the role of silnece on employees attitudes teh day after a merger

The role of silence on employees’
attitudes “the day after” a merger

Ioannis Nikolaou, Maria Vakola and Dimitris Bourantas

Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the role of organizational silence and trust on employees’
attitudes in a post-merger stage.
Design/methodology/approach – The results of two independent studies are presented;
participants completed measures of organizational trust, organizational silence and merger
attitudes (organizational commitment and employee satisfaction) a few months following the
announcement of the merger. Hierarchical regression analyzes were used to explore the hypotheses.
Findings – The results show that organizational trust is negatively related to organizational silence
and positively to merger attitudes. Further, the significant role of organizational silence in a
post-merger state was also identified through the negative relationships with merger attitudes, but
mainly through the significant mediating effect of silence between organizational trust and merger
attitudes.
Research limitations/implications – The study used self-report measures, but necessary actions
were taken in order to reduce the effect of common method variance. Therefore, it should be
cross-validated with different research designs (e.g. longitudinal research) in other countries.
Practical implications – The findings provide further support on the significance of organizational
silence in work settings, especially at major organizational turnarounds.
Originality/value – The most significant contribution of the study is that it explores for the first
time the role of organizational silence in a post-merger stage and its relationship to organizational
trust.

Keywords Organizational silence, Organizational trust, Post-merger attitudes, Employee satisfaction,
Organizational commitment, Employees attitudes, Acquisitions and mergers

Paper type Research paper

Many authors have analyzed the continuing high level of mergers and acquisitions
(M&As) and their high failure rate (Cartwright, 2005; Cooper and Gregory, 2001). While
there are positive outcomes associates with M&A activity, such as growth and
development, some of their disappointing results are associated with the mismanagement
of the human side of it (Cartwright and Schoenberg, 2006). Employees are asked to adapt
to some painful new realities, which are associated with changing the nature, orientation
and character of one or both of the merger partners. Evidence from the literature shows
that although M&As are well planned in terms of strategic, financial and legal aspects,
poor results associated with M&A activity are attributed to human factors, especially at a
post-merger stage (Buono and Bowditch, 1989).

Mergers increase employees’ uncertainty and stress and, as a result, there is a

decrease in satisfaction and commitment, less intention to remain with the organization
and lower perceptions of the organization’s trustworthiness (Appelbaum et al., 2000;
Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). Within this context, trust in the organization, leadership
and supervisor play a very important role in organizational crisis and transformation
(Pillai et al., 1999). As Siegel et al. (1995) suggest, organizational commitment can be

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

The role of

silence

723

Personnel Review

Vol. 40 No. 6, 2011

pp. 723-741

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0048-3486

DOI 10.1108/00483481111169652

preserved during organizational change, if trust is established with employees. Trust
in one’s supervisor or leader may play an especially important role not only in attitude
formulation but also in the employee’s decision to be involved in a number of
behaviors, such as supporting the change or speaking up at work (Eby et al., 2000;
Oreg, 2006).

Morrison and Milliken (2000) suggest than one of the major obstacles to

organizational change is what they describe as organizational silence, which is the
employee’s choice to hold back their opinions and concerns about organizational
issues. Silence can become an even more serious problem in a post-merger stage where
a positive communication climate is needed in order to avoid distrust and suspicion
(Appelbaum et al., 2000). In addition, organizational silence may have a negative
impact on the process of change since “hard” truths, alternative views, or negative
feedback are not easily “heard” or taken into consideration.

A review of the management literature revealed that there are research findings

related to somewhat similar concepts, such as the employee’s voice, whistle-blowing or
issue-selling, that help us understand why people are encouraged to speak up at work.
However, as Morrison and Milliken (2003) indicate “. . .Each focuses on a somewhat
different form of speaking up, and there is little in the way of an over-arching
framework for integrating the various perspectives. Research on silence within
organizations is more recent and more sparse” (p. 1354). Van Dyne et al. (2003) claim
that, although silence and voice appear to be polar opposites, this is not the case. They
suggest that “the key feature that differentiates silence and voice is not the presence or
absence of speaking up, but the actor’s motivation to withhold versus express ideas,
information, and opinions about work-related improvements” (p. 1360). Similarly, the
concepts of issue-selling and whistle-blowing emphasize the motivating power of the
employee, whereas silence has more to with the existence of collective phenomena in an
organization, such as a climate of silence. Another major difference between silence
and especially issue-selling and whistle-blowing is that these two constructs have
focused on explaining why an employee might violate the existing norm of silence and
speak about an issue, rather than why such a norm exists in the first place, which is
what silence is all about (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Many authors suggest that
while organizational silence is pervasive in organizations, research in this matter
remains limited (Pinder and Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003).

In the current study we explored the post-merger attitudes of employee satisfaction

and organizational commitment. These are not only the most commonly explored
employee attitudes in organizational behavior research, but they have also been studied
in the past as consequences of organizational change (Elias, 2009; Schweiger and DeNisi,
1991), trust (Connell et al., 2003) and employee silence at work (Morrison and Milliken,
2000). Therefore, it is reasonable to explore these variables, as outcomes of our research.
Also, from a practical point of view, satisfaction and commitment are two important
employee outcomes in a post-merger stage. Employees who remain optimistic, satisfied
and committed to their company, following a merger, would be expected to stand by
their company’s efforts and actively contribute to organizational success.

