شمارۀ جدید فصلنامه (پاییز1404) منتشر شد
Volume 16, Issue 3 (9-2025)
Social Problems of Iran 2025, 16(3): 133-192 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Heydari Qomi A, Nabavi H, Hajiani E. (2025). Exploring the Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Silence in Educational Institutions (Case of Study: Education Organisation in Qom Province). Social Problems of Iran. 16(3), 133-192. doi:10.61882/jspi.16.3.133
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3856-en.html
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3856-en.html
1- PhD Student in Cultural Policy Making, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Sociology, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran ,Nabavi@khu.ac.ir
3- Associate Professor of Sociology, Faculty Member, Presidential Center for Strategic Studies, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Sociology, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Associate Professor of Sociology, Faculty Member, Presidential Center for Strategic Studies, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (373 Views)
Organizational "silence" represents a critical challenge within educational institutions, obstructing the optimal utilization of employees' knowledge and experiences. This study aims to develop a model for organizational silence within the education sector, employing the Grounded Theory method. Organizational silence, defined as the reluctance of teachers and staff to voice practical opinions, stems from structural and cultural factors that threaten organizational development. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 30 cultural experts, teachers, managers, and employees of the Qom Province General Education Department, selected via purposive sampling. During the open coding phase, 375 conceptual codes, 60 subcategories, and 27 core categories were identified. The findings reveal that organizational silence manifests in eight distinct types: hegemonic passive silence, hegemonic conservative silence, hegemonic altruistic silence, strategic passive silence, strategic conservative silence, strategic self-interested silence, emancipatory silence, and ambiguous silence. Furthermore, causal factors driving silence include "personality weaknesses, inefficient socialization, perceived insecurity, organizational conformity processes, organizational injustice, toxic management styles, and fragile organizational identity," which emerge as key triggers of this phenomenon. Contextual conditions such as "inhibitive organizational culture, support-related frustration, inefficiency in performance and structural evaluation, and demographic factors," alongside intervening factors like "anomic organizational conditions, socially undesirable circumstances, politicization, and lack of institutional autonomy," exacerbate its intensity. In response to organizational silence, actors adopt one of two strategies: passive acceptance or resistance and change. The consequences of this phenomenon are categorized across three levels: individual (e.g. reduced motivation), organizational (e.g. diminished efficiency), and societal (e.g. eroded public trust). By presenting a comprehensive model, this study facilitates a deeper understanding of organizational silence and offers strategies to address it, underscoring the need to revisit managerial and cultural structures to mitigate silence and enhance employee participation.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
In contemporary society, the imperative to leverage human capital and enhance efficiency in educational organizations—especially within the public sector—is more acute than ever. Although employees constitute a critical resource for problem-solving and performance improvement, many choose, for a range of reasons, to remain silent in the face of organizational concerns. This phenomenon, known as organizational silence, denotes the deliberate withholding of opinions, suggestions, and critical feedback.
Whereas silence once carried a positive connotation—signifying loyalty, respect, and discipline—it has, over recent decades, been reconceptualized as a barrier to organizational and social development. In Iran, particularly within educational institutions, silence has become institutionalized: teachers and staff often refrain from voicing concerns in formal settings. This pattern intensifies under bureaucratic hierarchies and authoritarian managerial styles that structure organizational life.
In Qom Province, the phenomenon is especially salient in formal meetings, where teachers and staff avoid expressing dissatisfaction or proposing solutions, reserving such discussions for informal contexts. These practices erode organizational participation and intrinsic motivation, lower service quality, and diminish public trust in the educational system. The present study analyzes the antecedents and consequences of organizational silence in Qom’s educational sector and proposes avenues for mitigation.
2. Methodology
Guided by an interpretivist paradigm, this study adopts a qualitative design and employs grounded theory to capture the complexity and multi-dimensionality of organizational silence and to access participants’ lived meanings. This approach is well-suited to uncovering facets of social reality that are not readily measurable through quantitative methods.
