, 2 0 0 0) . Since,
the effect of job-based is stronger than organization-b ased p syc ho lo gical o wner sh ip in
ser vice o r ganizat io n (Driscoll, Pierce,& Coghlan, 2006), this research focusses o n j o b-b
ased p s ycho lo g ical o wn er s hip . P r evio us st ud ies sho w tha t whe n e mp lo yee s
exp er ience p s yc ho lo gical o wner sh ip to war d their j o b , the y tend to fee l tied to
t he j ob , and thus ac tivel y p ar ti cip ated in imp r o vi n g the quality of their job (Pierce
et al., 2001; 2003). T herefore, we h yp o t hesize t hat: H2 a: J o b-b ased p s yc ho lo gica l
o wner s hip i s ne gative l y asso ciate d with acq uiesce nt si l ence . H2 b : J o b-b ased p s
ycho lo gica l o wner s hip i s ne gati vel y asso ciate d with d e fen si ve sile nce . T he thir d
var iab le is vo ice ef f icac y, whic h r efer s to t he exten t to wh ich e mp lo yee s b elieve
that t he y ar e ca p ab le o f sp ea ki ng up ( T angir ala, Ka md ar , Venkatar a man i, & P ar
ke, 2 0 13 ) . E fficac y p o tent iall y p la ys a ke y fac to r in tr igger i n g e mp lo yee s to
sp ea k up , co ns id er in g p er ce ived co mp ete nce o f o nesel f is p ar ticular l y i mp o r
tant i n challenging the status-quo(Bandura,1994). As demonstrated b y Mc Allis ter , Ka md
ar , Mo r r iso n and T ur b an ( 2 0 0 7 ), vo ice e fficac y i s r elate d to ta kin g c har ge,
and o ne wa y to d o it is b y no t r e main in g silent. W hen e mp lo yee s d ec id e, no t to
r e mai n sile nt b u t, to exp r ess t heir id ea s o r su gge stio ns, the y wo uld ne v er b e
sur e if t heir id eas wo uld b e ac ce p ted o r instead , wo uld ca use the ir p ee r s to fee
l o f fend ed and r etaliate . I n line wit h t hat, As hfo r d , Ro thb ar d , P id er it, and Dutto
n ( 1 9 9 8) , in their ma ssi ve sa mp le st ud y, fi nd that ef fi ca c y si gni fica ntl y af fec t s
challengingbehavior,suchas issueselling, while T angirala et a l. (2 0 13 ) find that vo ice eff
icac y e nha nce s p o siti ve r elatio ns hip b et wee n d ut y-o r iented and sp ea k in g up .
T her efo r e, we h yp o t hesize t ha t: H3 a: Vo ice ef ficac y i s ne gati vel y as so ciate d wit
h ac q uiesce nt sile nce . H3 b : Vo ice ef ficac y is ne gati vel y as so ciate d wit h d efen sive
sile nce . Besides individual level variables, we argue that employeeexp er ience wit h t heir
wo r ki ng gr o up will al so have sub sta ntial i mp ac t o n sile nce . T wo p o tential var
iab les that ma y a f fec t sile nce ar e: (1 ) ho w mu ch e mp lo yee s in a gr o up ar e co
mmitted to ac h ieve the gr o up go als ( i.e . , task co he sio n) and ( 2 ) ho w safe t he y
fee l to exec ute ac tio ns lead i ng to t he ac hie ve men t o f gr o up go als ( i.e . , p s ycho lo
gical safet y) . Fo r t he fir st asp ec t, co he sio n is a d yna mic p r o ce ss that r ef lects to
what d egr ee me mb er s o f a gr o up r ema in i n their gr o up to p ur sue its go al B r a
wle y, 2 0 1 2 ) . I t co nsi sts o f ta sk co hesio n a nd so cial co hesio n. W hile so cial co
hes io n fo cuse s o n me mb er affective needs, task cohesion emphasizes task-orientation b
ehavio r s a mo n g the gr o up me mb er s. B ec ause o f t he task o r ie nted b eha vio r ,
tas k c o hesio n ma y sub sta ntia ll y their tas ks. A lo ngi tud i nal st ud y d e mo n st r
ates that ta sk co hesio n is a str o ng p r ed icto r o f gr o up per fo r mance a nd sti mula
tes the sense o f task-oriented amo ng group members (Chang, Duck, & Bordia, 2006).
Similarly, task cohesio n triggers cr ea tivit y o f a gr o up o f e mp l o yee s, wh ic h co me
alo n g wit h co n str uc tive b e hav io ur s ( J o o, So ng, L i m, & Yo o n, 2 0 1 2) that lead
e mp lo yee s to ac tivel y co ntr ib ute to t he gr o up , incl ud in g b y exp r ess in g t heir
tho ug ht s to ac hie ve the I n co ntr ast , emp lo yee s tend to kee p silen t i f t her e is no
tas k co he sion. I t i s t he n ar g ued t hat emplo yee silence depends on the perceived task
co hesion wit hi n t he gr o up wit h who m e mp lo yee s ar e wo r ki n g. T her efo r e, we
ar gue t hat: H4 a: T ask co hesio n is ne gati vel y a sso ciate d wit h ac q uiesce nt sile nce .