Thus, the aim of the current paper is to explore the role of organizational trust and

employees’ silence in a post-merger stage. This is an important issue for change
management research and practice, since these may influence employees’ attitudes
and, as a consequence, their work behavior in the aftermath of a merger. It is expected

PR
40,6

724

that the investigation of this topic will assist researchers and practitioners in further
understanding the construct of organizational silence, especially during major
organizational change interventions, such as a merger. From a theory development
perspective, organizational trust and silence may have an important role to play on
merger attitudes. In particular, the latter has not been thoroughly explored in change
management literature and the current study can provide some very useful insights
about its utility and usefulness. Moreover, the practical implications of the study can
also be significant. If employees’ trust and silence are related to their attitudes in a
post-merger stage, then organizations should concentrate more on taking the necessary
steps to deal effectively with those issues, for example by developing appropriate
communication plans and strategies.

Organizational trust
Organizational trust is a significant issue for most organizations because, as Kramer
(1999) indicated, trust can have a number of significant benefits for the organization and
its members. Dirks and Ferrin (2001) defined organizational trust as a psychological
state providing a representation of how individuals understand their relationship with
another party in situations involving high risk or vulnerability. A merger or an
acquisition is widely considered as a high-risk situation. On the other hand, Mayer et al.
(1995, p. 712) defined trust as the “willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”.
Mayer et al. (1995) emphasize trustworthiness as an aggregate of ability, benevolence
and integrity. Ability is domain specific, therefore the trustee can be trusted about one
topic and not trusted about another; benevolence describes the extent to which the
trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor (p. 718), and integrity involves the
trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds
acceptable. These three conditions are especially applicable in a merger. Employees are
expected, from top management, to trust them during this endeavor. However, it is more
likely for employees to trust them, if they consider them as ethical, able to handle the
merger successfully and also taking employees’ best interests into consideration, along
with their own and the company’s best interests.

Organizational trust is a critical success factor in M&As, since it is essential for the

successful completion of the integration process (Buono and Bowditch, 1989).
Appelbaum et al. (2000) indicate that, during the post-merger stage, employees face
many adjustment problems such as fear of possible job loss, uncertainty about the new
manager or the new team members, loss of situational control, etc. Marks and Mirvis
(1992) argued that, although mergers cause emotional distress and negative attitudes
to some employees, thus negatively affecting their performance, commitment and job
satisfaction, there are also employees who have more positive attitudes following a
merger (Mishra and Spreitzer, 1998). If employees perceive their organization as
competent and capable of dealing with a merger, this may improve the acceptance of
the merger itself and have a positive impact on post-merger attitudes.

Three types of organizational trust
A number of studies addressed the importance of organizational trust in a change
context (e.g. Whitener et al., 1998; Rousseau et al., 1998; Gomez and Rosen, 2001;

The role of

silence

725

Galford and Drapeau, 2003). Trust is explored in the current study following Galford
and Drapeau’s (2003) categorization about three kinds of trust - which are theoretically
equally important – and which employees refer to when they use the word trust. The
first kind is based on employees’ perceptions regarding their organization’s
competence to cope with external threats, to meet its goals and to manage human
resources effectively. The second kind refers to leadership trust where employees
perceive their top managers as competent enough to make the right decisions, to
allocate resources and responsibilities and to support organizational success. Finally,
the third kind refers to personal trust where employees consider their managers as
trustworthy enough in order to manage people fairly and contribute to organizational
effectiveness. Galford and Drapeau (2003) argue that although these three types of
trust are distinct, they are closely linked. They mention that when an individual
manager violates the personal trust of her subordinates their organizational trust is
shaken.

Trust in organization
Trust in an organization refers to the relationship established between individuals and
organizations based on the messages an employee receives regarding organizational
expectations and, more importantly, employee perceptions of desired managerial
actions (Brockner et al., 1997). During and/or after organizational change, some
employees may feel uncertain about the ability of their organization to meet their
expectations or keep its promises. This is particularly the case when an organization is
associated with previous record of psychological contract breaches (Robinson and
Morrison, 2000). Employees’ perceptions of organizational capabilities and competence
in dealing with a merger, that demonstrate efficiency, stability and problem-solving
ability, may improve acceptance of the merger and, therefore, have an impact on
post-merger attitudes. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H1.

There is a positive association between trust in organization and employees’
merger attitudes (i.e. organizational commitment and employee satisfaction).

Trust in leadership
The success of a change depends on powerful and visionary leadership. Kotter (1996)
claims that change always demands strong leadership. He argues that, if change is
needed in a division of a company, the division’s general manager is a key person. The
role of top management is considered crucial for the success of the change in the
change management literature (Beer and Nohria, 2000). It is also considered crucial for
the eventual success of a merger (Cartwright and Cooper, 1993; Appelbaum et al., 2000),
since trust in top management can reduce feelings of uncertainty and unfounded fears
(Weber and Weber, 2001). Appelbaum et al. (2000) argued that during the post-merger
stage employees are in the most desperate need of an effective leader or, more
specifically, a leader whose influence is perceived as being highly correlated with high
levels of employee satisfaction. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H2.

There is a positive association between trust in leadership (top management
and employees’ merger attitudes (i.e. organizational commitment and
employee satisfaction).

PR
40,6

726

Trust in supervision
Trust in supervision can affect various aspects of an employee’s work behavior due to
the power that the supervisor holds over employee attitudes, as well as due to the
proximal nature of the supervisor-subordinate relationship (Pierce et al., 1984).
Research on the effects of trust on job satisfaction showed that trust in management
directly results in increased satisfaction, employee productivity and co-operation (Rich,
1997; Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Mishra and Morrissey, 1990). Fedor (1991) suggested that
an employee is likely to doubt the accuracy of a supervisor’s feedback, to not take it
into consideration and to not expend extra effort to improve performance, if he/she
perceives their supervisor as untrustworthy.

