Pinder and Harlos (2001) defined silence as the absence of voice as it
has its own form of communication, involving a range of cognitions,
emotions or intentions such as objection or endorsement.
Silence is most of the time employee's own decision to not to speak due to several reasons. whereas in case of silenced the employee voice is suppressed and he is compelled to not to speak.
Hard to say what is behind the "silence" of employee. Definitively "being silenced" is not a proper corporate culture.
Indeed one of the problems that severely affects the effective development in an organization , is precisely communication. It is therefore important to be assertive in the process, because it not only affects the health of employees but also of the organization.
In my opinion, both type of non-communication situations are harmful. Effective and efficient communication has been proven very vital (Life-Line) for the health of any organization.
Best Regards.
To me employee "being silenced" does the more harm to the organisation in contrast to employee silence. In fact keeping silence could be employee's own trait and which is natural when we compare the attributes of introversion and extroversion. But being silenced cannot be treated as healthy organisational practice as it affects organisational creativity, innovation and and above all health adversely.
i think employee silence affect the organisational health more, but this might be due to various factors that could have led to them taking a passive role , by so doing they can jeorpadize and sabotage the programmes of the organisation.
I agree with Honorable Professor Punia Sir, "being silenced" does more harm to the organisation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers