Employee silence in the context of unethical behavior at work: A commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue of the German Journal of Human Resource Management reflects and reinforces the growing global interest in organizational studies of employee silence. Attention to this multidimensional concept has been steady since its introduction as the withholding of expressed evaluations of work circumstances to persons able to effect change with two initial dimensions - quiescent silence (fear and anger-based) and acquiescent silence (futility and resignation-based) - following unjust events (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). However, an unprecedented confluence of trends across law, justice, and governance worldwide underlies current strong concern about employee silence of ethical issues in organizations, including how we understand (un)ethical work behavior and protection for employees, organizations, and society. To sustain interest and impact, rigorous and relevant research is needed. This calls for intellectual diversity and open-mindedness to spur studies of employee silence while resisting paradigmatic isolation or privilege, concept proliferation and confusion, level-of-analysis slippage (e.g., equating employee silence with organizational silence), and other challenges. Advancing employee silence-ethics linkages depends on expanding theories using multiperspective, integrative approaches and testing models that span social, cognitive, and emotional elements in processes of silence. Better knowledge of employee silence promises a more healthy and motivated workforce, more successful and sustainable organizations, and more vibrant and engaged societies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".