Managers also play an important role in influencing an employee’s attitudes

towards a merger. Napier et al. (1989) and Bastien (1987) have shown that it was the
individual manager and how he/she handled the situation that was the major focal
point for most employees during a merger. Kanter (1984) also suggests that managers
should allow employees to participate, provide a clear picture or vision of the future,
share information, demonstrate commitment to the change, tell people exactly what is
expected of them and offer positive reinforcement in order to build commitment to
change. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H3.

There is a positive association between trust in supervisors/management and
employees’ merger attitudes (i.e. organizational commitment and employee
satisfaction).

Organizational silence and post-merger attitudes
The phenomenon of silence is dominant in the workplace (Pinder and Harlos, 2001;
Morrison and Milliken, 2000). When a culture of silence exists, organizational members
work in the middle of a paradox where most employees know the truth about certain
issues and problems within the organization yet dare not speak that truth to their
supervisors (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Also, employee silence can create stress,
cynicism, dissatisfaction and disengagement among employees (Beer and Eisenstat,
2000). Moreover, Van Dyne et al. (2003) explored the reasons behind negative
consequences for silent employees and suggested this is true due to the fact that silence
is more ambiguous than voice, that observers are more likely to misattribute employee
motives for silence than for voice and, finally, silence engenders more incongruent
consequences for an employee than voice.

The uncertainty of a major organizational change, such as a merger, may

enhance organizational silence and increase employees’ feelings of insecurity and
anxiety. Appelbaum et al. (2000) claim that poor communication during a merger
may result in reduced productivity and employee absenteeism or turnover.
Organizational silence can lead to lack of feedback, lack of information and lack of
analysis of ideas and alternatives and, therefore, the organization will suffer from
less effective organizational processes (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). Moreover,
organizational silence can result in employees’ feelings of not being valued,
employees’ perceived lack of control and employees’ cognitive dissonance. All these
factors lead to low commitment and satisfaction (Morrison and Milliken, 2000) and,
therefore, have a negative impact on employee’s merger attitudes. Therefore, we
hypothesize that:

The role of

silence

727

H4.

There is a negative association between organizational silence and employees’
merger attitudes (i.e. organizational commitment and employee satisfaction).

As mentioned earlier, trust is related with many positive employee behaviors, such as
co-operation and performance (Mayer et al., 1995). In times of change, employees decide
whether to raise an issue to their supervisors or not by “reading the context” for clues
regarding context favorability (Dutton et al., 1997). Previous research suggests that
employees weigh these costs against each other when considering whether or not to
speak up about issues and concerns (Dutton et al., 1997; Miceli and Near, 1992). When
there is a climate of trust, even under unfavorable conditions, such as those in the
aftermath of a merger, it is likely that employees might take the initiative to speak up
and raise concerns to top management and their supervisors, since they will probably
consider the context as favorable. On the contrary, when silence prevails and there is a
situation where speaking your mind or the unwanted truth, contradicting the boss, or
bearing bad news is perceived as useless or even dangerous, and certainly unfavorable,
levels of trust are low (Buttery and Richter, 2003). Therefore, we hypothesize that:

H5.

Organizational silence mediates the relationship between organizational trust
and employees’ merger attitudes (i.e. organizational commitment and
employee satisfaction).

Method
Two separate studies are described in the following paragraphs. Study 1 describes the
results of the merger of two holding companies operating in the same industry
(Information Technology) in Greece. The data collection was carried almost a year after
the companies’ boards announced their intention to merge their companies and, six
months later, the two merging companies started operating as one company in the
Athens Stock Exchange. Each of the merging companies operated a number of small
subsidiaries (ranging from eight up to eighty-seven employees), which were also in the
process of merging in the new scheme. The results of the study regarding the
subsidiaries of these holding companies are presented in study 2. The researchers
carried out study 2 while the absorption of the subsidiaries was ongoing, following the
announcement of the merger of the holding companies. Despite the fact that the same
measures were used in both studies, we have decided to present their results
separately, since the two studies were not carried out simultaneously (six months
apart). Moreover, due to the large sample size, the possibility of a Type I error was
increased and it is also mentioned in the literature as a precaution against common
method variance. In both cases, the mergers were completed smoothly, without any
immediate job losses or major redundancies, at least until both studies were completed.
However, there were increased worries amongst employees regarding their own and
the company’s future. Finally, although not mandatory by the law, the management of
the companies held a series of information talks with union representatives,
immediately after the announcement of the mergers, in order to reduce fears for job
losses or any other breach of the existing employment agreements.

Participants and procedure
The response rate was very high in both studies (above 75 percent) because employees
were asked to participate in an effort to assess and deal with the effects of the merger.

PR
40,6

728

Since there were no official voice mechanisms established, employees were encouraged
to participate in the survey. The objective of this project underlined the need for
anonymity and confidentiality and, as a result, no demographic information was
required but only the respondent’s department and position. Researchers also
highlighted the confidentiality and anonymity of the process and remained at the
company’s premises in order to supervise the procedure and collect the completed
questionnaires. The total number of participants was 327 employees in study 1 and 285
for study 2. They were employed in senior (4.3 percent in study 1 and 11.6 percent in
study 2) and middle management positions (18.5 percent in study 1 and 13.2 percent in
study 2), as IT specialists (48.4 percent in study 1 and 42.2 percent in study 2), and
various other positions (28.8 percent in study 1 and 33 percent in study 2); they
originated from departments such as technical (26 percent in study 1 and 39 percent in
study 2), customer services (38.8 percent in study 1 and 29.5 percent in study 2), sales
(15.7 percent in study 1 and 9 percent in study 2), finance (8.6 percent in study 1 and 7
percent in study 2), and various other departments (21.2 percent in study 1 and 26
percent in study 2).

Measures
Organizational trust
Numerous measures exist in the literature assessing organizational trust. Dietz and
Den Hartog (2006), in an excellent review of the existing intra-organizational trust
measures, argued that this is probably the result of the continuing dissatisfaction with
the existing measures of trust and the different conceptualizations adopted. They
identified and analyzed 14 empirical measures of intra-organizational trust.
Unfortunately, none of these measures were deemed appropriate for our study, since
they did not capture the theoretical model of Galford and Drapeau (2003).

Subsequently, we had to use a new measure specifically developed for the purposes

of the current study. The items were developed by the authors, following standard
psychometric procedures, as described by Rust and Golombok (1999) and Nunnally
and Bernstein (1994). The authors developed an initial pool of 54 items, bearing in mind
the Galford and Drapeau (2003) categorization, and the respondents evaluated their
trust to organization, leadership and immediate supervisor in three different sections.
The participants of the studies were given a series of statements in order to indicate on
a five-point scale whether they agree or not (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly
agree). This was the case for all measures in both studies. A principal component factor
analysis with oblimin rotation was carried out for study 1 in order to explore the factor
structure of the measure. The factor analysis identified nine factors with eigenvalues
above the cut-off point of 1.0 explaining 64 percent of the total variance. Subsequently,
the scree test was used in order to decide upon the number of the main factors (Kline,
1994), after which five main factors were identified. The subsequent factor analysis
requesting five factors, including all 54 items, explained 56 percent of the total
variance. Most items loaded on the first three factors, which allowed us to drop the
items of the two smaller factors, keeping only the items with the highest factor
loadings on each of the first three factors. The resulting factor analysis, using 16 items
in total, explained 67 percent of the variance, eliciting three factors (five items
assessing trust in organization, five items assessing trust in leadership, and six items
assessing trust in supervisor), with acceptable factor loadings and high internal

The role of

silence

729

consistency. Factor loadings ranged between 0.55 and 0.84[1] in all three factors with a
minimum of 0.55. The items were summated to create three scales with acceptable
internal consistency, namely .83 for trust in organization, 0.86 for trust in leadership,
and 0.92 for trust in supervisor (0.89, 0.83 and 0.93 for study 2 respectively). In order to
further examine the factor structure of the measure, a confirmatory factor analysis was
carried out on the sample of study 2. The perspective results were all within the
expected range (x

=df ¼ 3:02; TLI: 0.93; NFI: 0.91; CFI: 0.94; RMSEA: 0.08). These fit

indexes were considered acceptable, according to the relevant literature, and we
decided not to shorten further the measure since this could have jeopardized the quality
of the measure, thus leaving out important aspects of the three types of trust.

Organizational silence
This was measured through a seven-item scale, including two reversed items,
summated to create a scale, with response options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
through to 5 (strongly agree). It was specifically developed by the authors for the
purposes of the current study, since at the time the study was initiated there were no
organizational silence measures published (e.g. Van Dyne et al., 2003). The instructions
asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement with seven items assessing
organizational silence at that point of time, since we were interested in employees’
perceptions of organizational silence during the post-merger period. A principal
component factor analysis with oblimin rotation was carried out for study 1 in order to
explore the factor structure of the measure. The results of the factor analysis yielded
one factor with loadings ranging from 0.60 up to 0.74, explaining 48 percent of the
variance. In order to further examine the factor structure of the measure, a
confirmatory factor analysis was carried out on the sample of study 2. The results of a
CFA confirmed the existence of one dimension, measuring organizational silence
(x

=df ¼ 2:54; TLI: 0.96; NFI: 0.97; CFI: 0.98; RMSEA: 0.07). The alphas were also at an

acceptable level, with 0.81 and 0.87 for study 1 and 2 respectively.

Organizational commitment
This scale consisted of five items, including one reversed item, adapted from a 15-item
questionnaire by Porter et al. (1974), with response options ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) through to 5 (strongly agree). Following the suggestions of a reviewer, we
conducted factor analyses for the commitment scale. The principal component factor
analysis with oblimin rotation in study 1 yielded one factor with loadings ranging from
0.44 up to 0.84, explaining 55 percent of the variance. The results of a CFA in study 2
confirmed the existence of one dimension, measuring organizational commitment
(x

=df ¼ 1:30; TLI: 0.99; NFI: 0.99; CFI: 0.99; RMSEA: 0.073). The five items were

summated to create a scale (alphas ¼ 0.77 and 0.81 – studies 1 and 2 respectively).

