Lam 2018

DR. ANGELA J.
XU (Orcid ID : 0000-0002-6699-3434)
Article type : Original Article

Accepted Article
Power imbalance and employee silence: The role of abusive leadership, power distance
orientation, and perceived organizational politics
Long W. Lam
Management and Marketing Department
Faculty of Business Administration
University of Macau
Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau, China
Tel : (853) 8822-8883
Email: ricolam@umac.mo
Angela J. Xu*
School of Management
Jinan University
No.601, Huangpu Avenue West, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, China
Tel: (853) 6557-0024
Email: xujieangela@163.com
*Correspondence Author
October 2017
Submitted to Applied Psychology
Abstract
Employee silence is a costly but omnipresent phenomenon in modern organizations. In this
study, we focus on two forms of silence: defensive silence based on fear and acquiescent
silence based on resignation. Given the power imbalance in supervisor–subordinate
relationships, we hypothesize that abusive supervision is an antecedent of subordinates’
defensive silence and that a subordinate’s power distance orientation affects acquiescent
silence. We investigate the interaction effects of abusive supervision and power distance
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not
been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may
lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as
doi: 10.1111/apps.12170
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
orientation on these two types of silence. Perceived organizational politics may also
aggravate such interactive effects. From data collected from 159 junior employees in China in
Accepted Article
two periods, we find that abusive supervision is associated with employee defensive silence
and moderates high-power-distance employees’ tendency to engage in acquiescent silence.
When perceiving high politics in the organization, high-power-distance employees are more
sensitive to abusive supervision and engage in more defensive silence. A highly political
organizational context also accentuates abusive supervision’s moderating effect on the
relation between employees’ power distance orientation and acquiescent silence. We
conclude with theoretical and practical implications for the silence literature.
Keywords
abusive supervision; acquiescent silence; defensive silence; organizational politics; power
distance orientation.
Employee silence, referring to employees’ deliberate and conscious withholding of potential-
ly important information, usually from leaders who are in positions to receive and address it
(Morrison, 2014), is a universal phenomenon in modern organizations. While research has
acknowledged the potential benefits of employee silence, such as reduced information load
for management (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008) and the prosocial reasons employees some-
times withhold information (Van Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003), both academia and the media
have uncovered stronger evidence that silence has a widespread detrimental impact on organ-
izations (e.g., failure to detect serious problems, lack of ideas for innovation) (Perlow & Wil-
liams, 2003; see Morrison, 2014). Several well-known organizational tragedies (e.g., the
Challenger disaster in the United States, Sanlu milk powder incident in China, Fukushima
nuclear radiation disaster in Japan) have been attributed to employee silence.

Given the adverse consequences of silence, understanding why it happens in the
workplace is crucial (Harlos, 2016; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Yet,
Accepted Article
as Morrison (2014) concluded, prior research has mostly focused on the conditions encourag-
ing employees to speak up rather than factors that suppress their willingness to share poten-
tially useful information (e.g., Liang, Farh, & Farh, 2012; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, &
Kamdar, 2011; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Among
the few empirical studies of employee silence, investigation has taken a largely individual
perspective involving factors such as affect and belief (Detert & Edmonson, 2011; Madrid,
Patterson, & Leiva, 2015). The dearth of research in the latter area is unfortunate not only
because of organizational tragedies due to employee silence. Given that silence is the domi-
nant employee response within many organizations, Morrison and Milliken (2000) proposed
contextual rather than individual factors as the more probable reasons why people refuse to
speak up. Without knowing the contextual factors of why employees choose not to share their
opinions (Timming & Johnstone, 2015), leaders run the risk of not recognizing whether or
how their organizations may have gone wrong and miss the opportunity to take necessary and
timely actions (Detert & Treviño, 2010; Donaghey, Cullinane, Dundon, & Wilkinson, 2011).
As particular situations can also have strong influences on behaviors (Johns, 2006), an empir-
ical examination regarding the contextual influences (e.g., leader and organizational charac-
teristics) on silence is germane.
In this study, we focus on two silence types that may stem from negative work con-
texts and harm organizational effectiveness (Pinder & Harlos, 2002; Wang & Hsieh, 2013):
defensive silence based on fear and acquiescent silence based on deeply-held resignation
(Van Dyne et al., 2003). Defensive (or quiescent) silence results from employees’ active reac-
tions to external threats to self-protection, whereas acquiescent silence occurs when employ-
ees are deeply disengaged and passively accept an organization’s status quo (Pinder & Harlos,

2001). Consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of power imbalance (Keltner, Gruenfeld,
& Anderson, 2003), we first propose that a leadership style that exercises “power with hostili-
Accepted Article
ty” (Tepper et al., 2009, p. 156)—or abusive supervision—is a possible antecedent of em-
ployee defensive silence. Second, we expect power distance orientation, which captures cul-
tural influence of power and authority differentials in organizations (Farh, Hackett, & Liang,
2007), to affect employees’ tendency to remain silent because of acquiescence. Third, we ex-
plore whether abusive supervision and power distance orientation interact to explain why
employees withhold information in organizations. Finally, organizational politics in a work
environment can reflect power imbalance (Chang, Rosen, & Levy, 2009). Following the
power imbalance perspective, we expect that in organizational contexts characterized by high
politics, the interactive effects of abusive supervision and power distance on defensive and
acquiescent silence will become more salient. Figure 1 presents our hypothesized relation-
ships.
This research aims to offer valuable insights into the silence literature. First, by empir-
ically examining two forms of employee silence, we investigate whether people are motivat-
ed by contextual factors to withhold information and offer practical implications for organiza-
tions to prevent such a phenomenon (Harlos, 2016; Van Dyne et al., 2003). By considering
the interactive effects of an individual cultural value (i.e., power distance orientation), leader-
ship (i.e., abusive supervision), and organizational context (i.e., perceived organizational
politics) on silence, we also answer Morrison, See, and Pan’s (2015) call for research to ex-
plore the interplay of individual and situational factors in triggering silence. Second, Pinder
and Harlos (2001) were among the first to suggest using power asymmetry and dependence to
study silence. By adopting the power imbalance perspective to understand silence (Keltner et
al., 2003; Morrison & Rothman, 2009), we thus enhance the theoretical foundations of the
silence literature. As organizational factors (e.g., perceived organizational politics) are im-

portant to understand why silence occurs, we evaluated antecedents of silence among junior
employees working for different organizations in China. Doing so advances current under-
Accepted Article
standing of the silence phenomenon with respect to the work context influence.
Literature Review
Whereas silence in general refers to information withheld because individuals fail or
refuse to speak their minds (Morrison, 2014), research in organizational psychology and be-
havior literature has conceptualized voice as deliberate and proactive employees’ behavior to
verbally express ideas and opinions to those who are in positions to act on their suggestions
(Morrison et al., 2011; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). While voice is a broad term, such that its
definition can differ across disciplines (Wilkinson & Fay, 2011), there is general agreement
that voice and silence are two distinct constructs with different antecedents (Brinsfield, 2013;
Morrison, 2014). Empirical findings on voice have largely supported the notion that such
proactive behavior is more common when organizations have positive voice and safe climates
(Morrison et al., 2011; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009) and a variety of voice mechanisms
(Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, & Ackers, 2004). Employees’ willingness to raise sug-
gestions and engage in upward problem solving is also more likely when leaders encourage
two-way communication (Wilkinson, Dundon, Marchington, & Ackers, 2004) and are ethical
and open-minded (Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson, 2009; Burris, Detert, & Chiaburu, 2008;
Detert & Burris, 2007; Lam, Loi, Chan, & Liu, 2016; Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi,
2012; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Employees’ motivation
and obligations can also contribute to their upward expression of voice, including prosocial
motivation (Lebel, 2012), impression management (Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea, & Frey,
2007), organizational identification (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012), and feelings of respon-
sibility for constructive change (Liang et al., 2012).