H4 b : T ask co hesio n is ne gati vel y a sso ciate d wit h d efen sive sile nce . T he co nce p t
o f p s yc ho lo gical safet y r e fer s to ind i vid ua l perception that s/he is ab le to express
themselves without fearo f negativeco nseq uencestohis/her self-image, status, or career
(Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). More than in-dividual consequences, Edmondson and Lei
(2014) observe that psycho logical safety refer s to the perceptio ns o f t he co nseq ue nce s
o f tak in g inter p er so nal r isks p ar ticular l y in a wo r kp lace . P r evio u s r ese ar ch s
up p o r ts the id ea t hat e mp lo yee s wit h hi gh le vel o f p s yc ho lo gical sa fet y fee l
safe to exp r ess t heir id ea s a nd o p inio ns ( Ma y, G ilso n, & Harter,2004). Siemsen,
Roth, Balasubramanian and Anand (2009), in a research conducted in three different
industries, also fo u nd that e mp lo yee s wit h hig her p s yc ho lo gical safetyco
mmunicate more freq uently thanemplo yees with lo wer p s ycho lo g ical sa fet y. I n co ntr
ast, e mp lo yee s tend to r ema in sile nt wh en the y p er ce ive a p ossib ilit y to b e
ignoredorconfrontedbyothergroupmembers (Nembhard & E d mo nd so n, 2 0 0 6 ). Emp lo
yee s wh o exp er ie nce a lo w level o f p s yc ho lo gical safe t y, ma y tend to r estrict r i
sk-taki ng b eha vio r to avo id an y n egati ve co nseq uence . Lac kin g o f t he p s yc ho lo
gical safet y ma y i nd uce t he fea r o f b ein g vie wed o r lab eled negat ivel y, as we ll as
t he possibility o f having bad caree r or receiving p unishments incl ud in g so cial p un is h
ment such as b ei ng r id iculed . T her efo r e, we h yp o t hesize t ha t: H5 a: P syc ho lo
gica l sa fet y is negat ivel y a sso ciate d wit h ac q uiesce nt sile nce . H5 b : P syc ho lo gica l
sa fet y i s negat ively a sso ciate d wi th d efen sive sile nce .

R ia n to p u tra , et a l. Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia Dec e mb er 2 0 1 6 | Vo l. 2 0 | No . 2 124 Fi

g ure 1 . The Hy pot hesiz ed Ass ociati on betw een Pre dicto rs (PCB , J ob-b ase d PO,
Voice Effic acy , Tas k Co hesi on, an d Psy cholog ical S af ety ) on Ac q uie scent an d Def en
sive Sil en ce 2. Methods Par ticip ants in t hi s st ud y wer e 1 8 1 male and 7 9 fe male e
mp lo yee s ( Ma ge = 2 9 . 92 , SD = 4 . 73 ) fr o m an I nd o nesia n go ver n ment i nst it utio
n t hat had ap p lied the T his s yste m allo ws e ver y e mp lo yee to r ep o r t any ille ga l, i
mmo r al o r illegiti mate ac tio ns o b ser ved in t he wo r k p lace ano n ymo u sl y, a nd is
kno wn to d ec r ea se emp lo yee sile nce ( Vako la & B o ur ad as, 2 00 5 ) . T he aver ag e o
r ganizatio nal te n ur e o f p ar ticip ants wa s 8 . 1 5 yea r s ( r anged fr o m 1 to 2 1 yea r
s) . d egr ee had an as so ciate d egr ee . E mp lo y ee Silence. Acq uie sc ent sile nce a nd
d efen si ve silence wer e asse ssed u sin g sca les d evelo p ed b y Van D yne et a l., ( 2 0 0
3 ). T o get mo r e valid r esult, t he sca les wer e ad ap ted fr o m t he o r igi nal s up er vi
so r-r ep o r t fo r m into self-r ep o r t fo r m fo r e mp lo yee sile nce i s b es t mea s ur ed
wit h sel f-r ep o r t me tho d ( Kno ll & Van Dic k, 2 0 1 3) . T he scales co n sist s o f fi ve ite
ms to mea sur e . 0. 8 9 ) and six ite ms to mea sur e . 0. 8 8 ) . A sa mp le ite m mea s ur i
ng an y id ea s, b ec au se t he o r ga nizatio n will no t c ha nge a afr aid o f r ui ni ng my
in ter p er so nal r elatio ns hip wit h P syc ho lo gica l Co ntr ac t B r ea ch J o b b ased P
sycho lo g ical O wner s hip Vo ice E ff icac y T ask Co hes io n P syc ho lo gica l Safety Acq
uiesce nt Silence Defe nsi ve Silence H1 a ( +) H1 b ( +) H2 a(-) H2 b (-) H3 a (-) H3 b (-)
H4 a(-) H4 b (-) H5 a(-) H5 b (-)

A cq u iescen t a nd d efen sive silen ce in an I nd o n esia n co n text Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 6 | Vo l. 2 0 | No . 2 125 Psychologica l Safety. Psychological safety was
assessed usi n g ni ne ite ms ad ap ted fro m b y Ne mb har d and Vo ice Ef f ica cy. W e
mea s u r ed vo ice ef ficac y us in g ite ms ad ap ted fr o m Sp r eitze r ( 1 9 9 5) . W e ad d
ed fo ur 4 ite ms to t his sca le to i ncr ea se the mea sur eme nt q ua lit y o f the sca le. A
to tal n u mb er o f eigh t ite ms used in t his . 0 I a m co n fid en t ab o ut my ab ilit y to sp
ea k up o n wo r k-r elate d is sue s in Ta s k Co hesio n. T ask co he si o n a mo n g t he p ar