Employee satisfaction
Employee satisfaction was measured with a ten-item scale assessing ten different
facets of employee satisfaction, adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1980). Response
options ranged from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Similar to the
commitment measure, a principal component factor analysis with oblimin rotation in
study 1 yielded two factors explaining 58 percent of the variance. However, since the
second factor included only the three items on financial rewards, we decided to request

PR
40,6

730

a one-factor solution in order to keep the original measure intact. The one factor
solution explained 43 percent of the variance with loadings ranging from 0.46 up to
0.74. The results of a CFA in study 2 confirmed the existence of one dimension,
measuring employee satisfaction (x

=df ¼ 2:97; TLI: 0.95; NFI: 0.95; CFI: 0.97;

RMSEA: 0.08). The items were summated to create a scale (alphas ¼ 0.85 and 0.91 –
studies 1 & 2 respectively). The scales used in the study are available upon request
from the authors.

Results
Preliminary analyses
Prior to discussing our results, it is important to acknowledge that our decision to use
self-report measures raises the possibility of common method variance problems.
However, the nature of our constructs requires the use of self-report measures.
Nevertheless, follwoing the suggestions made by Podsakoff et al. (2003), we performed
a post-hoc factor analysis (Harman’s single-factor test). An exploratory factor analysis,
including all the variables of our study, elicited eight factors in study 1 (seven factors
in study 2) with eigenvalues above 1.0, explaining 66 percent (83 percent in study 2) of
the total variance, where the first factor explained 32 percent (47 percent in study 2) of
the total variance. While the results of this analysis do not preclude the possibility of
common method variance, they do suggest that it is not a likely explanation for the
reported findings. Further, we also followed the general factor covariate technique
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), partialling out a general factor score, which is often assumed to
contain the best approximation of common method variance. We then reanalyzed the
relationships between the independent and the dependent variables. After conducting
this procedure, we found that both the nature and the significance of the results, as
demonstrated in the inter-correlation matrix of Table I, remained unchanged in both
studies. The results of these analyses can be obtained by the authors.

Hypothesis testing
Table I presents the descriptive statistics and the intercorrelation matrix of all
variables for both studies. An examination of the intercorrelation matrix demonstrates
a number of statistically significant correlations for all three types of organizational
trust on a post-merger stage, identifying positive correlations between all three types of
organizational trust and merger attitudes. Further, the negative correlations between
organizational silence and merger attitudes suggest that ‘silent’ employees experience
negative feelings in a post-merger stage, resulting in decreased employee satisfaction
and organizational commitment.

Subsequently, we explored the effect of organizational trust on silence and merger

attitudes through a series of hierarchical regression analyses, controlling for
participants’ position and department. The three types of organizational trust predict a
significant percentage of silence’s variance (up to 38 percent in study 2), whereas, as far
as the merger attitudes are concerned, organizational trust accounts for a significant
percentage of the total variance, ranging up to 63 percent of employee satisfaction for
study 2, with the exception of organization commitment in study 2, which is
independent of organizational trust. The results of the regression analyses (Table II)
suggest that the participants of the current studies evaluate as very significant the
contribution of organizational trust to both organizational silence and employees’

The role of

silence

731

Study

Mean

2345

Trust

organization

15.96

3.83

16.76

4.42

–

0.36

0.60

0.54

0.62

0.64

Trust

leadership

14.85

3.95

7.91

4.56

0.46

–

0.27

0.34

0.49

0.32

Trust

supervision

20.39

6.10

21.74

5.89

0.45

0.39

–

0.59

0.60

0.65

Organizational

silence

20.08

5.05

17.03

5.49

0.45

0.38

0.45

–

0.61

0.65

Organizational

commitment

15.18

3.64

16.16

4.07

0.53

0.61

0.42

0.47

–

0.68

Employee

satisfaction

26.90

6.59

29.93

8.09

0.53

0.51

0.53

0.54

0.68

–

Notes:

0.01

(two-tailed);

Study

results

327)

are

presented

below

the

diagonal;

study

results

285)

are

above

the

diagonal

Table I.
Means, standard
deviations and
intercorrelations for
study variables

PR
40,6

732

attitudes, such as organizational commitment and employee satisfaction. The results
presented in Table II provide partial support to the first four hypotheses of our study.

Finally, we explored our last hypothesis regarding the mediating effect of

organizational silence. A series of mediated regression analyses as described by Cohen
and Cohen (1983) were carried out. There are two requirements that must be satisfied
for mediation to be present. First, the independent variable (i.e. organizational trust)
must be related to the dependent variables (i.e. employee satisfaction, and
organizational commitment). Second, the mediator (i.e. organizational silence) must
be related to the dependent variables. Finally, the relationship between the independent
variable and the dependent variables must be reduced after adjusting for the effects of
the mediator. The percent effect mediated was calculated following Judge et al.’s (1999)
suggestions by dividing the incremental variance explained by the independent
variable after controlling for the mediator by the total variance explained by the
independent variables when entered into the regressions alone, and then subtracting
this proportion from 1.0. Furthermore, in order to explore whether the drop of the

coefficient is statistically significant, we carried out the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982),
following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines.

Table III provides the results of the multiple regression analyses linking

organizational silence, organizational trust, and silence and trust combined to the
merger attitudes, where one can note that the first two requirements of mediation are
clearly satisfied, with one exception. Specifically, when entered into the regression
equations alone, the organizational trust variables explained a significant variance of
merger attitudes, in both studies. Similarly, organizational silence, when entered into
the regressions alone, explained significant variance in merger attitudes in both
studies. Although the first two requirements for mediation were generally satisfied, the
last requirement supported the hypothesis of partial, but strong, mediation effects
although, in a few cases, full mediation effects were observed. Specifically, in most
cases when the effect of the mediator (i.e. organizational silence) is taken into account,
the effect of organizational trust on merger attitudes is reduced significantly. On
average, 59 percent and 68 percent of the total variance in studies 1 and 2 respectively
is due to the effect of organizational silence, suggesting the significant role of this
organizational construct. However, two significant issues have to be noted, as well:
first, that no suppressor effects were observed, indicating that organizational trust did
not explain more variance controlling for organizational silence and, second, due to the
large sample sizes, the

coefficients remain statistically significant when silence was

controlled, with the exception of trust to leadership on employee satisfaction in study 2,
where full mediation exists.

