Modeling
Farhad Sharifi; Karam Khalili; Adel Salavati
Abstract
Introduction This study aimed to design a comprehensive hierarchical model for identifying silent protests within governmental organizations, using Ilam University of Medical Sciences as a case study. Silent protests, characterized by non-explicit, indirect employee actions such as reduced effort, fake ...
Read More
Introduction This study aimed to design a comprehensive hierarchical model for identifying silent protests within governmental organizations, using Ilam University of Medical Sciences as a case study. Silent protests, characterized by non-explicit, indirect employee actions such as reduced effort, fake participation, and organizational withdrawal, pose a significant threat to organizational health and performance, particularly in the public sector. Early identification is crucial for proactive management. MethodologyThis applied research employed a mixed-methods approach (qualitative-quantitative). The qualitative phase utilized the meta-synthesis method based on the seven-step model by Sandelowski and Barroso. A systematic review of 41 relevant articles from valid databases, published from 2013 onwards, was conducted. Through content analysis and coding, 19 key indicators for identifying silent protests were extracted. The reliability of the meta-synthesis process was confirmed by a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.89, achieved through expert review.In the quantitative phase, the combined ISM-DEMATEL method was employed. Data were collected from 16 purposefully selected experts from Ilam University of Medical Sciences, who met specific criteria including a PhD in relevant fields, associate professor rank or higher, and over 10 years of relevant experience. First, the 19 extracted indicators were validated using the Fuzzy Delphi method, with all indicators confirmed against a threshold of 0.7. Subsequently, experts completed a paired comparison questionnaire based on a 0-4 scale to determine the inter-influential relationships among the indicators. The data were analyzed using MATLAB software to form the initial direct relation matrix, calculate the total relation matrix, determine a threshold (0.06), and finally construct the reachability matrix for level partitioning and model development. FindingsThe meta-synthesis resulted in the identification of 19 primary indicators (C1-C19): Organizational Commitment (C1), Organizational Maturity (C2), Managers' Ethics (C3), Changes in Organizational Behavior of Employees (C4), Employee Adherence (C5), Employee Satisfaction (C6), Level of Healthy Work Interactions (C7), Fake Participation (C8), Level of Use of Directive Management (C9), Development of Human Relations (C10), Managers' Decision-Making Style (C11), Organizational Developments (C12), Organizational Culture (C13), Listening to Employee Voice (C14), Managers' Charismatic Level (C15), Manager's Attitude towards Employees (C16), Organizational Loneliness (C17), Organizational Learning (C18), and Manager's Communication Skills (C19).The DEMATEL-ISM analysis structured these 19 indicators into a definitive four-level hierarchical model, clarifying the causal relationships and hierarchy among them. The findings revealed that "Listening to Employee Voice" (C14) is the most influential and foundational indicator, positioned at the base (Level 4) of the model. This indicator acts as the cornerstone, directly influencing all upper levels.Level 1 (Manifestation Level): This top level comprises the most immediate and observable symptoms of silent protests. Indicators at this level include Organizational Commitment (C1), Organizational Maturity (C2), Changes in Organizational Behavior (C4), Employee Adherence (C5), Employee Satisfaction (C6), Fake Participation (C8), Organizational Developments (C12), Organizational Loneliness (C17), and Organizational Learning (C18). A decline in these areas serves as a primary warning signal.Level 2 (Mediating Organizational Factors): This level contains factors that are directly influenced by managerial practices and, in turn, drive the manifestations at Level 1. Key indicators here are Managers' Ethics (C3), Level of Use of Directive Management (C9), Managers' Decision-Making Style (C11), Organizational Culture (C13), Manager's Attitude towards Employees (C16), and Manager's Communication Skills (C19).Level 3 (Relational & Leadership Channels): This level represents the primary channels through which "listening" translates into organizational climate. It includes the Level of Healthy Work Interactions (C7), Development of Human Relations (C10), and Managers' Charismatic Level (C15). These factors are directly affected by the core practice of listening.Level 4 (Foundational Cause): At the base of the model lies "Listening to Employee Voice" (C14), identified as the most influential lever for preventing and identifying silent protests.The final Interpretive Structural Model (ISM) diagram visually represents these four levels and the directional relationships between the indicators, providing a clear map of the pathways through which silent protests develop and can be identified. Discussion and ConclusionThis study presents a novel, hierarchical causal model that elucidates the complex interrelationships among factors leading to silent protests in a government organization. It identifies "Listening to Employee Voice" not merely as a communicative tool but as the foundational managerial practice for the early detection and effective management of such protests. The model underscores that observable issues like low commitment and satisfaction (Level 1) are ultimately rooted in deeper managerial and relational factors, with listening being the most critical starting point for intervention.The findings align with existing literature emphasizing the roles of psychological safety, managerial support, awareness, and organizational justice in reducing silence and "quiet quitting." The model provides a practical and diagnostic framework for managers in governmental and healthcare organizations. It advises a dual approach: 1) a top-down strategy focusing on institutionalizing genuine listening mechanisms, fostering justice, redesigning decision-making styles, and reducing reliance on directive management; and 2) a bottom-up strategy involving the implementation of dashboards to continuously monitor the nine Level 1 indicators for early warning signs, enabling targeted interventions.For future research, testing this multi-level model in diverse public sector contexts, employing longitudinal designs, and incorporating additional public administration-specific constructs like red tape and goal ambiguity are recommended to enhance the model's generalizability, causal strength, and explanatory power.