Sampling was purposive followed by theoretical sampling. Participants comprised 23 teachers, school leaders (principals/vice-principals), student-teachers, and administrative officers from the Qom Provincial Department of Education, along with 7 educational experts (total n = 30). The sample size was determined by theoretical saturation; data collection ceased once additional interviews no longer yielded novel categories relevant to the research questions. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews.
Data analysis followed Strauss and Corbin’s three-stage coding scheme: open, axial, and selective coding. This iterative process facilitated the identification of concepts, the aggregation of subcategories and categories, and, ultimately, the development of an integrated conceptual model.
3. Findings
A total of 375 concepts were distilled into 60 subcategories and 27 core categories, forming a paradigmatic model of organizational silence encompassing causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, strategies, and consequences. Key factors contributing to silence include individual traits (e.g., low self-efficacy, introversion, Machiavellian tendencies), ineffective socialization, perceived insecurity, organizational injustice, toxic leadership, and weak professional or organizational identity. Contextual conditions such as a hostile cultural climate, poor communication channels, lack of support, dysfunctional performance appraisal, rigid bureaucracy, and demographic moderators further reinforce employees’ reluctance to speak up. Participants employed two main strategies in response: passive accommodation, through conformity, self-censorship, and performative alignment, or active resistance, including micro-resistance, peer networking, and occasional counterproductive tactics when formal avenues were blocked. The consequences span multiple levels: individually, employees experience hopelessness, burnout, and career stagnation; organizationally, silence fosters ritualism, reduced collaboration, poor decision-making, and lower productivity; societally, it contributes to moral decline and weakened institutional trust. Overall, organizational silence emerges as a collective phenomenon shaped by the interaction of personal dispositions, cultural norms, and structural constraints, producing cascading negative effects across micro, meso, and macro levels.
4. Conclusion
The study demonstrates that organizational silence in Qom’s educational sector is a culturally and institutionally constructed phenomenon amplified by bureaucratic hierarchy, authoritarian leadership, and deficient communicative infrastructures. Antecedents span individual dispositions, silence-centered socialization, perceived insecurity, and injustice; yet silence often operates as a rational coping strategy to manage risks in constrained settings. Drawing on interactionist and power/helplessness perspectives, the analysis locates silence in everyday role expectations, surveillance, and unequal access to decision-making.
Mitigation requires rebuilding communicative spaces, cultivating voice-supportive cultures (psychological safety, recognition, and fair appraisal), and structural reforms that decentralize authority and institutionalize inclusive participation. Such interventions can shift the system from silence and defensive compliance toward active professional agency and collaborative problem-solving.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
In contemporary society, the imperative to leverage human capital and enhance efficiency in educational organizations—especially within the public sector—is more acute than ever. Although employees constitute a critical resource for problem-solving and performance improvement, many choose, for a range of reasons, to remain silent in the face of organizational concerns. This phenomenon, known as organizational silence, denotes the deliberate withholding of opinions, suggestions, and critical feedback.
Whereas silence once carried a positive connotation—signifying loyalty, respect, and discipline—it has, over recent decades, been reconceptualized as a barrier to organizational and social development. In Iran, particularly within educational institutions, silence has become institutionalized: teachers and staff often refrain from voicing concerns in formal settings. This pattern intensifies under bureaucratic hierarchies and authoritarian managerial styles that structure organizational life.
In Qom Province, the phenomenon is especially salient in formal meetings, where teachers and staff avoid expressing dissatisfaction or proposing solutions, reserving such discussions for informal contexts. These practices erode organizational participation and intrinsic motivation, lower service quality, and diminish public trust in the educational system. The present study analyzes the antecedents and consequences of organizational silence in Qom’s educational sector and proposes avenues for mitigation.