Discussion
The current studies investigated the role of organizational trust and organizational
silence on employees’ post-merger attitudes. Organizational trust was negatively related
to organizational silence and positively to post-merger attitudes. Further, the significant
role of organizational silence in a post-merger state was also identified through the
negative relationships with merger attitudes but mainly through the significant
mediating effect of silence between organizational trust and merger attitudes.

Organizational trust was dealt with in the current study using a three-type

approach, especially applicable in re-structuring and re-organization attempts, such as

The role of

silence

733

Step

Study

327)

Study

285)

Criterion

Control

variables

Predictors

change

Organizational

silence

Department/Position

0.16

0.02

4.45

0.14

0.049

0.24

2.88

0.35

0.10

0.51

Trust

organization

0.28

0.64

Trust

leadership

0.58

0.31

52.41

0.15

0.79

0.38

5.07

0.06

Trust

supervision

0.27

0.05

Organizational

commitment

Department/Position

0.04

0.00

0.23

0.00

0.41

0.17

1.80

0.13

0.07

0.37

Trust

organization

0.28

0.61

Trust

leadership

0.68

0.46

94.25

0.44

0.66

0.26

2.30

0.21

Trust

supervision

0.11

0.28

Employee

satisfaction

Department/Position

0.06

0.00

0.05

0.40

0.16

1.77

0.44

0.07

0.44

Trust

organization

0.29

0.37

Trust

leadership

0.66

0.44

0.43

0.29

0.89

0.63

15.68

0.22

Trust

supervision

0.26

0.55

Notes:

0.05;

0.00,

“b

s”

are

from

the

final

equation

Table II.
Multiple regression
analysis, regressing
organizational silence,
and post-merger attitudes
on organizational trust

PR
40,6

734

a merger; trust in the organization, trust in leadership and trust in supervisor. The
results for all three types of organizational trust suggest that it is positively linked with
a series of positive employees’ attitudes, in line with earlier findings (Dirks and Ferrin,
2001). In both studies, the effect sizes between organizational trust and merger
attitudes were quite strong. These findings were further supported by the results of the
multiple regression analyses where, in most cases, a significant percentage of merger
attitudes, ranging up to 63 percent of the total variance, is explained by organizational
trust. The three types of organizational trust did not demonstrate an unequivocal
pattern of relationships with merger attitudes across the two studies. In the majority of
the cases, trust to leadership displayed the strongest relationships with merger
attitudes, especially organizational commitment, suggesting the significant role of top
management through organization’s uncertain periods. Apparently, when employees
feel that the top management of the company holds the necessary knowledge, skills
and abilities to carry through the transition phase successfully, they exhibit more
positive post-merger attitudes and commitment to the organization. On the other hand,
trust to supervisor displayed its most significant effect on employee satisfaction,

Dependent variables

Organizational

commitment (n ¼ 327)

Employee satisfaction

(n ¼ 285)

Predictor

Study 1

Study 2

Study 1

Study 2

Organizational silence (%)

* *

2 0.47

* *

2 0.61

* *

2 0.54

* *

2 0.65

* *

Trust to organization (%)

* *

0.53

* *

0.62

* *

0.52

* *

0.64

* *

Trust to leadership (%)

* *

0.61

* *

0.49

* *

0.51

* *

0.32

Trust to supervisor (%)

* *

0.42

* *

0.60

* *

0.53

* *

0.65

* *

Silence and trust to organization (%)

* *

Silence (b)

2 0.29

* *

2 0.39

* *

2 0.37

* *

2 0.43

* *

Trust to organization (b)

0.40

* *

0.41

* *

0.36

* *

0.41

* *

(Trust to organization) (%)

* *

% mediated

Sobel test

0.12

* *

0.13

* *

0.29

* *

0.29

* *

Silence and trust to leadership (%)

* *

Silence (b)

2 0.28

* *

2 0.59

* *

2 0.40

* *

2 0.66

* *

Trust to leadership (b)

0.50

* *

0.29

0.36

* *

0.10

(Trust to leadership) (%)

* *

0.08

* *

% mediated

100

Sobel test

0.10

* *

0.10

* *

0.25

* *

0.25

* *

Silence and trust to supervisor (%)

* *

Silence (b)

2 0.36

* *

2 0.40

* *

2 0.38

* *

2 0.40

* *

Trust to supervisor (b)

0.26

* *

0.36

* *

0.36

* *

0.42

* *

(Trust to supervisor) (%)

0.05

* *

0.09

* *

% mediated

100

Sobel test

0.09

* *

0.10

* *

0.18

* *

0.18

* *

Notes:

values;

n/s;

p , 0.05;

* *

p , 0.00

Table III.

Organizational silence as

mediator of the

relationship between

organizational trust and

merger attitudes

The role of

silence

735

emphasizing the important job of first-line supervisor in retaining high employee
morale and satisfaction during organizational change.