ticip a nts wa s as sessed usi n g si x i te ms ad ap ted fr o m Gr o up E nvir o n me nt Q
uestio nnair e ( Car r o n, W id me yer , & B r a wle y, 1 998) . T he sca le has r eliab ilit y
co ef ficie nt o f 0. 8 0 . A ite m sa mp le is P CB. P CB wa s as ses sed u sin g sca le ad ap
ted fr o m Ro b inso n and Mo r r iso n ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T he sca le co n sis ts o f . 0 M y e mp lo
yer has b r o ken man y o f its p r o mises to me eve n Job-ba sed P sy cho lo g ica l O w
nership. J o b-b ased p s ycho lo gical o wner ship wa s mea s ur ed us in g si x-ite ms sca le
ad ap ted fr o m Ma yhe w e t a l. . 0. 8 8 . W e mo d ified th is sca le b y a d d ing ne w in str
uctio n fo r p ar ticip ants to b r iefl y wr ite d o wn so me ac tivi ties t hat the y d o as p ar t
o f their j ob . T his mo d ificat io n was inte nd ed to p r o vid e a co ntext fo r e mp lo yee
s to a ns wer ea ch ite m. A sa mp le ite m o f thi s sca le i s " T his i s m y j ob ". -fac to r
test wa s co nd ucted to exa mi ne the p o tential is sue s r elate d to co mmo n me tho d
var ia nce ( CMV ) b ias d ue to o ne-ti me d ata co llectio n (P o d sako ff, Mc Kenzie, & P o
d sako f f, 2 0 1 2) . Ad d itio nall y, t he un-r o tated fac to r so lutio n in vo l v ing al l exp
lo r ato r y fac to r var iab les was also a nal ysed . Res ults su g gested t hat no sin gle fac
to r ac co u nted fo r the maj o r it y o f t he co var iance in t he ind ep end e nt and cr iter
io n var iab les, su gge sti n g no co mmo n met ho d b ias. Co ntr o l Va ria bles. P r evio us r
esear ch has s ho wn t hat d emo gr ap hic var iab les ( i.e . , gend er , age, ed uca tio n, and
o r ganizatio nal te nur e) ha ve i nf lue nce s to the te nd enc y o f e mp lo yee s to sp ea k
up o r t o r e main sile nt ( Sta nsb ur y & Victo r , 2 0 0 9; W hitesid e & B ar clay, 2 0 1
3 ) . W e also mea s ur ed to wha t exte nt e mp lo yee s ha ve id ea s ( ha vin g id ea s var iab
le) . I t is i mp o r ta n t to kno w t hat e mp lo yee s ar e silent b ec au se the y i nte nt io nall
y wa nt to d o it, no t b ec ause the y d o n the co nce p t o f e mp lo yee sile nce ( Kno ll &
Va n Dick, 2 0 1 3 ; Van Dyne et a l., 20 0 3 ;) . Having id ea s was mea s ur ed u si ng t wo
ite ms ad ap ted fr o m B ur r is, Dete r t, and C h ho w to make th is co mp a n y b et . 0. 6
5 ) . T he availab ilit y o f o p p o r tuni ties to sp ea k up i s negat ivel y co r r elate d wit h e
m p lo yee s ilence ( Va ko la & B o ur ad as, 20 0 5 ; Kno ll & van Dick, 2 0 1 3 ) , thus t his
fac to r also nee d s to b e co ntr o lled . T he mo r e existi n g med ias e mp lo yee s ca n u
se t o co mmu n icate , t he les s their tend e nc y to r e mai n sile n t. Fre q uenc y o f e mp
lo yee co mmu n icatio n via e ma il an d info r mal mee ti n g, wer e ea ch mea sur ed u si
ng a si n gle i te m. 3. Resu lts an d Discu ssi on T able1displaysthebivariatecorrelatio ns
forall var iables und er in ves tiga tio n. I t s ho ws t hat ther e i s no co r r elatio n b et wee
n d e mo gr ap hic var ia b les and b o th t yp es o f silence . T her efo r e, d emo gr ap hic
var iab les wil l no t b e incl ud ed in the h ier ar chical r egr essio n anal ysis. T ab le 1 also
sho ws that ther e is ne g ative co r r elatio n b et wee n fr eq uenc y o f e mp lo yee co mmu
nicat io n via e mail and b o th ac q uiesce nt sile nce ( r = -0 . 1 2 , p < 0 . 0 5) , and d efen
sive si lence ( r = -0 . 1 1 , p < 0 . 5 ) , and fr eq ue nc y o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n f o r m
a l d i s c u s s i o n wi th ac q uie sce n t silence ( r =-0 . 1 3 , p < 0 . 5 ) , and wit h d efe nsi
ve sile nce ( r =-0 . 1 2 , p < 0 . 5 ). W e also fo und mo d er ate negat ive co r r elatio ns b et
wee n ac q uie s ce nt sile nce a nd ha vi ng id ea to war d s b o t h o r ga nizatio n ( r = -0 .
1 6 , p < 0 . 0 1 ) and j ob ( r = -0 . 20 , p < 0 . 01 ) . As exp ec ted , we fo u nd that all var
iab les und er inve sti gatio n wer e si gni fica nt p r ed icto r s o f ac q uiescent silence and
d e fe nsi ve sile nce ( see T ab le 1 fo r d etails). T hese find i n gs allo wed u s to test the
h yp o t heses us in g hier ar chical r e gr essio n anal y sis. Fo r each d ep end ent var iab le,
we co nd ucted o n e hier ar chical r e gr essio n anal ysis. B ased o n co r r elatio n testi n
g, we co ntr o lled fo r fr eq uenc y o f e mp lo yee co mm unica tio n a nd hav in g id ea .