Research on silence dates back to workplace abuse literature on victims’ responses to
deliberately violent acts such as bullying and mobbing (e.g., Davenport, Schwartz & Elliott,
Accepted Article
2002; Leymann, 1990). In general, that research shows that workplace abuses have detri-
mental effects on recipients, including depression, anxiety, feelings of humiliation, and re-
duced self-esteem (Baron & Neuman, 1996). Keashly & Neuman, 2005; Sloan, Matyók,
Schmitz, & Short, 2010). Recipients of workplace abuse, however, have limited ability to
fight back, as they may need to maintain their current employment. As such, their silence is a
common response (Parker, 2014). Observers of workplace abuse may also engage in silence
because of the risk of being targeted themselves (Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002).
In the organizational psychology literature, Morrison and Milliken (2000) and Pinder
and Harlos (2001) were among the first to investigate why employees withhold useful infor-
mation from top management. In their study on organizational silence, Morrison and Milliken
(2000) described a paradoxical phenomenon in which most employees are aware of certain
organizational problems, have knowledge on how to resolve them, but dare not communicate
their ideas to leaders. Pinder and Harlos (2001) later identified employee silence as individu-
als’ response to injustice in organizations; they refuse to speak up out of fear or a deep state
of resignation.
Since the publication of these two conceptual studies, a small but growing research
has explored employee silence. Milliken, Morrison, and Hewlin (2003) revealed that fear and
futility explain why people withhold their opinions; they worry that speaking up will be re-
ceived negatively and also believe that doing so will make little or no difference. The fear of
being isolated can also be why minority members rarely express their opinions in work
groups (Bowen & Blackmon, 2003). Relying on prior literature and anecdotal examples of
why people were hesitant to speak up, Kish-Gephart, Detert, Treviño, and Edmondson (2009)
further showed that fear is the most pervasive and common reason, due to possible repercus-

sions. These findings are consistent with Pinder and Harlos’s (2001) description of defensive
and acquiescent silence. In addition to these two forms of employee silence, Van Dyne et al.
Accepted Article
(2003) postulated a third kind of silence in which employees withhold information with the
intent to protect organizational interests. As it is based on altruistic motives, Van Dyne et al.
described this form of silence as prosocial.
Despite scholarly efforts to advance the silence construct, a dearth of empirical re-
search on employee silence remains, especially regarding its antecedents. Tangirala and
Ramanujam (2008) showed that employee silence is inversely related to individual percep-
tions such as professional commitment and work-group identification, especially under high
procedural justice climates. Detert and Edmonson (2011) proposed that many employees hold
the implicit belief that speaking up is risky and inappropriate (e.g., embarrassing bosses in
public). Such self-censorship can account for employee silence. A combination of affective
(e.g., depression) and cognitive (e.g., rumination) states can also increase employee silence
(Madrid et al., 2015). Morrison et al. (2015) and Knoll and Van Dick (2013) indicated that
subordinates’ sense of power (i.e., powerlessness) and personal authenticity explained their
tendency to withhold input to resolve work problems. With the exception of Tangirala and
Ramanujam (2008), all these empirical studies have shown that, by and large, individual fac-
tors are drivers of employee silence in organizations. However, understanding of whether and
which situational and contextual factors may inhibit employees’ willingness to share opinions
is still lacking.
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development
Morrison and Rothman (2009, p. 112) suggest that the “power imbalance inherent in
organizational roles is perhaps the most important factor that makes employee silence such a
common experience.” As supervisors and subordinates assume different hierarchical posi-
tions, the power imbalance between them is inherent because supervisors control more re-

sources than subordinates (Anderson & Brion, 2014; Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). There is also
a general belief that in employment relationships, employer and employee power is rather
Accepted Article
asymmetric (e.g., Hyman, 1975; Offe & Wiesenthal, 1980). Employers have more power to
adjust wages and are also less affected by turnover of any particular employee (Frege &
Kelly, 2013). However, scholars suggest that employees also have power over employers
(e.g., Hogbin, 2006; Olsen, 2016); for example, through collective bargaining, employees can
exercise power over employers during contract negotiation.
Keltner et al.’s (2003) approach–inhibition theory of power explains that while a
higher position endowed with more power elevates individuals’ positive emotions, it also ac-
tivates their approach behaviors (e.g., aggression). By contrast, individuals with lower posi-
tions and power attend more to threats and pursue more avoidant and inhibited behaviors (e.g.,
silence). To understand how power imbalance between supervisors and subordinates influ-
ences subordinates’ communication of ideas, as Figure 1 shows, we developed a conceptual
model of silence involving interactions of three factors: leaders who express hostility to sub-
ordinates (i.e., abusive supervision), subordinates who are submissive to those of high author-
ity and status (i.e., power distance orientation), and organizations in which power is a defin-
ing characteristic (i.e., organizational politics). As these factors are rather common in organi-
zations, our model has the potential to inform Morrison and Milliken’s (2000) question of the
organizational context under which people withhold their opinions. In what follows, we ex-
plain why supervisors’ abusive behavior and subordinates’ power distance orientation serve
as antecedents of subordinates’ defensive and acquiescent silence, respectively. In addition to
their main effects, we also propose the moderating effects of abusive supervision and power
distance orientation. Specifically, employees with a high-power-distance orientation may ap-
praise supervisory abuse as more threatening, thus making the occurrence of defensive si-
lence more frequent. Similar to a personality trait, power distance orientation may need ex-

ternal stimuli to have an effect on acquiescent silence (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Therefore, the
presence of supervisory abuse may make the power-relevant issues more salient, in turn acti-
Accepted Article
vating more acquiescent silence in high-power-distance employees. Finally, we explain why
the moderating effects of abusive supervision and power distance orientation are more salient
in organizations characterized by high rather than low politics.
Defensive Silence Due to Abusive Supervision
Defensive silence occurs when individuals feel fearful in an environment and thus try
to protect themselves from potential threats (Van Dyne et al., 2003). In particular, employees
deem supervisors abusive when the latter display hostile behaviors, such as ridiculing and
humiliating employees, calling them derogatory names, criticizing them publicly, and
intimidating them through threats such as job loss (Tepper, 2000). Abusive supervision is a
form of aggression, such that leaders may use abusive behaviors to wield their power over
followers (Aryee, Chen, Sun, & Debrah, 2007; Ashforth, 1994). Because of the power
imbalance between supervisors and subordinates, employees are reluctant to take aggressive
and direct action against their abusive supervisors out of the fear of losing valued resources,
such as promotions and career opportunities (Tepper, Moss, Lockhart, & Carr, 2007), or
receiving reprimands to their defiant behavior (Tepper et al., 2009). Fear of future aggression
is a common emotional response to hostility, especially if the act is inflicted by someone
powerful in the hierarchy (Kish-Gephart et al., 2009). The emotion of fear activates
employees’ self-protection mechanisms and makes defensive silence (i.e., to “lay low”) more
likely (Van Dyne et al., 2003; Xu, Loi, & Lam, 2015). Abused employees may fear that
confronting supervisors verbally will provoke them further, resulting in more mistreatment.
Thus:
Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision is positively related to defensive silence.

Acquiescent Silence Due to Power Distance Orientation
Acquiescent silence occurs when individuals believe that their voice has little impact
Accepted Article
on organizational decisions and thus are disengaged from contributing ideas (Van Dyne et al.,
2003). Thus, we reason that the individual orientation of power distance, which captures
individuals’ beliefs about the extent to which superiors are entitled to power and privilege
and also the extent to which they themselves have power to affect what is happening around
them (Farh et al., 2007; Hofstede, 1980, 2001), is a likely antecedent of employees’
acquiescent silence. High-power-distance individuals believe that people have different social
classes and statuses, with those with higher status assuming more power because of their
abilities and knowledge (Hwang & Francesco, 2010). Respect and submission to authority are
also defining characteristics of individuals with a high-power-distance orientation (Li, He,
Yam, & Long, 2015). Such a belief is likely to be more salient in the supervisor–subordinate
relationship because of its inherent power imbalance. Accordingly, high-power-distance
subordinates are likely to accept the power inequality because of the pervasive assumption
that the more competent individuals (i.e., supervisors) end up at the top of organizational
hierarchies (Li et al., 2015; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Raghuram & Fang, 2014). Thus, high-
power-distance subordinates tend to suppress their opinions to those with higher status
(Wang, Hinrichs, Prieto, & Howell, 2013). At the bottom of hierarchies, high-power-distance
subordinates also tend to take the work situation for granted and may not have the desire to
develop alternatives to challenge the status quo in front of supervisors (Khatri, 2009). High-
power-distance subordinates also tend not to believe that speaking up to supervisors will
make a difference in a situation and are more likely “to restrict their verbal and behavioral
expressions as a means to minimize interpersonal conflict” (Morrison & Rothman, 2009, p.
126). High-power-distance individuals have become accustomed not to challenge authority,
leading Morrison (2014) to contend that power distance and silence are related. Timming and