2. Methodology
Guided by an interpretivist paradigm, this study adopts a qualitative design and employs grounded theory to capture the complexity and multi-dimensionality of organizational silence and to access participants’ lived meanings. This approach is well-suited to uncovering facets of social reality that are not readily measurable through quantitative methods.
Sampling was purposive followed by theoretical sampling. Participants comprised 23 teachers, school leaders (principals/vice-principals), student-teachers, and administrative officers from the Qom Provincial Department of Education, along with 7 educational experts (total n = 30). The sample size was determined by theoretical saturation; data collection ceased once additional interviews no longer yielded novel categories relevant to the research questions. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews.
Data analysis followed Strauss and Corbin’s three-stage coding scheme: open, axial, and selective coding. This iterative process facilitated the identification of concepts, the aggregation of subcategories and categories, and, ultimately, the development of an integrated conceptual model.
3. Findings
A total of 375 concepts were distilled into 60 subcategories and 27 core categories, forming a paradigmatic model of organizational silence encompassing causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, strategies, and consequences. Key factors contributing to silence include individual traits (e.g., low self-efficacy, introversion, Machiavellian tendencies), ineffective socialization, perceived insecurity, organizational injustice, toxic leadership, and weak professional or organizational identity. Contextual conditions such as a hostile cultural climate, poor communication channels, lack of support, dysfunctional performance appraisal, rigid bureaucracy, and demographic moderators further reinforce employees’ reluctance to speak up. Participants employed two main strategies in response: passive accommodation, through conformity, self-censorship, and performative alignment, or active resistance, including micro-resistance, peer networking, and occasional counterproductive tactics when formal avenues were blocked. The consequences span multiple levels: individually, employees experience hopelessness, burnout, and career stagnation; organizationally, silence fosters ritualism, reduced collaboration, poor decision-making, and lower productivity; societally, it contributes to moral decline and weakened institutional trust. Overall, organizational silence emerges as a collective phenomenon shaped by the interaction of personal dispositions, cultural norms, and structural constraints, producing cascading negative effects across micro, meso, and macro levels.
4. Conclusion
The study demonstrates that organizational silence in Qom’s educational sector is a culturally and institutionally constructed phenomenon amplified by bureaucratic hierarchy, authoritarian leadership, and deficient communicative infrastructures. Antecedents span individual dispositions, silence-centered socialization, perceived insecurity, and injustice; yet silence often operates as a rational coping strategy to manage risks in constrained settings. Drawing on interactionist and power/helplessness perspectives, the analysis locates silence in everyday role expectations, surveillance, and unequal access to decision-making.
Mitigation requires rebuilding communicative spaces, cultivating voice-supportive cultures (psychological safety, recognition, and fair appraisal), and structural reforms that decentralize authority and institutionalize inclusive participation. Such interventions can shift the system from silence and defensive compliance toward active professional agency and collaborative problem-solving.
Keywords: Organizational silence, Education Organization, Individual and organizational consequences, Toxic management style, Organizational injustice, Qom province.
Type of Article: Original Research |
Subject:
Social problems
Received: 2025/05/30 | Accepted: 2025/08/10 | Published: 2025/11/22
Received: 2025/05/30 | Accepted: 2025/08/10 | Published: 2025/11/22
References
1. Ada, N., Alver, I. & Atli, F. (2008). Orgutsel Iletisimin Orgutsel Baglilik Uzerine Etkisi: Manisa Organize Sanayi Bolgesinde Yer Alan ve Imalat Sektoru Calisanlari Uzerinde Yapilan Bir Arastirma. Ege Academic Review, 8(2), 487-518.
2. Agarwal, U. & Garg, A. (2012). The importance of communication within organizations: A research on two hotels in Uttarakhand. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 3(2), 40-49.
3. Akuzum, C. (2014). The effect of perceived organizational justice on teachers’ silence: A practice in primary education institutions. International J Soc Sci and Education, 5(1), 96-107
4. Alqarni, S. A. Y. (2020). How school climate predicts teachers' organizational silence. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 12(1), 12-27.