Hier ar chical r egr es sio n a nal ys es wer e exec uted t wice to exp lain ea c h t yp e o f e
mplo ye e silence . T her e wer e o nl y fo ur o f fi ve p r ed icto r s ( P CB , vo ice e f ficac y,
ta sk co hesio n, a nd p s yc ho lo gical s afet y) t hat e xp lained 5 6 % var iance o f ac q
uiesce nt sile nce ( T ab le 1 & 2 ) . T ask co hesio n was the str o n gest co ntr ib uto r a
mo n g fo ur -0.5 4 ) , whil e jo b-b ased P O d id no t sig ni fica ntl y co ntr ib u te to ac q
uiesce nt sile nce . As fo r d efen sive s ilence , 5 3 % o f v ar iance wa s exp lai ned b y j ob-
b ased P O, vo ice effic ac y, task co hesio n a nd p s ycho lo gical safe t y, b ut no t P CB . Vo
ice eff icac y was fo u nd to b e the str o ngest p red icto r co mp ar ing to t he -0 . 5 3 ) . H
y po t hesis t esting . T ab le 2 and 3 p r esent r esult s o f hier ar chical r egr essio ns anal
ysis. All var iab les und er

R ia n to p u tra , et a l. Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia Dec e mb er 2 0 1 6 | Vo l. 2 0 | No . 2 126

Table 1. Corr elatio n Va r ia ble s Me a n SD Co r re la tio ns(a ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 Gen d er Ag e 2 9. 92 4 .7 3 -0 . 112 * 1 Te rn u re 8 .1 5 4 .9 8 -0 . 23 **
0 .8 9 ** 1 Edu c at i on 3 .8 8 0 .8 6 0 .1 2 * 0 .6 9 ** 0 .5 1 ** 1 Id ea-Orga n i za ti
on 2 .6 2 0 .6 2 -0 . 15 ** 0 .1 7 ** 0 .1 9 ** 0 .2 0 ** 1 Id ea-Job 3 .0 0 0 .5 2 -0 . 03 -0 . 04
0 .0 2 -0 . 05 0 .4 8 ** 1 Fr eq . Usin g Emai l 3 1. 36 0 .8 8 0 .0 5 -0 . 04 -0 . 07 0 .0 8 0 .1 0
* 0 .0 3 1 Fr eq . Formal Di scussi on 2 7. 27 0 .6 8 0 .0 8 0 .1 5 ** 0 .0 6 0 .2 2 ** 0 .0 6 0 .0
8 0 .1 4 * 1 Ac q u i escen t Si len c e 2 .2 3 0 .7 8 -0 . 05 0 .0 9 0 .0 4 0 .0 0 -0 . 16 ** -0 . 20
** -0 . 12 * -0 . 13 * 1 Def en si ve Si len c e 2 .2 5 0 .7 2 -0 . 07 0 .0 7 0 .0 3 -0 . 06 -0 . 19 ** -
0 . 28 ** -0 . 11 * -0 . 12 * 0 .8 1 ** 1 PC B 2 .9 3 0 .9 0 -0 . 21 ** -0 . 03 0 .0 6 -0 . 10 0 .0 1
0 .0 6 -0 . 04 -0 . 10 0 .3 4 ** 0 .2 6 ** 1 Ta sk C oh esi on 4 .8 2 0.6 0 0 .0 5 -0 . 08 -0 . 05 -0 .
05 0 .1 2 * 0 .1 2 * 0 .0 9 0 .0 4 -0 . 67 ** -0 . 58 ** -0 . 34 ** 1 Voi c e Effi c ac y 4 .6 5 0 .5 5 -0
. 05 0 .0 9 0 .1 3 * 0 .1 5 ** 0 .4 1 ** 0 .3 7 ** 0 .1 0 0 .0 7 -0 . 57 ** -0 . 62 ** -0 . 18 ** 0 .5 0 **
1 Job ba sed P. O. 4 .5 0 0 .7 6 0 .0 6 0 .1 3 * 0 .1 4 * 0 .1 6 ** 0 .1 6 ** 0 .2 5 ** 0 .0 1 0 .2 2 **
-0 . 41 ** -0 . 42 ** -0 . 30 ** 0 .4 1 ** 0 .4 2 ** 1 Psyc h olo gi c a l Sa fet y 4 7. 62 0 .2 7 0 .0 5 -
0 . 04 -0 . 03 -0 . 00 0 .0 3 0 .0 7 0 .1 2 * 0 .2 3 ** -0 . 32 ** -0 . 32 ** -0 . 09 0 .3 1 ** 0 .1 4 * 0 .0
9 1 Table 2. Hiera rc hical Reg re ssio n An aly sis for Ac q uiesce nt S ile nce Ste p 1 Ste p 2
Ste p 3 Ste p 4 Mo d el Su mmar y R2 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 7 0 . 5 5 0 . 5 6 F 6 . 0 2 3 . 2 9 6 6 . 5 0 6 .
7 5 d f1 , d f2 2 , 2 6 2 , 26 4 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 p 0 . 0 0 0 . 04 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 1 Unsta nd ar d ized b eta
Havi ng I d ea to war d s Or gan iza tio n -0 . 1 1 -0 . 0 9 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 6 Havi ng I d ea to war d
s J o b -0 . 2 3 * -0 . 2 3 * -0 . 0 8 -0 . 0 6 Fre q . of E mp lo yee Co mm. U s ing E mail -0 . 12+
-0 . 0 8 -0 . 0 4 Fre q . of E mp lo yee Co mm. I n Fo r mal Me eti ng -0 . 0 9+ -0 . 0 4 -0 . 0 3
Vo ice E fficac y -0 . 4 2 ** -0 . 4 3 ** J o b-b ased P yscho lo g ical O wn er hsip -0 . 0 4 -0 . 0
5 P CB 0 . 1 0 * 0 . 1 0 * T ask Co hesio n -0 . 5 9 ** -0 . 5 4 ** P syc ho lo gica l Safe t y -0 .
3 4 * *p < 0. 0 5 **p < 0. 0 1

A cq u iescen t a nd d efen sive silen ce in an I nd o n esia n co ntext Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 6 | Vo l. 2 0 | No . 2 127 Table 3. Hiera rc hical Reg re ssio n An aly sis for
Defe nsi ve S il enc e Ste p 1 Ste p 2 Ste p 3 Ste p 4 Mo d el Su mmar y R2 0 . 0 8 0 . 1 0 0 .