Johnstone (2015) also postulated an anti-democratic personality to characterize individuals
who choose not to speak up because they value obedience and respect for authority. Prior
Accepted Article
research has shown that those in less powerful positions (e.g., subordinates) express
submissiveness when interacting with dominant figures (e.g., supervisors) (Grant, Gino, &
Hofmann, 2011). Thus:
Hypothesis 2: Individual power distance orientation is positively related to
acquiescent silence.
Interactive Effects of Abusive Supervision and Power Distance Orientation
As we argued previously, out of fear of future aggression, employees may engage in
defensive silence more under abusive supervision. We expect this relationship to be more
pronounced among high-power-distance subordinates because of their belief that power is
unequally distributed in organizations (Farh et al., 2007). As such, these subordinates also
value status and power as means of advancement in organizations (Daniels & Greguras,
2014). Jaw, Ling, Wang, and Chang (2007) found empirical evidence that among Chinese
workers, those high in power distance expressed stronger awareness of and preference for
power. When interacting with abusive supervisors, high-power-distance subordinates will
thus be more aware that their superiors have power over them. Because power is associated
with the control of desirable resources, by viewing their supervisors as more powerful, high-
power-distance may further appraise supervisory abuse as more threatening than low-power-
distance subordinates. In addition, high-power-distance employees are likely to realize their
relative powerlessness in such situations. As such, they may become more concerned with
threats and punishment in the environment (e.g., supervisory abuse) because, according to the
power imbalance perspective, emotional states of low-power individuals include anxiety and
heightened vigilance (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008; Keltner et
al., 2003). Daniels and Greguras’s (2014) review shows that power distance exacerbates

some of the effects of leadership on followers’ behaviors. Empirically, Lian et al. (2014)
demonstrate that when abused subordinates perceive their supervisors as having greater
Accepted Article
punishment power, they are less willing to directly confront with them. These reasons lead us
to advance the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3a: Individual power distance orientation moderates the relationship
between abusive supervision and defensive silence, such that the relationship is
stronger among employees with high- than low-power-distance orientations.
We further contend that the linkage between employees’ belief in power distance and
their tendency to adopt acquiescent silence manifests more under supervisors’ abusive
treatment. Trait activation theorists suggest that the connection between certain traits and
behaviors only emerges when the external environment delivers trait-relevant cues (Tett &
Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman 2000). For example, Premeaux and Bedeian (2003) found
that the environment of managerial openness induced low-self-monitoring employees to
voice more than high-self-monitoring employees. In a similar vein, we argue that abusive
supervision may constitute an adverse working environment that leads high-power-distance
employees to remain silent. Supervisory abuse (e.g., public put-downs) delivers cues that
supervisors are not open to input from subordinates and that subordinates’ suggestions are
inferior (Tepper, 2000). Although high-power-distance individuals have learned to be
submissive in front of authority, power-relevant situational stimuli may further motivate them
to be even more disengaged and make them more aware of their inability to make a
difference in the status quo; as such, acquiescent silence based on resignation is more likely
to emerge. Thus:
Hypothesis 3b: Abusive supervision moderates the relationship between individual
power distance orientation and acquiescent silence, such that the relationship is
stronger when abusive supervision is higher rather than lower.

Impact of Perceived Organizational Politics on the Interaction between Abusive
Supervision and Power Distance Orientation

Accepted Article
In Hypotheses 3a and 3b, we explained that abusive supervision and power distance
have moderating effects because they deliver contextual cues of power asymmetry to subor-
dinates during their interaction with supervisors. By contrast, interactions between supervi-
sors and subordinates can occur in different organizational contexts, such that the latter may
either amplify or inhibit the moderating effects of abusive supervision and power distance. In
organizations in which power is a defining characteristic, we expect the moderating effects of
abusive supervision and power distance to be amplified (Galinsky et al., 2008).
Power dependence and power-relevant situational stimuli are more salient in work-
places characterized by high organizational politics (Hall, Hochwarter, Ferris, & Bowen,
2004; Kiewitz, Restubog, Zagenczyk, & Hochwarter, 2009; Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwick,
& Mayes, 1980). Highly political organizations often contain coalitions acting in their own
self-interests, and obtaining more powerful positions will give individuals more opportunities
to maximize their interests (Ferris, Adams, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, & Ammeter, 2002).
When individuals perceive organizations as having high politics, they tend to believe that
people will “acquire, develop, and use power and other resources to obtain … preferred out-
comes” (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 7) and engage in self-serving behaviors (Ferris et al., 2002). As
such, individuals view a political work environment as uncertain because of conflicts among
coalitions and the inability to gauge whether their work efforts will lead to desirable out-
comes (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). The consideration of organizational politics has led to ex-
tensive research on how perceptions of work environments with self-serving activities influ-
ence workplace attitudes and behaviors (for a review, see Chang et al., 2009). These reasons
lead us to expect that perceived organizational politics, defined as “employee perceptions of
the degree to which their immediate work environment is characterized by high levels of po-

litical behavior” (Rosen, Ferris, Brown, Chen, & Yan, 2014, p. 1028), will amplify the mod-
erating influence of abusive supervision and power distance on the two types of employee
Accepted Article
silence.
Previously, we proposed that power distance would moderate the relationship
between abusive supervision and defensive silence because high-power-distance individuals
are more aware of unequal power distribution. In organizations in which political activities
are common, individuals high in power distance will become more attentive to what power
can do (Jaw et al., 2007). Thus, we expect the moderating effect of power distance to become
stronger in organizations with high politics. Specifically, under such an organizational
context, we expect high-power-distance individuals to be more mindful that achievement of
preferred outcomes (e.g., promotion) is less likely to depend on their ability and efforts and
more likely to be influenced by the person’s power and connections with powerful coalitions.
Within a political context, employees high in power distance may appraise abusive
supervision as even more threatening and be more concerned about actions of abusive
supervisors out of fear of losing valued resources and receiving punishments (Treadway et
al., 2004). In support of our conjecture, prior research has shown that politics are often
appraised as negative situations with uncontrollable threat (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, &
Toth, 1997), resulting in perceptions of low psychological safety (Ferris et al., 2002; Li, Wu,
Liu, Kwan, & Liu, 2014). We thus expect that when high-power-distance employees perceive
organizations as political, they will adopt a more defensive silence under abusive supervision
to protect their interests. Thus:
Hypothesis 4a: Perceived organizational politics moderates the moderating effect of
power distance orientation on the positive relationship between abusive supervision
and defensive silence. Specifically, the relationship is the strongest at high perceived
organizational politics and high-power-distance orientation.

As noted previously, trait-like behaviors are more likely to be activated in contexts that
are more relevant to a given trait (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000). Following
Accepted Article
the logic of trait activation theory, we proposed that abusive supervision would moderate the
effect of power distance orientation on acquiescent silence. This is because employees have
heightened awareness that abusive leaders are less receptive to subordinates’ opinions, and
being submissive is the expected subordinate role. Extant research on trait activation theory
has shown that when individuals’ traits are activated, they exhibit a higher tendency to adjust
themselves to the demands and characteristics of the work environment (e.g., Ozcelik, 2017).
This conjecture leads us to postulate that a work environment characterized by high
organizational politics will exacerbate the moderating effect of abusive supervision.
Specifically, when subordinates perceive organizations as having high politics, the presence
of abusive supervision further reminds them that their supervisors are even less open to their
inputs due to their power differences. Such power-relevant stimuli further reminds high-
power-distance employees to be obedient. As such, we expect a stronger tendency to engage
in acquiescent silence among high-power-distance employees when they are confronted with
abusive supervisors in organizations with highly political environment. Thus:
Hypothesis 4b: Perceived organizational politics moderates the moderating effect of
abusive supervision on the positive relationship between power distance orientation
and acquiescent silence. Specifically, the relationship is the strongest at high
perceived organizational politics and high abusive supervision.