Leila Ghasemi esfahlan; Akbar Hassanpoor; Saeed Jafarinia; Bijan Abdollahi
Abstract
One of the characteristics that show the dynamism of today's organizations is the benefit of organizations from the constructive and useful point of view of employees in increasing the quality of decisions making in organizations. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify the factors affecting ...
Read More
One of the characteristics that show the dynamism of today's organizations is the benefit of organizations from the constructive and useful point of view of employees in increasing the quality of decisions making in organizations. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify the factors affecting the expression of organizational dissent of employees in the university. The method of this research is qualitative and exploratory which has been done using content analysis and documental study. The statistical sample of this research included 120 articles published in the valid journals searched in domestic and foreign scientific databases by searching for keywords and performing the screening process. Finally, 30 works were selected for further review and analysis. The result of the literature review and analysis was the extraction of 31 basic themes, 13 constructive themes, and 4 comprehensive themes. Findings showed that the factors affecting the willingness of employees to express organizational opposition are 4 main dimensions: personal, communicational, organizational, and environmental, each of which can affect the willingness of employees to express organizational dissent, but the decision to choose the approach of expressing depends on which particular issue and factor will be affected in that particular situation at the time of selection; therefore, depending on the circumstances, it is necessary to identify the considerations of each factor and consider the correct approach to express organizational dissent of employees.
Modeling
somayeh hassani; seyed ali akbar Ahmadi; Bahram Sarmast; hassan alvedari
Abstract
In today's turbulent world, organizations are struggling to gain competitive advantage. Staff silence has led to stagnation and inactivity in their physical and social networks, pushing the organization to the brink of collapse. The purpose of this study was to design a comprehensive organizational silence ...
Read More
In today's turbulent world, organizations are struggling to gain competitive advantage. Staff silence has led to stagnation and inactivity in their physical and social networks, pushing the organization to the brink of collapse. The purpose of this study was to design a comprehensive organizational silence model based on the organization's five pillars. The study method is descriptive and qualitative which has been implemented in two stages of Delphi and Library. In the first stage, components of organizational silence were identified by research literature. Then based on the five pillars of the organization (Environment, Persons, Structure, goals ,Technology), the proposed conceptual framework of organizational silence is achieved.statistical population includes university Professors of Payame Noor, Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Beheshti and experimental managers in Tehran, using snowball sampling method.From all questions in all Delphi periods, the sample t-test and the mean and standard deviation were used. Kendall's correlation coefficient for all dimensions was calculated.The results showed that all the terms in all Delphi periods are meaningful and the factors related to the goals have the highest agreement, after which the technological factors, the inner environment, individual managers, structural, external environment and individual factors of employees. At the end of the final model, organizational silence was designed based on the five organizational roles. Therefore, it can be concluded that all five aspects of the organization and its dimensions can be effective in maintaining organizational silence and it is necessary that managers pay enough attention to organizational dynamics in all five dimensions of the organization.
Abbas Ali Rastgar; Farnaz Roozban
Volume 2, Issue 4 , October 2014, , Pages 7-18
Abstract
Employees are the principal agent of development and change in organizations, but employees silence is the sound of organization fail. Information, knowledge, ideas and opinions of employees is a critical factor but if staff remain silence these are not valuable. This research wants to identify the factors ...
Read More
Employees are the principal agent of development and change in organizations, but employees silence is the sound of organization fail. Information, knowledge, ideas and opinions of employees is a critical factor but if staff remain silence these are not valuable. This research wants to identify the factors affecting organizational silence. Though, in first phase, researcher-made Organizational silence questionnaire distributed that includes component such communication opportunities, employee silence, manager behavior make silence. The result shows high level of organizational silence although good communication opportunity. In second phase, the participants with the highest questionnaire mark were chosen for in-depth interviews. The employees Interview analyzed by thematic method. Factors that affect organization silence distinguished and classified in three groups. Demographic factors, employee and manager behaviour as personal factors, Evaluation system, low job security, lack of internal agility as organization factors and Labeling, Not worthwhile express ideas, The absence of a culture of teamwork as culture factors. Some points suggested for solving the problem.