5 1 0 . 5 3 F 1 1 . 1 4 2 . 6 9 5 4 . 2 8 1 0 . 4 1 d f1 , d f2 2.26 2.26 4.26 1.25 p 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 7 0 .
0 0 0 . 0 0 Unsta nd ar d ized b eta Havi ng I d ea to war d s Or gan iza tio n -0 . 0 9 -0 . 0 7
0 . 10+ 0 . 1 0 Havi ng I d e to war d s J o b -0 . 3 3 ** -0 . 3 3 ** -0 . 1 5 * -0 . 1 4 Fre q .
Of E mp lo yee Co mm. Us ing E mail -0 . 1 0 -0 . 0 5 -0 . 0 2 Fre q . Of E mp lo yee Co mm. I
n Fo r mal Me etin g -0 . 0 8 -0 . 0 3 -0 . 0 2 Vo ice E fficac y -0 . 5 3 ** -0 . 5 3 ** J o b-b
ased P yscho lo g ical O wn er hsip -0 . 0 7 -0 . 0 9 P CB 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 T ask Co hesio n -
0 . 3 9 ** -0 . 3 2 ** P syc holo gica l Safe t y -0 . 4 0 ** *p < 0 . 0 5 **p < 0 . 0 1 A slig htl
y d i ffer e nt p atter n i s no ticea b le fo r d efen sive silence ( see T ab le 3 ) . T he mo d
el exp lain s 5 3 % var iance o f d efe nsi ve si lence . T he o n l y p r ed icto r that does not
contribute to defensive silence is p s yc ho lo gica l co ntr ac t b r ea ches ( P CB ) ( H1b r ej
ec ted) . As see n i n T ab le 3 , bo th situa tio nal fac to r s ar e s ig ni fica ntl y as so ciate d
wit h d efen sive sile nce ( H4 b d an H5 b ac ce p ted) . T ab le 3 also sho ws t hat vo ice ef
ficac y is the str o n ge st p r ed icto r o f d efen sive sile nce T his cur r ent r esear c h ha s ad
vance d k no wled ge o n silence b ehav io ur , i n at lea st t hr ee ar ea s. First, t he cur r
ent st ud y sho ws t hat i nd ivid ual and sit uatio nal var iab les, sp ec if icall y vo ice e f ficac
y, ta sk co hesio n, and p s ycho lo gical sa fet y, ar e wo r kin g hand in ha nd i n in flue
nci n g b o th ac q uiesce nt as d efen si ve sile nce . T his cur r ent r e sea r ch d e mo n str
ates that t hese ind i vid ual and situa tio nal var iab les co ntr ib u te to mo r e t han 5 0 %
o f var iance fo r ac q uiesce nt as well as d efen si ve sile nce . I n o ther wo r d s, t his cur
r en t r esear ch su g gest s t hat, in ad d r essing sile nce , scho lar s and p r ac titio ner s s
ho uld fo cu s o n b o th levels -i nd ivid u al and gr o up levels. O nl y b y fo cus in g o n var
iab les at b o th level s, scho lar s ma y ge t a b etter und er sta nd in g o f sile nce , and p r
ac titio ner s ma y well r ed uce t he tend e nc y o f ac q uiesce nt as well a s d efen sive sile
nce . Seco nd , the r es ult o f t his cur r ent r esear c h q ues tio ns the d yna mic o f ho w
p s yc ho lo gical co ntr ac t b r ea ch is asso ciate d wi th si lence b eha vio ur . Res ult s s ho
w t hat p s ycho lo gical co ntr act b r ea c h is p o sit ivel y as so ciate d wit h ac q uie sce n t
sile nce b ut no t d efen si ve sile nce . T he more employees experience psychological
contract breach the mo r e t he y p er ce ive that the y ha ve to ac ce p t the situatio n as it is
and choo se to be silent. T his occurs, most likel y, b ec ause p er ce ived co ntr ac t b r ea ch
ind uce s t he p er ce p tio n that the y wi ll no t b e ab le to change t he situa tio n a nd , th
us, no t exp r essi ng their co nce r n. I nter esti ng l y, r es ults s ho w th at p s ycho lo gical
co ntr ac t b r ea ch is no t as so ciate d wit h d efe ns ive sile nce . T his o cc ur s, mo s t li
kel y, b ec aus e the le vel o f p er ce ived co ntr ac t b r ea ch i n t his r esear ch set tin g i s
no t hig h ( i.e . , 2 . 9 3 in the r ange b et wee n 15 ) . T he r esults co uld b e d iffer e nt i n a
co nte xt o f hi g h p er ce ived co ntr ac t b r ea ch. T her efo r e, mo r e i nve sti gatio ns
nee d to b e d o ne to und er sta nd sile nce b eha vio ur . T hird, the current research
contributes to o r ganizatio nal behaviour theory by indicating that job-based psychological
o wner sh ip is no t associate d with, either ac q uie sce n t no r wit h d efe nsi ve sile nce ,
su g g estin g tha t the ind i vid ual p er ce p tio n o f o wner sh ip is no t a p o wer f ul p r ed
icto r fo r silence behaviour. T his result is surprising given previous r esear ch ind icate t
he str o n g effec t o f p s yc ho lo gica l o wner sh ip o n vo ice b ehavio ur (Van D yne & P
ier ce , 2 0 0 4) . One exp lanatio n p er ha p s r elate d to the ar gu me nt that vo ice a nd
sile nce ma yb e t wo d if fer ent co n str uct s that have d i f fer ent a ntece d e nt s. I n o
ther wo r d s, alt ho u gh p s ycho lo gical o wn er sh ip is str o ng l y a sso ciate d wit h vo
ice b ehavio r , mo r e r esear ch nee d s to b e do ne to d elinea te the a ntece d en ts o f s
ilence b eha vio r and to see ho w it d if fer s wit h t he antece d ents o f vo ice b eha vio r.