Methods
Sample and Data Collection Procedures

Accepted Article
We recruited 360 junior employees through the alumni associations of a
comprehensive, public university in Southeast China that offers degree programs in various
areas (e.g., social sciences, law, business administration). To increase the representativeness
of our sampling frame, we approached the six major alumni associations of the university to
distribute our questionnaires. For each association, 10 officers agreed to support our research
study by contacting and distributing the questionnaires to 60 alumni (i.e., six contacts per
officer). The participants were junior employees, as the officers approached only those who
had graduated from the university no more than 5 years previously. We targeted junior
employees because they are new to organizations and may believe they can contribute novel
ideas for improvement. Nevertheless, their junior positions also make them more susceptible
to power imbalance, and thus they may refrain from speaking up in organizations (Milliken et
al., 2003). As such, investigating the silence phenomenon among junior employees is both
theoretically and practically meaningful.
The surveys were distributed to the alumni both by e-mail and face-to-face (hard
copies). No incentives were offered as the association officers knew the respondents well.
Respondents received reminder e-mails and follow-up telephone calls to boost the response
rate. The cover letters explained the purpose of the study and assured respondent
confidentiality. At Time 1, 218 of the 360 alumni responded to our survey, for a response rate
of 60.56%. Six weeks later (Time 2), we carried out a second survey among these 218 alumni,
159 of whom returned the completed questionnaires, for a response rate of 72.94%. Overall,
the effective response rate was 44.17% (i.e., 159 of 360 respondents). To mitigate concerns
about common method variance, we assessed abusive supervision and power distance
orientation at Time 1 and the two types of silence (i.e., defensive and acquiescent) at Time 2.

Of our final sample, 42% were men, and 41% had tenures between 7 and 24 months with
their employers. Most of our respondents (83.5%) aged from 23 to 27. The employing
Accepted Article
organizations were of different sizes, ranging from fewer than 10 employees to more than
1,000 employees (with an average of 200 employees), and resided in various industries,
including public service, finance, tourism, commerce, insurance, information technology, real
estate, gaming, education, professional, service, manufactory and others.
As we conducted the study in China, the surveys were in Chinese. Following Brislin’s
(1986) suggestion, we translated the English items into Chinese and then back-translated
them into English (see Appendix for the complete list of original items). Unless otherwise
indicated, all variables were measured on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 =
strongly agree).
Measures
Defensive and acquiescent silence. We used three items with the highest loadings on
Van Dyne et al.’s (2003) scale to measure both forms of employee silence. Prior research has
also used this scale (e.g., Wang & Hsieh, 2013). In terms of defensive silence, respondents
reported whether they had withheld information out of the fear that expressing their ideas was
personally risky (e.g., “I withhold relevant information to the job out of fear”). In terms of
acquiescent silence, respondents reported whether they had passively withheld information
because of a sense of detachment (e.g., “I passively withhold ideas, based on resignation”).
Cronbach’s alphas of these two scales were 0.93 and 0.87, respectively.

Abusive supervision. Participants reported the frequency (1 = never, 5 = always)
with which their direct supervisors engaged in abusive behaviors on Mitchell and Ambrose’s
Accepted Article
(2007) five-item scale. Two sample items were “My supervisor makes negative comments
about me to others” and “My supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid.”
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.93.
Power distance orientation. Prior research indicates that both societies and
individuals have considerable variations in their cultural beliefs (Farh et al., 2007). Consistent
with previous work in management, we measured power distance orientation at the individual
level (e.g., Farh et al., 2007; Loi, Lam, & Chan, 2012). We employed the five-item scale of
Zhang and Begley (2011). Two sample items were “People at the entry level in an
organization should carry out the requests of people at higher levels without question” and
“In work-related matters, managers have a right to expect obedience from their subordinates.”
The coefficient alpha value was 0.74.
Perceived organizational politics. We assessed perceived organizational politics
(POP) with Kacmar and Carlson’s (1997) 15-item scale. The same scale has been used
considerably in the literature to capture employees’ perceptions of organizational politics
(e.g., Chang, Rosen, Siemieniec, & Johnson, 2012; Eldor, 2017; Meisler & Vigoda-Gadot,
2014). Two sample items were “There has always been an influential group in this
department that no one ever crosses” and “Agreeing with powerful others is the best
alternative in this organization.” The coefficient alpha value was 0.79.
Control variables. We controlled for age and organizational tenure because prior
research indicates that individuals who are more experienced and senior may be more
familiar with the work environment, such that they tend to speak up rather than keep silent
(Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008, 2012). We also controlled for gender because of its plausible
effect on silence (Morrison, 2014). We measured age in years with six categories (1 = 18–22,

2 = 23–27, 3 = 28–32, 4 = 33–37, 5 = 38–42, and 6 = 43 and above), organizational tenure in
months with five categories (1 = no more than 6, 2 = 7–12, 3 = 13–24, 4 = 25–36, and 5 =
Accepted Article
more than 36), and gender (0 = male, 1 = female). In addition, considering the possibility that
employees’ perceived risks and efficacy associated with speaking up may vary systematically
across industries and companies, we controlled for these two variables in our analyses. We
modeled industry effects as dummy variables and measured company size in terms of number
of employees. We expect size to be negatively related to silence as larger companies are more
resourceful in terms of idea implementation.
Results
We used confirmatory factor analyses to assess the distinctiveness of our focal
constructs. Given the relatively small sample size in relation to the number of indicators, we
reduced the number of observed indicators to three for each construct, based on Brooke,
Russell, and Price’s (1988) procedure. Specifically, we averaged items with the highest and
lowest loadings on the construct to form the first indicator. Items with the next highest and
lowest loadings were combined next, and so on, until all items were assigned to one of the
three indicators for each construct. The five-factor measurement model (i.e., abusive
supervision, power distance orientation, acquiescent silence, defensive silence, and POP)
performed better (χ2(80) = 100.65, p < 0.1; CFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.042) than
either the four-factor model with the two silence items loaded together (2(84) = 240.72, p <
0.001; CFI = 0.91; IFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.114) or the one-factor model with all items loaded
onto the same factor (2(90) = 771.13, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.58; IFI = 0.58; RMSEA = 0.18).
The significant chi-square differences between the five- and four-factor models (χ2(4) =
140.07, p < 0.001) and the five- and one-factor models (χ2(10) = 670.48, p < 0.001) provide
evidence of the discriminant validity of our study constructs.

Table 1 lists the descriptive statistics for the study variables. We conducted a series of
hierarchical multiple regressions to test our hypotheses in relation to defensive and

Accepted Article
acquiescent silence separately.1 Table 2 reports the results for the main, two-way, and three-
way interaction effects. All hypotheses are directional, and one-tailed tests were used to
evaluate their statistical significance. Model 2 shows that abusive supervision is positively
associated with defensive silence (β = 0.16, p < 0.05), in support of Hypothesis 1. The
positive relationship between power distance orientation and acquiescent silence, however, is
not statistically significant (see Model 6: β = 0.04, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is not supported.
To evaluate Hypothesis 3a, we added a product term of abusive supervision and
power distance on defensive silence. To avoid multicollinearity, we mean-centered abusive
supervision (AS) and power distance orientation (PD) before calculating their product term
(Aiken & West, 1991). A moderating effect is evidenced if the beta coefficient of the product
term (AS × PD) is significant. As Model 3 shows, the product term was statistically
significant (β = 0.16, p < 0.05). The whole model accounts for an additional 3% of the
variance in acquiescent silence when compared with the baseline model (i.e., Model 1). With
this significant result, we then followed Aiken and West’s (1991) procedures to plot the
interaction pattern in Figure 2a and conducted simple slope tests at high (i.e., one standard
deviation above the mean), mean, and low (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean)
levels of power distance orientation. The relationship between abusive supervision and
defensive silence is positive and significant at the high and mean levels of power distance
orientation (β = 0.40, p < 0.01; β = 0.20, p < 0.05, respectively). At the low level of power
1
Other approaches, such as structural equation modeling, also could be used to test some of our hy-
potheses (Cortina, Chen, & Dunlap, 2001). We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this pos-
sibility.