We believe the most significant contribution of the current research is the

identification of the role of organizational silence. Organizational silence was
negatively related to the three dimensions of organizational trust, which predicted a
strong percentage of silence’s variance, reaching a level of 38 percent in study 2. It may
be suggested then that one of the reasons why employees remain “silent” at work is the
lack of trust towards their organization, their top management and their supervision.
The strongest predictor was trust to the organization. One interpretation is that, in the
aftermath of a merger, organizational trust is a significant factor influencing
employees’ silent behavior. When employees feel that their organization is
trust-worthy and able to deal with a difficult situation such as a merger, they tend
to demonstrate decreased levels of silent behavior, and this was especially the case for
merged companies in study 2.

The last research question concerned the mediating effect of organizational silence.

Our analyses show that, when organizational silence is used first to predict the merger
attitudes, the effect of the three types of trust is reduced, in some cases, dramatically.
The practical implications, if it is confirmed by future studies, will be significant.
Organizational silence is related to employees’ attitudes, such as commitment and
satisfaction (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). The same applies for organizational trust,
as shown in the current study as well. However, if the effect of trust on employees’
attitudes is largely subject to a climate of silence, then organizations should take a
further step than simply try to improve organizational image and employees’
communication with top management and supervisors in order to increase employees’
trust. They will have to deal more with issues that lead to a climate of silence, such as
organizational structure and policies (e.g. increased centralization of decision making),
managerial practices (e.g. management’s fear of negative feedback), implicit
managerial beliefs, etc (Morrison and Milliken, 2000) in order to decrease employees’
resistance to organizational changes. A climate of silence and a lack of communication
and consultation can lead to poor morale and job dissatisfaction as employees
contemplate the move from the old to the new situation.

Limitations of the study
These results, however, cannot be used to provide unequivocal support for the
mediating role of organizational silence. For example, all the data were obtained using
a one-shot questionnaire methodology, and it is often argued that common-method
variance rather than causal links may explain some of the relationships identified.
Spector (1987), in a review of shared method variance, concluded that it is largely
mythical. He noted that well-developed measures with sound psychometric properties
seemed free of this problem. In the present study, organizational commitment and
employee satisfaction were taken from previous studies with sound psychometric
properties, whereas the remaining measures, specifically developed for the current
study, demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and construct/discriminant
validity. We also took a number of steps to reduce the effect of common method
variance, as described in the results section.

Another limitation of the study is not only the lack of demographic information of

our samples but, most importantly, the lack of pre-merger measures of trust, silence,

PR
40,6

736

and attitudes. As a result, one can only speculate that the effects of trust on
organizational silence and employee attitudes can be positively attributed to the
merger. Finally, one last limitation is the use of new measures for a few of our
constructs (i.e. trust and silence). These measures were constructed following a
rigorous psychometric approach and demonstrated increased levels of reliability and
validity. Nevertheless, further research is required on their psychometric properties,
across languages and organizational settings.

Implications for practice
The result showed that trust in organization, leadership and supervision are positively
related to merger attitudes and, as a result, organizations need to develop a climate of
“trustworthiness” supported by leaders’ and supervisors’ behavior. More specifically,
managers can consider involving employees in organizational processes, such as
decision-making or determination of work roles, which was found to positively
influence the development of trust (Driscoll, 1978). Moreover, it will be important for
managers to establish open communication with emphasis on feedback, accurate
information, adequate explanation of decisions and open exchange of thoughts and
ideas (Butler, 1991).

Some organizational characteristics, which allow the above managerial behaviors to

take place, may support the development of trust (Whitener et al., 1998). First,
organizations with a high degree of centralization and formalization will constrain
development of trustworthy behavior, such as delegation and open communication.
Second, Human Resource Management systems and practices, such as performance
appraisal, reward, and control, may support or inhibit the development of trust. Third,
organizational culture that shares those values, such as open communication and
inclusiveness, will enhance and establish trustworthy behaviors.

Leaders can also start considering trustworthy behavior as a source of competitive

advantage. The fact that a lot of organizations are moving to a flat and team-oriented
structure shows that there is need to increase trust in all levels in order to be able to
make good decisions and be engaged in multidimensional work (Whitener et al., 1998).
Barney and Hansen (1994) reported that organizations that successfully attain high
levels of managerial trustworthiness should be at a competitive advantage in the
marketplace compared to those that do not. Especially during organizational change
interventions, as shown in the current study, dealing with organizational trust and
silence can provide a significant benefit for organizations.

This study addressed a relatively new topic in organizational behavior and showed

that the effects of organizational trust to merger attitudes are partly influenced by
organizational silence. Although one may not argue about causal explanations of the
results, due to the research design adopted, the findings offer a significant insight in
understanding the role of organizational trust and silence during organizational
change.

Note

1. The results of the factor analyses along with the items of measure are not presented here due

to lack of space, but are available from the authors.

The role of

silence

737

References

Appelbaum, S.H., Gandell, J., Yortis, H., Proper, S. and Jobin, F. (2000), “Anatomy of a merger:

behavior of organisational factors and processes throughout the pre- during- post-stages”,
Management Decision, Vol. 38, pp. 649-61.

Barney, J. and Hansen, M. (1994), “Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage”,

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 175-90.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.

Bastien, D. (1987), “Common patterns of behavior and communication in corporate mergers and

acquisitions”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 26, pp. 17-34.

Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. (2000), “The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning”,

Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41, pp. 29-40.

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), “Cracking the code of change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78,

pp. 133-41.

Brockner, J., Siegel, P., Daly, J., Martin, C. and Tyler, T. (1997), “When trust matters:

the moderating effect of outcome favorability”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42,
pp. 558-84.