Another po ssib le explanation for this uniq ue result co uld b e r elate d to the the co
llectiv istic na tur e o f I nd o nesia n p eo p le. I n line wi th M u n a war o h, Ria nto p utr a
a nd Ma r p aun g ( 2 0 1 3) who ar gu ed fo r the imp o r tance o f inter co n nec ted ne ss
a nd in ter d ep end ence a mo ng gr o up member s in I ndo nesia, the results o f this
current research

R ia n to p u tra , et a l. Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia Dec e mb er 2 0 1 6 | Vo l. 2 0 | No . 2 128 also

su g ge mo r e i mp o r tan t t han fac to r s at ind i vid ua l le vel. T his su gge stio n is ev id
ence d i n t h e asso ciatio n b et wee n ta sk cohesio n and psycholo gical safety, which ar e
group level fac to r s, and silence b eha vio r . Ap p ar entl y, the p er ce p tio n that t he gr o
up i s gl ued to ce r tain tas ks ma y ind uce emplo yees to be willing to exp ress ideas for
the benefit of thegro up.T his gro uplevel factorhas stro ngerassociatio n
withsilencethanindividuallevelperceptionofownership. T hus, thi s cur r e nt r esear ch ca
lls fo r mo r e st ud ies to inve sti gate t he r elatio ns hip b et wee n j o b-b ased p syc ho-
logical o wner ship and silence, especially in collectivistic cult ur e. 4. Conclu sion I n co ncl
usio n, t hi s r esear ch s ho ws t hat vo ice ef ficac y, psychological safety, task cohesion and
perceived contract b r ea ch in fl uence t he o cc ur r e nce o f sile nce b e hav io ur . T hese
variables occur at both individ ual and group levels variab les, suggesting the impo rtance o
f these two aspects in u nd er stand i n g e mp lo yee silence . Sp ec i ficall y, thi s cur r ent s
tud y ind icate s tha t ta sk co he sio n, a gr o up level var iab le, is a mo r e p o wer f ul p r
ed icto r than j o b-b ased p s ycho lo gical o wn er s hip , an ind i vid ual level var iab le. T
his r esult s u gge sts t hat gr o up level var iab le ma y b e mo r e i mp o r ta nt i n exp lai
nin g r is k tak in g b e hav io ur , suc h as sile nce . I t also ma y ind icate t hat gr o up le
vel var iab le p la ys a mo r e cr itic al r o le in a collectivistic cultur e, such as Indo nesia. B
oth alternatives ma y nee d fur t her in ves tiga tio n. Ref eren ces Ak higb e, A. , Ma r tin,
A. D. , & W h yte, A. M. ( 2 0 0 5 ). Co nta gio n e ffec t s o f the wo r ld 's lar ge st b ankr up
tc y: t he ca se o f W o r ld Co m. Th e Qu a rt erly R ev ie w o f E co n o mics a n d F ina n ce,
45(1 ) , 4 8-64. Ash fo r d , S. J ., Ro thb ar d , N. P., P id er it, S. K., & Dutto n, J . E . (1 9
98 ) . Out o n a li mb : T he r o le o f co ntext and i mp r essio n ma na ge me nt i n se llin g
ge nd er-eq u it y i ss ues. A d min istra tive S cien ce Qu a rterly, 4 3 : 2 3-57. Agar wal, U.
A. , & B har ga va, S. ( 2 0 1 3 ) . E ffec t s o f
psychologicalcontractbreachonorganizationaloutcomes: moderating role o f tenure and
educational levels. Vikalpa, 38( 1 ), 1 3-2 5. B al, P. M. , & Vink, R. ( 2 0 1 1) . I d eo lo gical
cur r enc y i n p s ycho lo gical co ntr ac ts: the r o le o f tea m r elatio n sh ip s i n a r ec ip r
o city p er sp ec tive. Th e I n tern a tio na l Jo u rn a l o f Hu ma n R eso u rce Ma n ag eme
nt, 22( 13 ) 27 9 4-2 81 7. B and ur a, A. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Self-e ff ic ac y. I n V. Ra mac haud r a
n ( ed . ) E n cy clo p ed ia o f h u man b eh a vio r: pp . 7 1-8 1. Ne w Yo r k: Aca d e mic P r
ess. B egga n, J . K. ( 1 9 92 ). On t he so cial nat ur e o f no n so cial p er ce p tio n: T he mer
e o wne r ship e ffec t. Jo u rn a l o f P erso n a lity a n d So cia l P sych o lo g y, 62, 2 29-2 3 7
. do i: 0022-3 51 4. B ur r is, E . R. , De ter t, J . R. , & Ch iab ur u, D. S. ( 2 0 0 8 ) . Quitti n g
b e fo r e leavi n g: t he med iati ng e ffec t s o f p s ycho lo gical attac h me nt an d d etac
hme nt o n vo ice. Jo u rn a l o f Ap p lied P syc ho lo gy, 93(4 ) , 91 2 . Car r o n, A. V. , B r a
wle y, L. R. , & W id me yer , W . N. ( 1 9 98 ) . T he mea s ur e me nt o f co hes ive nes s i n
sp o r t gr o up s. I n J . Dud a ( ed . ) . A d va n ce s in sp o rt a n d ex erci se p syc h o lo g y
mea su reme n t, pp. 213-2 6 . Mo r ganto wn, W V: Fitne ss I n fo r mat io n T ec hno lo g y.