distance orientation, such relationship is not statistically significant (β = 0.00, ns). Thus,
Hypothesis 3a is supported.
Accepted Article
Similarly, to test Hypothesis 3b, we added the product term of AS × PD on
acquiescent silence. The results indicate that the product term is statistically significant (see
Model 7: β = 0.17, p < 0.05). We plotted the interaction pattern in Figure 2b and conducted
simple slope tests at high and low levels of abusive supervision (i.e., one standard deviation
above and below the mean level of abusive supervision). The relationship between power
distance orientation and acquiescent silence is positive and significant only at a high level of
abusive supervision (β = 0.30, p < 0.05). At the low or mean level of abusive supervision,
such relationship is not statistically significant (β = –0.14 and .08, respectively, ns). Thus,
Hypothesis 3b is supported.
To test our three-way interaction hypotheses (i.e., Hypotheses 4a and 4b), we followed
Aiken and West’s (1991) suggestions and regressed defensive silence and acquiescent silence,
respectively, on the three independent variables (i.e., AS, PD, and POP), their two-way prod-
uct terms (i.e., AS × PD, AS × POP, and PD × POP), and the three-way product term (i.e.,
AS × PD × POP). The three-way product term is positive and significant on both defensive
silence (Model 4: β = 0.20, p < 0.05) and acquiescent silence (Model 8: β = 0.20, p < 0.05).
We followed Lam, Chuang, Wong, and Zhu’s (2018) suggestion and plotted the moderated
relationship of abusive supervision and power distance orientation on defensive silence and
acquiescent silence, respectively, under high and low POP (one standard deviation above and
below the mean score for POP). The simple slope tests showed that under high perceived or-
ganizational politics, the relationship between abusive supervision and defensive silence is
only positive and significant when the respondents hold a high rather than a low level of
power distance beliefs (Figure 3a: β = 0.54, p < .001 vs. β = –0.21, ns). The relationship is
also not significant at the mean level of power distance orientation (β = 0.17, ns). Following

Dawson and Richter’s (2006) suggestion, we further compared the difference between the
simple slopes at high and low power distance. Consistent with Hypothesis 4a, the slope dif-
Accepted Article
ference is statistically significant (t = 3.16, p < .01), suggesting that power distance has a
moderating effect under a high political context. Under a low political context, the relation-
ship is not significant at either high- or low-power-distance orientation (Figure 3b: β = 0.15
and 0.46, respectively, ns). This empirical evidence offers additional support for Hypothesis
4a.
Similar three-way results also emerged for acquiescent silence. Under high perceived
organizational politics, the relationship between power distance orientation and acquiescent
silence is positive and significant when respondents experience a high rather than a low level
of supervisory abuse (Figure 4a: β = 0.38, p < .05 vs. β = –0.28, ns). The relationship is also
not significant at the mean level of supervisory abuse (β = 0.05, ns). Consistent with Hypoth-
esis 4b, the two slopes at high and low supervisory abuse statistically differ from each other (t
= 2.68, p < .01). Under the context of low organizational politics, however, such relationship
is not significant for those who experience either a high or low level of supervisory abuse
(Figure 4b: β = –0.27 and 0.16, respectively, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 4b is supported.
Discussion
Silence is a costly but ubiquitous phenomenon in modern organizations. Through the
lens of power imbalance, this study examines the antecedents of two forms of employee
silence that may have detrimental impacts on organizations (Wang & Hsieh, 2013). The
results show that abusive supervision is positively and significantly related to employee
defensive silence, and this relationship is more pronounced among high- than low-power-
distance employees. In addition, we found that employees’ power distance orientation is
positively related to acquiescent silence at high levels of abusive supervision. Finally, we

obtained empirical evidence that perceived organizational politics further influences the
moderating effect of abusive supervision and power distance on the two forms of silence.
Accepted Article
Theoretical Implications
This study is among the few studies to advance understanding of the antecedents of
defensive and acquiescent silence, by investigating the influence of subordinates’ power
distance beliefs, leaders’ abusive supervision, and organizations’ political environment
(Harlos, 2016; Morrison, 2014). While prior research has predominantly focused on
individual factors as precursors of employee silence (e.g., Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008),
our study extends this line of research by considering both situational and individual factors
as well as their interactive roles as antecedents of employee silence (Morrison et al., 2015).
Although previous studies have made some progress toward understanding the silence
phenomenon, silence researchers suggest that “it may be among the least understood of
proverbial black boxes in organizational studies” (Harlos, 2016, p. 348). Our findings reveal
the potential of using the power-imbalance perspective to understand why employees remain
silent in organizations (Morrison & Rothman, 2009; Pinder & Harlos, 2001).
Specifically, power imbalance in the form of abusive supervision is related to
defensive silence. Our findings show that when supervisors engage in abusive behaviors to
demonstrate their power over subordinates (Aryee et al., 2007; Ashforth, 1994; Lian et al.,
2014), subordinates tend to engage self-protection in the form of defensive silence. In the
silence literature, researchers have identified the fear of being labeled negatively as among
the most important reasons employees choose to be silent (Milliken et al., 2003). Additional
analyses show that power distance moderates the relationship between abusive supervision
and defensive silence, and the moderating effect of power distance is more salient at a high
rather than a low level of perceived organizational politics. Our findings suggest that when

high-power-distance employees work in organizations characterized by high rather than low
politics, they may feel particularly fearful of the undermining behaviors exhibited by abusive
Accepted Article
supervisors. Such state of mind may have accounted for their tendency to proactively hide
their feelings. By considering the influence of power through organizational politics, our
study’s findings enrich the silence literature by revealing the organizational context in which
employees are likely to intentionally withdraw their opinions (Morrison & Rothman, 2009).
In contrast, while scholars expect silence to occur more often among high-power-
distance individuals (Morrison, 2014), we find that, by itself, power distance orientation is
not directly associated with silence. Instead, we find that individuals’ power distance
orientation is positively related to acquiescent silence only when their supervisors are also
abusive. Our analyses also show that the moderating effect of abusive supervision is more
pronounced at high than low levels of perceived organizational politics. These results
corroborate with trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000),
which argues that traits such as power distance orientation might only be activated by
situational and cultural cues (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009; Koo & Park, 2017). High-power-
distance individuals may not perceive themselves as having low status and power per se.
Nevertheless, when situational cues remind them otherwise, such as demonstration of power
by their supervisors in highly political contexts, they may believe that they have little power
to alter what happens in the organization and become acquiescent. The political context can
further remind high-power-distance employees that their suggestions will likely not be heard,
explaining their tendency to engage in acquiescent silence (Ozcelik, 2017). Some researchers
examining perceived organizational politics have argued that employees’ reactions to politics
will vary depending on their power distance orientation (Vigoda, 2001). In response, our
study shows how perceived politics shapes the potential influence of power distance on
acquiescent silence.

Finally, our findings highlight the importance of examining the work consequences of
abusive supervision. Specifically, our study shows that abusive supervision has both main
Accepted Article
and moderating effects on defensive and acquiescent silence. A recent meta-analysis
(Mackey, Frieder, Brees, & Martinko, 2017) reveals that while prior research has examined
many aggressive forms that employees may adopt to retaliate against their abusive leaders,
researchers have paid relatively little attention to the passive reactions of abused employees.
These reactions are important to know because employees’ aggressive behaviors resulting
from supervisory abuse may eventually lead to the disintegration of the supervisor–
subordinate relationship, a situation that many employees would like to avoid (Tepper et al.,
2007; Whitman, Halbesleben, & Holmes, 2014; Xu et al., 2015). As such, resorting to less
obtrusive reactions such as silence may be the more feasible way for abused employees to
act.
Practical Implications
Given the large hidden costs embedded of employee silence (e.g., Morrison, 2014;
Morrison & Milliken, 2000), our findings offer several insights into managerial practice.
First, because abusive supervision negates employees’ ideas both directly and indirectly, it is
important for organizations to inhibit abusive supervisory behavior. To do so, organizations
can closely monitor their working environments to detect any sign of supervisors’ non-
physical hostility. Organizations can also consider providing leadership training to coach
supervisors on more positive leadership practices and less hostile behaviors. In addition,
ethics training should be offered to employees at all levels, to induce moral concern in
supervisors to avoid engaging in abusive conduct toward their subordinates and to arouse
moral courage among employees to report plausible abuse in the workplace.