5. Ashforth, B. E. (2016). Distinguished scholar invited essay: Exploring identity and identification in organizations: Time for some course corrections. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(4), 361-373.
6. Aylsworth, J. (2008). Change in the workplace: Organizational silence can be dangerous. Organizational Psychology Examiner. www.examiner.com.
7. Rinsfield, C. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), pp. 671-697.
8. Broberg, P., Umans, T., Skog, P. & Theodorsson, E. (2018). Auditors’ professional and organizational identities and commercialization in audit firms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(2), 374-399.
9. Çayak, S. (2021). The mediating role of organizational hypocrisy in the relationship between organizational silence and organizational rumor: A study on educational organizations. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(2), 1-13.
10. Elçi, M., Karabay, M. E., Alpkan, L. & Şener, İ. (2014). The mediating role of mobbing on the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 1298-1309.
11. Erigüç, G., Özer, Ö., Turaç, I. S., & Sonğur, C. (2014). The causes and effects of the organizational silence: on which issues the nurses remain silent?. International Journal of Management Economics & Business/Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 10(22).
12. Fapohunda, T. N. (2016). Organizational silence: Predictors and consequences among university academic staff. International Journal for Research in Social Science and Humanities Research, 2(1), 83-103.
13. Gökçe, N (2013). Lise öğretmenlerinin örgütsel sessizlik düzeyleri [Master’s thesis]. Maltepe University, Turkey.
14. Güzel, F. K. & Göksoy, S. (2023). The relationship between organizational silence education experienced in secondary education institutions and school culture. International Journal on Lifelong Education and Leadership, 9(2), 46-59.
15. Hazen, M. A. (2006). Silences, perinatal loss, and polyphony: A postmodern perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(2), 237-249.
16. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied psychology, 50(3), 337-421.
17. Holland, P. J., Teicher, J. & Donaghey, J. (Eds.) (2019). Employee voice at work. Springer.
18. Hung, Y. C., Huang, S. M., Lin, Q. P. & Tsai, M. L. (2005). Critical factors in adopting a knowledge management system for the pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(2), 164-183.
19. Hüsrevsahi, S. P. (2015). Relationship between organizational mobbing and silence behavior among teachers. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(5), 1179-1188.
20. Imdad, D., Anwar, M. N. & Khizar, A. (2024). Exploring the causes of organizational silence among teachers at secondary schools: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 4(1), 230-242.
21. Köse, A. & Köse, F. (2019). An analysis of teachers' perception of organizational silence in terms of various demographic variables. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 307-317.
22. Köylüoğlu, A. S., Bedük, A., Duman, L. & Büyükbayraktar, H. H. (2015). Analyzing the relation between teachers’ organizational silence perception and whistle blowing perception. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 536-545.
23. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians—and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press.
24. Liu, D., Wu, J. & Ma, J. C. (2009, July). Organizational silence: A survey on employees working in a telecommunication company. In 2009 International Conference on Computers & Industrial Engineering (pp. 1647-1651).
25. Luttrell, Johanna (2015). Alienation and global poverty: Arendt on the loss of the world. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 41(9), 872-875.
26. Messner, Steven F. & Rosenfeld, Richard (2001). Crime and the American dream. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.
27. Morrison, E. W. & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725.
28. Nemati-Vakilabad, R., Mostafazadeh, P. & Mirzaei, A. (2024). Investigating the impact of organizational justice on the relationship between organizational learning and organizational silence in clinical nurses: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Nursing Management, 2024(1), 726-738.
29. Nielsen, Richard P. (2003). Why do we remain silent in the face of unethical behavior? The Church in the 21st Century from Crisis to Renewal, Boston College Occasional Paper, 6-11.
30. Otsupius, A. I. (2019). Employee silence and its effects on organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Indian Economic Light (JIEL), 7, 56-61.
31. Pinder, C. C. & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice.in (ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp 331 – 369.
32. Saglam, A. C. (2016). The Effects of Vocational High School Teachers' Perceived Truston Organizational Silence. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(5), 225-232.
33. Sakr, E. M. H., Ibrahim, M. M. & Ageiz, M. H. (2023). The relation between organizational silence and organizational learning among nurses. Menoufia Nursing Journal, 8(4), 254-270.
34. Shuang, Liu, Quan, Liu & Guo-Ming, Chen (2006). Through the lenses of organizational culture: A comparison of state-owned enterprises and joint ventures in China. China Media Research, 2(2), pp. 15-24.
35. Slay, H. S. & Smith, D. A. (2011). Professional identity construction: Using narrative to understand the negotiation of professional and stigmatized cultural identities. Human Relations, 64(1), 85-107.
36. Taye, M., Sang, G. & Muthanna, A. (2019). Organizational culture and its influence on the performance of higher education institutions: The case of a state university in Beijing. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 8(2), 77-90.
37. Üçok, D. I. & Torun, A. (2015). A qualitative study on the causes of organizational silence. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 2(1), 27-37.
38. Vakola, M. & Bourades, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organizational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27, 441-458.
39. 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.
40. Yang, W., Hao, Q. Song, H. (2020). Linking supervisor support to innovation implementation behavior via commitment: The moderating role of coworker support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(3), 129-141.
41. Afkhami Ardakani, M., & Khalili Sadrabad, A. (2012). Investigating the relationship between personality traits and employee silence. Public Management Research, 5(18), 65-83. (in Persian)
42. Ahmadibani, A. (2023). Investigating the mediating role of organizational silence in the relationship between organizational justice and employees' intention to leave service at the Foundation of Martyrs in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province. New Research Approaches in Management and Accounting, 7(24), 1396-1403. (in Persian)
43. Alagheband, A. (2009). Sociology of education (Trans. H. Fathi). Tehran: Doran. (in Persian)
44. Aryani Qizghapan, I., Zahed Bablani, A., Abbaspour, R., & Moradi, B. (2017). Testing the causal model of teachers' procrastination based on organizational silence with organizational indifference as a mediator. Educational Leadership Research, 3(12), 79-109. (in Persian)
45. Bazarghan, A. (2020). Introduction to qualitative and mixed research methods: Common approaches in behavioral sciences. Tehran: Didar. (in Persian)
46. Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (T. Hasanghali Pour, A. Elahiari, & M. Barari, Trans.). Tehran: Negah Danesh. (in Persian)
47. Danayi Fard, H., Borzegar, F., & Ahmadi, H. (2015). Mechanisms for improving organizational capabilities in the public sector. Public Organization Management, 3(3), 91-106. (in Persian)
48. Delini, T. (2014). Classical Sociological Theories (B. Sediqi & V. Tolouei, Trans.). Tehran: Ney. (in Persian)
49. Diyanti, R., Shafipour, S. F., Zarei Zidi, A., & Bagherzadeh, M. R. (2018). Machiavellian behavior of managers and assessing its impact on employees' organizational silence (Case study: Alborz Industrial Park). New Research Approaches in Management and Accounting, 2(4), 124-133. (in Persian)
50. Erfanian-khanzadeh, H. (2020). Conceptual analysis of organizational silence components and the factors influencing it (A mixed-method approach). Journal of Transformation Management Research, 12(64), 229-262. (in Persian)
51. Fallahi, H., Pourshafeie, H., & Akbari Boorang, M. (2020). Perception of organizational structure and its role in predicting organizational silence and employee burnout at the University of Birjand. Management and Planning in Educational Systems, 13(1), 169-194. doi: 10.29252/mpes.13.1.169
52. Ghani-Loo, P., Gorzi, M., Dehqan-Zadeh, S., & Attaie, Z. (2023). Investigating the most significant effects and outcomes of teachers' organizational silence in the education system. First International Conference on Top Teachers and Leading Schools in the Third Millennium, Bushehr. Retrieved from https://civilica.com/doc/2028501. (in Persian)
53. Gholami Ashkiki, A., & Fazli, S. (2023). Investigating the impact of supervisory violations on employee silence and the effects of perceived organizational politics and leader-member exchange on their relationships (Case study: Employees of municipalities in Alborz province). Behavioral Studies and Organizational Excellence, 1(2), 55-69. (in Persian)
54. Ghorbani, & Partounia. (2014). The relationship between organizational silence and employee trust in the North Khorasan Education Department. Innovations in Educational Management, 9(34), 59-71. (in Persian)
55. Giddens, A. (1994). Sociology (M. Sabouri, Trans.). Tehran: Ney. (in Persian)
56. Godarzi, S., Hashemi, S. I., Noamie, A. Z., & Beshlideh, K. (2015). Organizational silence: Antecedents and consequences. International Conference on Psychology and Life Culture, Tehran. (in Persian)
57. Heydari, Z., Askarian, M., & Davaei, M. (2010). Examining the relationship between organizational climate and conflict management from the perspective of school teachers. Industrial/Organizational Psychology News, 1(3), 65-74. (in Persian)
58. Khodayari, H. R. (2021, September). Investigating the relationship between organizational support and organizational silence among employees. Second National Conference on Interdisciplinary Research in Management and Humanities, Tehran. Retrieved from https://civilica.com/doc/1290146. (in Persian)
59. Kord-Firouzjaie, F., & Zeynabadi, H. R. (2021). Reflections on the external antecedents and consequences of organizational silence among teachers: Findings from a qualitative study. Career and Organizational Counseling, 13(4), 107-126. (in Persian)
60. Lotfi Dehkhorghani, L., & Maharati, Y. (2022). Identifying the model of organizational silence among women in universities. Public Management Research, 15(57), 85-112. (in Persian)
61. Mahdizadeh, I., Rajei Pour, S., & Siyadat, S. A. (2024). Phenomenology of organizational silence (Case study: Farhangian University). Public Administration Management, 16(3), 661-695. (in Persian)
62. Masoumi, A., & Feyzi, A. (2021). Presenting a model for the breakdown of organizational silence in the banking industry. Scientific Journal of New Research Approaches in Management and Accounting, 5(16), 1-19. (in Persian)
63. Mohammadzadeh, N., Mashali, B., & Zolfaghari Zafarani, R. (2024). Identifying the influential factors on organizational silence and its impact on managerial decision-making. Dynamic Management and Business Analysis, 3(2), 51-66. (in Persian)
64. Mostafavi, R., Jamshid-Zadeh, E., Imani Jajermi, H., Lefari, G., Jamshid-Zadeh, J., & Mostafavi, M. (2010). Public participation in urban affairs: Examining the barriers, problems, and solutions for developing public participation. Tehran: Society and Culture. (in Persian)
65. Mozaffar, H., Zakaryaie, M., & Sabeti, M. (2009). Cultural anomie and drug addiction among youth (ages 13-28) in Tehran. Social Sciences Research Journal, 3(4), 33-54. (in Persian)
66. Nasr-Esfahani, A., Radmehr, R., Hatampour, F., & Hatampour, E. (2014). Factors affecting organizational silence among employees (Case study: Hazrat Zahra (S) Hospital, Isfahan). Health System Research Journal, 10(4), 830-838. (in Persian)
67. Panahi Kahagh, B., & Nikoomaram, N. (2019). Investigating the impact of organizational structure components on organizational silence with the mediating role of organizational culture. Contemporary Research in Science and Research Studies, 2(1), 92-106. (in Persian)
68. Panahi, B. (2019). Meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of organizational silence in Iran. Studies in Management Improvement and Transformation, 28(94), 85-107. (in Persian)
69. Qaedamini Harouni, A., Sadeghi-Dehcheshmeh, M., Moshref Qahfarakhi, E., & Maleki Farsani, G. (2023). The mediating role of organizational hypocrisy in the relationship between organizational silence and organizational rumors in public educational organizations. Comparative Public Administration Management, 1(1), 138-170. (in Persian)
70. Qalavandi, H., & Moradi, Z. (2014). Analyzing the relationship between organizational ethical climate, organizational identity, and organizational silence. Quarterly Journal of Ethics in Behavioral Sciences, 10(2), 63-71. (in Persian)
71. Qureyshi Khorasgani, M., Nazarzadeh Zare, M., & Heydari, M. (2022). Investigating the reasons and consequences of student silence in the classroom. New Educational Thoughts, 18(3), 7-26. (in Persian)
72. Rajaie, Z., & Asadzadeh, F. (2021). The impact of organizational indifference on organizational inertia with the mediating role of organizational silence. Public Management Research, 14(52), 277-301. (in Persian)
73. Ramazani, R., Fathi, R., & Soleimanpour, M. R. (2018). Examining the status of organizational silence in the Varamin Education Department. Third International Conference on Dynamic Management, Accounting, and Auditing, Tehran. Retrieved from https://civilica.com/doc/826650. (in Persian)
74. Ritzer, G. (2014). Sociological theories in the contemporary era (M. Thalasi, Trans.). Tehran: Ilmi. (in Persian)
75. Saeidi Poor, B. (2018). The role of leadership styles, organizational culture, and organizational trust on organizational silence (Case study: Payame Noor University in Kermanshah). Research in Educational Systems, 12(Special Issue), 453-468. (in Persian)
76. Safa'i-Movhed, S. (2021). Grounded theory: Theoretical foundations, approaches, and practical procedures. Tehran: Doran. (in Persian)
77. Sheikhi, M., Etemadian, A., & Ebrahimzadeh, R. (2020). A sociological study of strategies and consequences of non-radical protest actions in organizations. Sociological Studies Quarterly, 13(49), 95-111. (in Persian)
78. Sidman, A. (2017). The clash of opinions in sociology (H. Jalili, Trans.). Tehran: Ney. (in Persian)
79. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2016). Fundamentals of qualitative research: Techniques and stages of grounded theory production (E. Afshar, Trans.). Tehran: Ney. (in Persian)
80. Taajobi, M., & Hamzei, P. (2020). Examining the relationship between perceived organizational justice, organizational silence, and quality of work life among employees in districts 1 and 2 of Hamadan Education Department. New Research Approaches in Management and Accounting, 2(5), 165-188. (in Persian)
81. Tanhaei, M. H., Nasr Esfahani, A., Nili Poor Tabatabai, S. A., & Akhavan Sarraf, A. R. (2018). Recreating the model of antecedents and consequences of organizational silence among employees: A case study of Isfahan Municipality. Applied Sociology, 29(4), 147-166. (in Persian)
82. Yari, Z., & Vadadi, A. (2016). The impact of knowledge management on organizational performance at Pars Khodro Company. Journal of Management and Accounting Studies, 2(2), 243-255. (in Persian)
83. Zardoshtian, S., & colleagues. (2017). The impact of job plateau on turnover intention considering the mediating role of job burnout among physical education teachers in Kermanshah province. Studies in Organizational Behavior Management in Sports, 4(15), 69-61. (in Persian)
84. Zarei Matin, H. (2011). Organizational silence: Concepts, causes, and consequences. Quarterly Journal of the Iranian Management Sciences Association, 6(21), 77-104. (in Persian)
85. Zohrabi, A. R., & Mohebbi, A. (2018). Explaining the impact of management style with the mediating role of organizational culture on organizational silence. Applied Studies in Management and Development Sciences, 15(3), 41-52. (in Persian)
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC).