Car r o n, A. V. , & B r a wle y, L. R. ( 2 0 12 ) . Co hesio n Co nce p tua l and Me as ur e me
nt I ss ues. S ma ll G ro u p R esea rch, 43( 6) , 72 6-743. Cha n g, A. , Duc k, J . , & B o r d ia,
P . (2 0 06 ) . Und er sta nd in g the mul tid i men sio na lit y o f gr o up d evelo p ment. S ma
ll Gro u p R esea rch, 37( 4) , 32 7-350. Ed mo ndson, A. C., & Lei,Z.(2014). Psycholo gical
safety: T he histo r y, r enais sance , a nd fu tur e o f an i nter p er so nal co nstr uct. A n n u
a l R ev iew o f Org a n iza tio n a l P syc h o log y a n d Org an iza tio n a l B eha vio r, 1( 1 ) ,
2 3-43. J o o , B . K. B . , So ng, J . H. , Lim, D. H. , & Yo o n, S. W. (2012). T eam creativity:
the effects of perceived learning cult ur e, d evelo p me ntal fee d b ac k and tea m co he sio
n. I n tern a tio n a l Jo u rn a l o f Tra in in g a n d Dev elop men t, 16( 2 ), 7 7-9 1. Kno ll, M.
, & Va n D ick, R . ( 2 0 1 3) . Do I hea r the ur fo r ms o f e mp lo yee sile nce a nd t hei r
co r r elate s. Jo u rn a l o f B u sin ess E th ics, 113( 2 ) , 3 49-362. Ma y, D. R. , Gilso n, R.
L. , & Har ter , L. M. ( 2 0 0 4 ) . T he p s ycho lo gical co nd itio n s o f mea n in g fu lne ss,
sa fet y a nd availab ilit y and the e nga ge m ent o f the hu ma n sp irit at wo r k. Jo u rn a l o
f Occ u p a tio n a l and Org a n iza tio n a l P syc h o lo g y, 77( 1) , 11-37. Ma yhe w, M. G. ,
As h kana s y, N. M. , B r amb le, T ., & Gar d ner , J . ( 2 0 07 ) . A st ud y o f t he a ntece d
en ts a nd consequences of psychological ownership in organizational setti ng s. Th e Jo urn
a l o f S o cia l P syc h o lo g y, 1 4 7( 5 ) , 47 7-500. Mc Al lister , D. J . , Kamd ar , D. , Mo r
r iso n, E . W. , & T ur b an, D. B . ( 2 0 07 ) . Disen tang lin g r o le p er ce p tio ns : ho w p
er ce ived r o le b r ea d th, d iscr etio n, instr u menta lit y, and ef ficac y r elate to help in
g and ta kin g c har ge. Jo u rn a l o f A p p lied P syc ho lo g y, 92(5 ) , 1 2 0 0 .

A cq u iescen t a nd d efen sive silen ce in an I nd o n esia n co n text Ma ka ra Hu b s-A sia

Dec e mb er 2 0 1 6 | Vo l. 2 0 | No . 2 129 Mul ho lland , J . ( 2 01 5 ) . Mining mill io ns a
nd co r r up t p o liticians i n I nd o nesia sca nd al. T he Au str alia n, 2 2 Dec 2015
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/mining-millions-and-corrupt-politicians-
in-indonesia-scandal/news-sto r y/0 2 2 d f2 9 ed c1 a94 4 d8 2 6 e5 a5 fa1 2 ee cb 5. Muna
war o h, A. , Ria nto p utr a, C. D. , & Ma r p au n g, S. B . ( 2 0 13 ) . Facto r s influe nci ng i
nd ivid ual p er fo r ma nce in an I nd o nesia n Go ver n me nt Of fice. S o u th Ea st A sia n
Jo u rn a l o f Ma na g eme n t,7(2) , 5 1-60. Nemb hard, I. M., & Ed mo ndson, A. C. (2006).