Second, considering that power imbalance may make employees refrain from
speaking up, organizations may want to consider additional interventions such as mentoring
Accepted Article
programs and social support groups, especially if the workplace has considerable politics.
Mentors or colleagues can then play a more active role in providing psychosocial support and
protection to make their mentees or peers feel more safe and comfortable in speaking out
(Snoeren, Raaijmakers, Niessen, & Abma, 2016). Supervisors should also avoid
demonstrating political behaviors given the importance of employee voice for organizational
success. Human resource departments should promote civilized behaviors in the workplace
and offer incentives for employees to share their opinions in organizations.
Finally, the findings reveal that the trait of power distance orientation is activated in
power-asymmetry contexts (e.g., high abusive leadership and high organizational politics),
reminding subordinates of their inferior power to supervisors. In China, employees in general
have high respect for their leaders’ competence and expect them to lead them with guidance.
Doing so is also consistent with the political environment in China. Thus, leaders with high-
power-distance followers should pay particular attention to their leadership behaviors so as to
avoid being abusive and political. While junior members are the fresh blood of an
organization, they are also those with relatively low power. Thus, organizations should pay
special attention to these issues when socializing newcomers; otherwise, they may lose
important and critical inputs from this group of employees.
Limitations and Avenues for Research
This study has some limitations that should be noted for future research. First, we
chose to study employee silence in China because power distance is one of the predominant
cultural beliefs in this country (e.g., Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012). However, because we
collected our data from junior employees in China only, any generalizability of our results to
other countries with different cultural backgrounds should be made with caution. We highly

recommend additional cross-cultural studies to enhance our findings. Furthermore,
replicating our models with other samples (e.g., broader range of age, organizational tenure,
Accepted Article
and power distance orientation) would help address potential concern with sample-based
range restriction effects (which may explain why we found no main effect of power distance
on acquiescent silence) and strengthen the generalization of our findings. Second, following
the practice of prior research to minimize common method bias (e.g., Mitchell, Vogel, &
Folger, 2015; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Clark, 2002), we collected data on independent and
dependent variables within a six-week interval. Yet, as all our study items were rated by
subordinates, we cannot entirely rule out the potential threat of common method bias
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Future research could conduct
experiments to decrease any self-report bias. Nevertheless, researchers indeed have shown
that common method variance rarely inflates the interaction effects (Siemsen, Roth, &
Oliveira, 2010). Thus we have confidence that our findings on interactive relationships are
unlikely to be results of common method bias.
In addition, although we base our arguments on the theoretical underpinnings of
power imbalance, we measure it indirectly through perceived organizational politics. Future
research could take note of our study findings to further validate our theoretical arguments by
using a more direct proxy of power imbalance, such as dispersion of power among
organizational or group members (Greer & Van Kleef, 2010). Alternatively, researchers
could consider directly examining the mediating mechanisms underlying our moderating
arguments, such as fear and powerlessness (e.g., Sturm & Antonakis, 2015; Tarakci, Greer, &
Groenen, 2016). Given the detrimental impact of silence, we further encourage researchers to
explore what organizations can do to break the silence among the abused and/or high-power-
distance employees (e.g., strategies to minimize power differences, establishment of a direct
channel of communication to protect those who report mistreatment) (Harlos, 2016). Finally,

while correlation did not reveal significant relationships between most demographic variables
and the two types of silence, our results show that women in our sample were less likely to
Accepted Article
remain silent due to acquiescence (r = –0.16, p < 0.05). It is possible that junior female
employees no longer accept their traditional gender roles to remain silent in the workplace.
We encourage future research to further explore the potential interaction effect of gender and
age on employee silence (Morrison, 2014).
Conclusions
Subordinates can offer ideas for organizations to respond more timely to situations.
However, contextual factors such as abusive supervision may make subordinates keep silent
on ideas both directly and indirectly, especially if they hold a high-power-distance orientation
and work in a highly political organization. Future research could take note of our results to
explore the influence of power imbalance on employees’ tendency to withhold information in
different organizational contexts. Doing so might help organizations prevent serious failures
and problems from occurring.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction.
Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Social Science
Electronic Publishing, 1, 67-97.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of
abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
191-201.
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out:
The leadership dynamics of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards
(Eds.) Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 175-202). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Ashforth, B. E. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755-778.
Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
Accepted Article
Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-
173.
Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior interactive effects of LMX
and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication
Quarterly, 23, 84-104.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on
organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1393-1417.
Brinsfield, C. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and
development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 671-697.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner &
J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brooke, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of
job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73,139-145.
Burris, E. R., Detert, J. R., & Chiaburu, D. S. (2008). Quitting before leaving: The mediating
effects of psychological attachment and detachment on voice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 912-922.
Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The relationship between perceptions of
organizational politics and employee attitudes, strain, and behavior: A meta-analytic
examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 779-801.

Chang, C. H., Rosen, C. C., Siemieniec, G. M., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Perceptions of
organizational politics and employee citizenship behaviors: Conscientiousness and self-

Accepted Article
monitoring as moderators. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 395-406.
Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL:
Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods,
4, 324-360.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.
Daniels, M. A., & Greguras, G. J. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance:
Implications for micro-and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes. Journal of
Management, 40, 1202-1229.
Davenport, N., Schwartz, R. D., & Elliott, G. P. (2002). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the
American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.
Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated
multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 917-926.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door
really open?. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of
self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 461-488.
Detert, J. R., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-
level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21, 249-270.
Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2011). Reconceptualising
employee silence: Problems and prognosis. Work, Employment and Society, 25, 51-67.

Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and
purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Accepted Article
15, 1149-1170.
Eldor, L. (2017). Looking on the bright side: The positive role of organisational politics in the
relationship between employee engagement and performance at work. Applied
Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators
of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China:
Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 715-729.
Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002).
Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F.
Dansereau & F. J. Yammarin (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 179-
254). Oxford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Frege, C., & Kelly, J. (Eds.). (2013). Comparative employment relations in the global
economy. New York: Routledge.
Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., & Frey, L. (2007). An exploratory
examination of voice behavior from an impression management perspective. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 19, 134-151.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008).
Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and
dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450-1466.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership
advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54,
528-550.

Greer, L. L., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power
dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1032-1044.

Accepted Article
Hall, A. T., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Bowen, M. G. (2004). The dark side of
politics in organizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The dark
side of organizational behavior (pp. 237-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harlos, K. (2016). Employee silence in the context of unethical behavior at work: A
commentary. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 345-355.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hogbin, G. (2006). Power in employment relationships: Is there an imbalance? New Zealand
Business Roundtable.
Hwang, A., & Francesco, A. M. (2010). The influence of individualism–collectivism and
power distance on use of feedback channels and consequences for learning. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 9, 243-257.
Hyman, R. (1975). Marxism and the sociology of trade unionism. London: Pluto Press.
Jaw, B. S., Ling, Y. H., Yu-Ping Wang, C., & Chang, W. C. (2007). The impact of culture on
Chinese employees' work values. Personnel Review, 36, 128-144.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 31, 386-408.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1997). Further validation of the Perceptions of Politics
Scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627-658.
Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2005). Bullying in the workplace: Its impact and management.
Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 8, 335-373.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.

Accepted Article
Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations. Vision: The
Journal of Business Perspective, 13, 1-9.
Kiewitz, C., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T., & Hochwarter, W. (2009). The interactive
effects of psychological contract breach and organizational politics on perceived
organizational support: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Journal of Management
Studies, 46, 806-834.
Kish-Gephart, J., Detert, J., Treviño, L. K., & Edmondson, A. (2009). Silenced by
fear. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163-193.
Knoll, M., & Van Dick, R. (2013). Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the
moderating effect of organizational identification. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8,
346-360.
Koo, H., & Park, C. (2017). Foundation of leadership in Asia: Leader characteristics and
leadership styles review and research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-22.
Lam, L. W., Chuang, A., Wong, C. S., & Zhu, J. N. (2018). A typology of three-way
interaction models: Applications and suggestions for Asian management research. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 1-16.
Lam, L. W., Loi, R., Chan, K. W., & Liu, Y. (2016). Voice more and stay longer: How
ethical leaders influence employee voice and exit intentions. Business Ethics Quarterly,
26, 277-300.
Lebel, R. D. (2012). Speaking up for the greater good: Prosocial motivation and voice in
unfavorable contexts. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-1.
Leymann, H. (1990). Mobbing and psychological terror at workplaces. Violence and Victims,
5, 119-126.