Buono, A.F. and Bowditch, J.L. (1989), The Human Side of Mergers and Acquisitions,

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Butler, J. (1991), “Towards understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of

conditions of trust inventory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 643-63.

Buttery, E.A. and Richter, E.M. (2003), “On Machiavellian management”, Leadership

& Organizational Development, Vol. 24 Nos 7/8, pp. 426-35.

Cartwright, S. (2005), “Mergers and acquisitions: an update and appraisal”, in Hodgkinson, G.P.

and Ford, J.K. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 20, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 1-38.

Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1993), “The role of culture compatibility in successful

organisational marriage”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7, pp. 57-70.

Cartwright, S. and Schoenberg, R. (2006), “25 years of mergers and acquisitions research: recent

achievements and future opportunities”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 51-5.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/correlation for the Behavioural

Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Connell, J., Ferres, N. and Travaglione, T. (2003), “Engendering trust in manager-subordinate

relationships – predictors and outcomes”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 569-87.

Cooper, C.L. and Gregory, A. (2001), Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, JAI Press, London.

Dietz, G. and Den Hartog, D. (2006), “Measuring trust inside organizations”, Personnel Review,

Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 557-88.

Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001), “The role of trust in organisational settings”, Organization

Science, Vol. 12, pp. 450-67.

Driscoll, J. (1978), “Trust and participation in organisational decision making as predictors of

satisfaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 44-56.

Dutton, J., Ashford, S., O’Neill, R., Hayes, E. and Wierba, E. (1997), “Reading the wind:

how middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 407-23.

PR
40,6

738

Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell, J.E.A. and Gaby, S.H. (2000), “Perceptions of organizational

readiness for change: factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of
team-based selling”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 419-42.

Elias, S.M. (2009), “Employee commitment in times of change: assessing the importance of

attitudes toward organizational change”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37-55.

Fedor, D. (1991), “Recipient responses to performance feedback: a proposed model and

implications”, in Ferris, G. and Rowland, K. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 73-120.

Galford, R. and Drapeau, A.S. (2003), “The enemies of trust”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81,

pp. 89-95.

Gomez, C. and Rosen, B. (2001), “The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial

trust and employee empowerment”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 26, pp. 53-69.

Hackman, R. and Oldham, P. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V. and Welbourne, T.M. (1999), “Managerial coping with

organisational change: a dispositional perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84,
pp. 107-22.

Kanter, R. (1984), Managing Change – The Human Dimension, Goodmeasure, Boston, MA.

Kline, P. (1994), An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, Routledge, London.

Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review

on Change, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.

Kramer, R. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organisations. Emerging perspectives, enduring

questions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 569-98.

Marks, M. and Mirvis, P. (1992), “Rebuilding after the merger: dealing with survivor sickness”,

Organisation Dynamics, Vol. 21, pp. 18-32.

Mayer, R., Davis, J. and Schoorman, F. (1995), “An integrative model of organisational trust”,

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-34.

Miceli, M. and Near, J. (1992), Blowing the Whistle: The Organizational and Legal Implications for

Companies and Employees, Lexington Books, New York, NY.

Mishra, J. and Morrissey, M.A. (1990), “Trust in employee/employer relationships: a survey of

West Michigan managers”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 19, pp. 443-85.

Mishra, A.K. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1998), “Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing:

the roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 23, p. 567.

Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000), “Organizational silence: a barrier to change and

development in a pluralistic world”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 706-25.

Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2003), “Speaking up, remaining silent: the dynamics of voice

and silence in organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 1353-8.

Napier, N., Simmons, G. and Stratton, K. (1989), “Communication during a merger: the experience

of two banks”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 12, pp. 105-22.

Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oreg, S. (2006), “Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change”, European Journal

of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 73-101.

Pierce, J.L., Dunham, R.B. and Cummings, L.L. (1984), “Sources of environmental structuring and

participant responses”, Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 33,
pp. 214-42.

The role of

silence

739

Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A. and Williams, E.S. (1999), “Fairness perceptions and trust as

mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 897-933.

Pinder, C. and Harlos, H. (2001), “Employee silence: quiescence and acquiescence as responses to

perceived injustice”, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 20,
pp. 31-369.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases

in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R. and Boulian, P. (1974), “Organisational commitment, job

satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.

Rich, G. (1997), “The sales manager as a role model: effects on trust, job satisfaction and

performance of salespeople”, Journal of Academy Marketing Science, Vol. 25, pp. 319-28.

Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000), “The development of psychological contract breach:

a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 525-46.

Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all:

a cross-discipline view of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 393-405.

Rust, J. and Golombok, G. (1999), Modern Psychometrics, Routledge, London.

Schweiger, D.M. and DeNisi, A.S. (1991), “Communication with employees following a merger:

a longitudinal field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 110-35.

Siegel, P., Brockner, J. and Tyler, T. (1995), “Revisiting the interactive relationship between

procedural and distributive justice: the role of trust”, paper presented at the Annual
Academy of Management Meeting, Vancouver.

Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations

models”, in Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.

Spector, P.E. (1987), “Method variance as an artifact in self-report affect and perceptions at work.

Myth or significant problem?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 438-43.

Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. and Botero, I. (2003), “Conceptualizing employee silence and employee

voice as multidimensional constructs”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 1359-92.

Weber, P. and Weber, J. (2001), “Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change”,

Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 291-300.

Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, A. and Werner, J. (1998), “Managers as initiators of trust:

an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 513-30.