Making it safe: T he effects o f leader inclusiveness and professio nal statu s o n p s ycho lo g
ical sa fet y and i mp r o ve ment e f fo r ts in health care teams. Journal o f Organizational
Behavio r, 27( 7 ), 9 41-966. Ng, T . W . , Feld man, D. C. , & B utt s, M. M. ( 2 0 1 4 ). P
syc ho lo gica l co ntr ac t b r ea ches and e mp lo yee vo ice b ehavio ur : T he mo d er ati ng
ef fec ts o f c ha nge s i n so cial r elatio ns hip s. E u ro p ea n Jo u rn a l o f Wo rk a n d Org
a n iza tio n a l P syc h o log y, 23( 4 ) , 5 3 7-5 53 . T he p syc ho lo g y o f o wner s hip : W o
r k en vir o n me nt str uct ur e, o r ga nizatio nal co mmit me nt, a nd citize ns hip b ehavio
r s. Gro u p a n d Org an iza tio n Ma n ag eme n t, 3 1, 388-4 1 6 . d o i:10 . 1 17 7 /10 5 96
01 1 0 42 7 30 6 6 Pierce, J. L., Kosto va, T ., & Dirks, K. T . (2001). T o ward theo r y o f p s yc
ho lo gical o wner s hip in o r ganizat io ns. A ca d emy o f Ma na g eme n t,2 6(2 ) , 29 8-
310. P ier ce , J . L. , Ko sto va, T . , & Dir ks, K. T . (2 0 03 ) . T he state o f p s yc ho lo
gical o wn er s hip : in tegr atin g ex tend i ng a ce ntur y o f r esear c h. R ev ie w o f Gen era
l P syc h o lo g y, 7( 1 ) , 8 4-1 0 7. Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, L. (2011). P s y c h o l o g i c al o w n
e r s h ip a n d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t . T h e o r y , r e s e a r c h e v i d e n
ce , a n d ap p lica tion . E d war d E lga r P ub lishi ng Ltd . UK. P o d sako ff, P . M. , Ma
cKe nzie, S.B . , P aine, J. B . , & B ac hr ac h, D. G. (2000). Or ganizat io nal c itizen s hip b
ehavio r : A cr itica l r evie w o f t he theo r etica l a nd e mp ir ical li ter atur e a nd su g ge
stio n s fo r f ut ur e r esear c h, Jo u rn a l o f Ma na g eme n t, 2 6, 51 356 3 . P o d sako ff,
P . M. , Mc Kenzie, S.B . , & Po d sako ff, N. P . (2 0 12). So ur ce s o f Me t ho d B ias i n So
cial Sc ience Resear ch a nd Rec o mme nd ati o ns o n Ho w to Co n tr o l I t. Th e A n n ua l
R ev iew o f P syc h o lo g y, 63, 53 9-569. Ro b inso n, S. L. & Mo r r is o n, E . W . ( 20 0 0) .
T he d evelo p ment o f p s yc ho logi ca l co ntr ac t b r ea ch and violations: A longitudinal
study. J o u r n al of O r g a n i z a t i o n al B eh a vio r, 21( 5 ) , 5 25-5 4 6 . Ro us sea u, D.
M. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Psyc h o lo g ica l co n tra cts in o rg a n iza tio n s: Un d ersta n d ing written
a n d u n written a g ree men ts. T ho usand Oak s, C A: Sa ge. Sehito glu, Y. , & Ze hir , C.
( 2 0 1 0 ). T he anal ysis o f e mp lo yee p er fo r ma nce in t he co ntex t o f e mp lo yee
silence a nd o r ganizat io nal citizens hip b eha vio r in T ur kish p ub lic in stit utio n s. A
d min istra tio n , 4 0( 4) , 95-120. Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., Balasubramanian, S., & Anand, G.
( 2 0 0 9) . T he in fl uence o f p s yc ho lo gical sa fet y and confidence in kno wledge on
emplo yee kno wledge sharing. Ma n u fa ctu rin g & S erv ice Op era tio n s Ma n a g eme n t,
11( 3 ), 4 29-447. Sp r eitze r , G. M. ( 1 9 9 5 ) . P syc ho lo gical e mp o wer me nt i n the
workp lace:Dimensio ns, measurement,and validation. A ca d emy o f Ma na g eme n t Jo u
rn a l, 38, 1 44 265. Stan sb ur y, J . M. , & Victo r , B . ( 2 0 09 ) . W histle-b lo wi n g a mo
n g yo u n g e mp lo yee s: A li fe-co ur se p er sp ec tive. Jo u rn a l o f Bu sin ess E th ics, 85( 3
) , 28 1-2 9 9. Tangir ala, S., Ka md ar , D. , Ve nkatar a ma ni, V. , & P ar ke, M. ( 2 01 3 ) .
Do ing r igh t ver s us gettin g ahea d : T he effec ts vo ice. Jo u rn a l o f Ap p lied P sych o lo
g y, 98, 1 0 40-1 0 5 0. T angir ala, S., & Ra man uj am, R. ( 2 0 0 8 ) . Exp lo r ing no nli nea
r it y i n e mp lo yee vo ic e: T he ef fec t s o f p er so nal co ntr o l and o r ga nizatio nal i d
entific atio n. A ca d emy o f Ma n a g eme n t J ou rn a l, 51, 11 89-203. Vako la, M. , & B o
ur ad as, D. ( 2 00 5 ) . Antece d e nts and co nseq ue nce s o f o r gan isatio nal sile nce : an e
mp ir ical inve sti gatio n. E mp lo ye e R ela tio n s, 2 7(4 /5 ), 4 41-458. Van D yn e, L. , An
g, S., & B o ter o , I . C. ( 2 0 0 3 ). Co nce p tua lizi ng e mp lo yee sil ence and e mp lo yee
vo ice as multid i me nsio nal co nstr uct s. Jo u rn a l o f Ma na g eme n t S tu d ies, 4 0(6 ) , 1
3 59-1392. Van D yne, L. , & P ier ce , J . L. ( 2 0 0 4 ) . P syc ho lo gical o wner sh ip and
fee li n gs o f p o ssess io n: T hr ee field stud ie s p r ed ictin g e mp lo yee a ttitud es and o
r ganiza tio nal citizen ship b eha vio r . Jo u rn a l o f Org an iza tio n a l B eh a vio r, 25, 4
39-4 3 9 . d o i: 10 . 1 0 02 /j o b .2 4 9 W hitesid e, D. B . , & B arclay, L. J . (2 0 13 ) . E cho
es o f silence : e mp lo yee sile nce a s a med iato r b et wee n o ver al l j ustice a nd e mp lo
yee o utco mes. Jo u rn a l o f B u sin e ss E th ics, 1 1 6(2 ) , 25 1-2 6 6.