Li, J., Wu, L. Z., Liu, D., Kwan, H. K., & Liu, J. (2014). Insiders maintain voice: A
psychological safety model of organizational politics. Asia Pacific Journal of

Accepted Article
Management, 31, 853-874.
Li, S. L., He, W., Yam, K. C., & Long, L. R. (2015). When and why empowering leadership
increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 32, 645-670.
Lian, H., Brown, D., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L., Keeping, L., & Morrison, R. (2014). Abusive
supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal,
57, 116-139.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate
the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied
Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and
prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 71-
92.
Loi, R., Lam, L. W., & Chan, K. W. (2012). Coping with job insecurity: The role of
procedural justice, ethical leadership and power distance orientation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 108, 361-372.
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017). Abusive supervision: A
meta-analysis and empirical review. Journal of Management, 43, 1940-1965.
Madison, D., Allen, R., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P., & Mayes, B. (1980). Organizational
politics: An exploration of managers’ perceptions. Human Relations, 33, 79-100.
Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., & Leiva, P. I. (2015). Negative core affect and employee
silence: How differences in activation, cognitive rumination, and problem-solving
demands matter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1887-1898.

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of
power and status. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), Academy of Management Annals
Accepted Article
(pp. 351-398). Abingdon, UK: Routledge, Taylor, & Francis.
Mayer, D. M., Aquino, K., Greenbaum, R. L., & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical
leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of
ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 151-171.
Meisler, G., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2014). Perceived organizational politics, emotional
intelligence and work outcomes: Empirical exploration of direct and indirect effects.
Personnel Review, 43, 116-135.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee
silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of
Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476.
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and
the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1159-1168.
Mitchell, M. S., Vogel, R. M., & Folger, R. (2015). Third parties’ reactions to the abusive
supervision of coworkers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1040-1055.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173-197.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, 706-725.
Morrison, E. W., & Rothman, N. B. (2009). Silence and the dynamics of power. In J.
Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 111-134).
Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Morrison, E. W., See, K. E., & Pan, C. (2015). An approach-inhibition model of employee
silence: The joint effects of personal sense of power and target openness. Personnel
Accepted Article
Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: A
cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,
183-191.
Offe, C., & Wiesenthal, H. (1980). Two logics of collective action: Theoretical notes on
social class and organizational form. Political Power and Social Theory, 1, 67-115.
Olsen, K. M. (2016). The power of workers: Knowledge work and the power balance in
Scandinavian countries. Employee Relations, 38, 390-405.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. A. (2002). Substantive and operational issues of
response bias across levels of analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 355-368.
Ozcelik, H. (2017). Exploring the activation dimension of affect in organizations: A focus on
trait-level activation, climate-level activation, and work-related outcomes. Journal of
Parker, K. A. (2014). The workplace bully: The ultimate silencer. Journal of Organizational
Culture, Communications and Conflict, 18, 169-185.
Perlow, L., & Williams, S. (2003). Is silence killing your company? Harvard Business
Review, 31, 18-23.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of
organizational paradigms. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (ES), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. l-52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, H. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as
responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resource

Accepted Article
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the silence: The moderating effects of
self-monitoring in predicting speaking up in the workplace. Journal of Management
Studies, 40, 1537-1562.
Raghuram, S., & Fang, D. (2014). Telecommuting and the role of supervisory power in
China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31, 523-547.
Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Workplace bullying: What we know, who is to
blame, and what can we do? London: Taylor & Francis.
Rosen, C. C., Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Chen, Y., & Yan, M. (2014). Perceptions of
organizational politics: A need satisfaction paradigm. Organization Science, 25, 1026-
1055.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with
linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476.
Sloan, L. M., Matyók, T., Schmitz, C. L., & Short, G. F. L. (2010). A story to tell: Bullying
and mobbing in the workplace. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1,
87-97.
Snoeren, M. M., Raaijmakers, R., Niessen, T. J., & Abma, T. A. (2016). Mentoring with (in)
care: A co‐constructed auto‐ethnography of mutual learning. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 37, 3-22.

Sturm, R. E., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research
agenda. Journal of Management, 41, 136-163.

Accepted Article
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross
level effects of procedural justice climate. Personal Psychology, 61, 37-68.
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2012). Ask and you shall hear (but not always): Examining
the relationship between manager consultation and employee voice. Personnel
Tarakci, M., Greer, L. L., & Groenen, P. J. (2016). When does power disparity help or hurt
group performance?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 415-429.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 178-190.
Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive
supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A
power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
109, 156 -167.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., & Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision,
upward maintenance communication, and subordinates’ psychological distress. Academy
of Management Journal, 50, 1169-1180.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517.
Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-
situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 397-423.

Timming, A. R., & Johnstone, S. (2015). Employee silence and the authoritarian personality:
A political psychology of workplace democracy. International Journal of

Accepted Article
Organizational Analysis, 23(1), 154-171.
Treadway, D. C., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., Ammeter, A.
P., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Leader political skill and employee reactions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 493-513.
Vakola, M., & Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence:
An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27, 441-458.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee
voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1359-1392.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
Vigoda, E. (2001). Reactions to organizational politics: A cross-cultural examination in Israel
and Britain. Human Relations, 54, 1483-1518.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice
behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1275-1286.
Wang, L., Hinrichs, K. T., Prieto, L., & Howell, J. P. (2013). Five dimensions of
organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing antecedents and levels of engagement in
China and the US. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 115-147.
Wang, Y. D., & Hsieh, H. H. (2013). Organizational ethical climate, perceived organizational
support, and employee silence: A cross-level investigation. Human Relations, 66, 783-
802.

Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R., & Holmes, O. (2014). Abusive supervision and
feedback avoidance: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion. Journal of

Accepted Article
Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). Changing patterns of
employee voice: Case studies from the UK and Republic of Ireland. Journal of
Industrial Relations, 46, 298-322.
Wilkinson, A., & Fay, C. (2011). New times for employee voice?. Human Resource
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2015). The bad boss takes it all: How abusive supervision
and leader–member exchange interact to influence employee silence. The Leadership
Quarterly, 26, 763-774.
Zhang, Y., & Begley, T. M. (2011). Power distance and its moderating impact on
empowerment and team participation. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22, 3601-3617.

ccepted Articl Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Age a 2.07 0.42
2 Organizational tenure b 3.09 1.31 0.23**
3 Company size c 4.58 2.03 -0.04 0.03
4 Industry d 4.79 4.94 -0.03 -0.02 -0.16*
5 Gender e 0.58 0.50 -0.10 0.05 0.04 -0.16*
6 Abusive supervision 1.70 0.78 0.11 0.14 -0.01 0.11 -0.12 0.93
7 Power distance 3.76 0.76 -0.00 -0.16 0.09 -0.02 -0.03 -0.11 0.74
Perceived organiza-
8 3.52 0.36 0.03* 0.21** 0.17* -0.07 -0.10 0.36** -0.05 0.79
tional politics
9 Defensive silence 2.89 0.91 -0.06 -0.10 -0.14* -0.04 -0.15 0.17* 0.03 0.07 0.93
10 Acquiescent silence 2.87 0.91 0.11 0.09 -0.13* -0.02 -0.16* 0.27** 0.01 0.22** 0.61** 0.87

ccepted Articl
Note. a Age was measured in years using 6 categories (1=18-22, 2=23-27, 3=28-32, 4=33-37, 5=38-42, and 6=43 above).
b
Organizational tenure was measured in months with 5 categories (1=no more than 6, 2=7-12, 3=13-24, 4=25-36, and 5=more than 36).
c
Company size was assessed in terms of number of employees (1=20 or below, 2=21-50, 3=51-100, 4=101-200, 5=201-500, 6=501-1,000,
7=1,001 or above).
d
Twelve dummy variables were created to represent 13 industry categories (1=Public service, 2=Finance, 3=Tourism, 4=Commerce,
5=Insurance, 6=Information technology, 7=Real estate, 8=Gaming, 9=Education, 10=Professional, 11=Service, 12=Manufactory, 13=Others).
For the sake of simplicity, we only reported its overall correlations with other variables.
e
Gender was coded with 0 (male) and 1 (female).
Note. Cronbach’s alphas are reported on the diagonal in bold.
N = 159. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, one-tailed.

ccepted Articl Table 2 Hypotheses testing: Multiple regressions
Defensive silence Acquiescent silence

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Controls
Age a -0.09 -0.11 -0.11 -0.12 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.05
Organizational tenure b -0.06 -0.08 -0.10 -0.06 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.08
Company size c -0.17* -0.18* -0.16* -0.18* -0.09 -0.10 -0.08 -0.12
Industry d -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Gender e -0.17* -0.15* -0.15* -0.15* -0.13 -0.11 -0.10 -0.10
Independent variables
Abusive supervision (AS) 0.16* 0.17* 0.19* 0.22** 0.23** 0.11
Power distance orientation (PD) 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.07 -0.00
Perceptions of organizational poli-
0.02 0.20*
tics (POP)
Interaction terms
AS × PD 0.16* 0.09 0.17* 0.05
AS × POP -0.05 0.12
PD × POP 0.13 0.04
AS × PD × POP 0.20* 0.20*
Adjusted R2 0.07* 0.08* 0.10* 0.14** 0.02 0.06* 0.08* 0.10*

ΔR2 -- 0.01* 0.02* 0.04** -- 0.04 0.02* 0.02*

ccepted Articl
Note. Standardized coefficients were reported.
a
Age was measured in years using 6 categories (1=18-22, 2=23-27, 3=28-32, 4=33-37, 5=38-42, and 6=43 above).
b
Organizational tenure was measured in months with 5 categories (1=no more than 6, 2=7-12, 3=13-24, 4=25-36, and 5=more than 36).
c
Company size was assessed in terms of number of employees (1=20 or below, 2=21-50, 3=51-100, 4=101-200, 5=201-500, 6=501-1,000,
7=1,001 or above).
d
Twelve dummy variables were created to represent 13 industry categories (1=Public service, 2=Finance, 3=Tourism, 4=Commerce,
5=Insurance, 6=Information technology, 7=Real estate, 8=Gaming, 9=Education, 10=Professional, 11=Service, 12=Manufactory, 13=Others).
For the sake of simplicity, we did not report 12 regression coefficients. Specific results are available from the authors upon request.
e
Gender was coded with 0 (male) and 1 (female).
ΔR2 was calculated relative to baseline model (i.e., Model 1 and Model 5).
N = 159. * p<.05, ** p < .01, one-tailed.

Figure 1 Conceptual model
Accepted Article

Figure 2a The moderating effect of power distance orientation on the relationship between
abusive supervision and defensive silence

Accepted Article
Figure 2b The moderating effect of abusive supervision on the relationship between power
distance orientation and acquiescent silence

Figure 3a The moderating effect of power distance orientation on abusive supervision and
defensive silence, under perceptions of high organizational politics
Accepted Article
Figure 3b The moderating effect of power distance orientation on abusive supervision and
defensive silence, under perceptions of low organizational politics

Figure 4a The moderating effect of abusive supervision on power distance orientation and
acquiescent silence, under perceptions of high organizational politics
Accepted Article
Figure 4b The moderating effect of abusive supervision on power distance orientation and
acquiescent silence, under perceptions of low organizational politics

Appendix. Measurement items for our study variables.
Defensive silence
Accepted Article
1) I do not speak up and suggest ideas for change, based on fear.
2) I withhold relevant information to the job out of fear.
3) I withhold solutions to problems because of fear.
Acquiescent silence
1) I passively withhold ideas, based on resignation.

2) I am unwilling to speak up with suggestions for change because I am disengaged.
3) I passively keep ideas about solutions to problems to myself.
Perceived organizational politics
1) People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down.

2) There has always been an influential group in this department that no one ever crosses.
3) Employees are encouraged to speak out frankly even when they are critical of well-
established ideas. (reverse coded)
4) There is no place for yes-men around here; good ideas are desired even if it means disa-
greeing with superiors. (reverse coded)
5) Agreeing with powerful others is the best alternative in this organization.
6) It is best not to rock the boat in this organization.
7) Sometimes it is easier to remain quiet than to fight the system.
8) Telling others what they want to hear is sometimes better than telling the truth.
9) It is safer to think what you are told than to make up your own mind.
10) Since I have worked in this department, I have never seen the pay and promotion policies
applied politically. (reverse coded)
11) I can’t remember when a person received a pay increase or promotion that was incon-
sistent with the published policies. (reverse coded)
12) None of the raises I have received are consistent with the policies on how raises should be
determined.
13) The stated pay and promotion policies have nothing to do with how pay raises and pro-
motions are determined.
14) When it comes to pay raise and promotion decisions, policies are irrelevant.
15) Promotions around here are not valued much because how they are determined is so polit-
ical.
Abusive supervision
1) My supervisor ridicules me.

2) My supervisor tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid.
3) My supervisor puts me down in front of others.
4) My supervisor makes negative comments about me to others.
5) My supervisor tells me I’m incompetent.

Power distance orientation
1) People at lower levels in the organization should not have much power in the organiza-
tion.
Accepted Article
2) People at lower levels in organization should carry out the requests of people at higher
levels without questions.
3) People at higher levels in organizations have a responsibility to make important decisions
for people below them.
4) Once a top-level executive makes a decision, people working for the company should not
question it.
5) In work-related matters, managers have a right to expect obedience from their subordi-
nates.
6) A company’s rules should not be broken, not even when the employee thinks it is in the
company’s best interest.

Lam 2018

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Lam 2018

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DR. ANGELA J.

Article type : Original Article

orientation, and perceived organizational politics

Submitted to Applied Psychology

Employee silence is a costly but omnipresent phenomenon in modern organizations. In this

silence based on resignation. Given the power imbalance in supervisor–subordinate

relationships, we hypothesize that abusive supervision is an antecedent of subordinates’

and moderates high-power-distance employees’ tendency to engage in acquiescent silence.

organizational context also accentuates abusive supervision’s moderating effect on the

relation between employees’ power distance orientation and acquiescent silence. We

abusive supervision; acquiescent silence; defensive silence; organizational politics; power

Employee silence, referring to employees’ deliberate and conscious withholding of potential-

(Morrison, 2014), is a universal phenomenon in modern organizations. While research has

nuclear radiation disaster in Japan) have been attributed to employee silence.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

teristics) on silence is germane.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

employees withhold information in organizations. Finally, organizational politics in a work

power imbalance perspective, we expect that in organizational contexts characterized by high

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Whereas silence in general refers to information withheld because individuals fail or

sibility for constructive change (Liang et al., 2012).

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

described this form of silence as prosocial.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

common experience.” As supervisors and subordinates assume different hierarchical posi-

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

exercise power over employers during contract negotiation.

Keltner et al.’s (2003) approach–inhibition theory of power explains that while a

ences subordinates’ communication of ideas, as Figure 1 shows, we developed a conceptual

as antecedents of subordinates’ defensive and acquiescent silence, respectively. In addition to

distance orientation. Specifically, employees with a high-power-distance orientation may ap-

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

in organizations characterized by high rather than low politics.

Defensive Silence Due to Abusive Supervision

is a common emotional response to hostility, especially if the act is inflicted by someone

Hypothesis 1: Abusive supervision is positively related to defensive silence.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

also defining characteristics of individuals with a high-power-distance orientation (Li, He,

relationship because of its inherent power imbalance. Accordingly, high-power-distance

expressions as a means to minimize interpersonal conflict” (Morrison & Rothman, 2009, p.

126). High-power-distance individuals have become accustomed not to challenge authority,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Hofmann, 2011). Thus:

Hypothesis 2: Individual power distance orientation is positively related to

Interactive Effects of Abusive Supervision and Power Distance Orientation

As we argued previously, out of fear of future aggression, employees may engage in

pronounced among high-power-distance subordinates because of their belief that power is

power. When interacting with abusive supervisors, high-power-distance subordinates will

distance subordinates. In addition, high-power-distance employees are likely to realize their

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

to advance the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a: Individual power distance orientation moderates the relationship

stronger among employees with high- than low-power-distance orientations.

that the environment of managerial openness induced low-self-monitoring employees to

supervision may constitute an adverse working environment that leads high-power-distance

inferior (Tepper, 2000). Although high-power-distance individuals have learned to be

Hypothesis 3b: Abusive supervision moderates the relationship between individual

stronger when abusive supervision is higher rather than lower.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Supervision and Power Distance Orientation

organizations in which power is a defining characteristic, we expect the moderating effects of

abusive supervision and power distance to be amplified (Galinsky et al., 2008).