A STUDY ON DETERMINING THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION ON ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL SILENCE

Hilal BARAN^1† --- Ceren GİDERLER²

^1,2Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Dumlupınar University, Business Department, Central Campus, Kütahya-Turkey

Keywords: Organizational identification, Organizational justice, Organizational silence.

JEL Classification: M40, M41.

Received: 30 August 2016/ Revised: 20 October 2016/ Accepted: 28 October 2016/ Published: 8 November 2016

Contribution/ Originality

This study is one of very few studies which have investigated on the impact of identification over justice and silence. In addition, this research contributing in the existing literature that is found to have significant relations between research variables.

1. INTRODUCTION

The most prominent competitive tool of the businesses today is the labor force which they desire to make use of to the maximum level through creating personnel with good habits to be beneficial to the company. High organizational justice perception and organizational identification levels of the individuals together with low levels of organizational silence are listed among factors to bring businesses to success.

Being in unity with the organization, having similar values with those of the organization and the group, having common emotions with the organization is a general formulation for an individual for organizational identification (Ashforth et al., 2008). Organizational justice is the set of general rules and norms concerning how rewards and punishment are managed and shared within working life (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). Organizational justice perception of individuals helps them to reach a judgement of whether they are treated fairly within the organization (Greenberg, 1990). Considering the importance of the happy employees with high performance for organizations it is clear that the subject of organizational justice will be a prominent criterion for evaluating the employees’ behavior just like it is now (Irak, 2004).

The final variable of the study, organizational silence is defined as the situation in which employees are not able to express their opinions concerning the organization freely (Bowen and Blackmon, 2003). Employees sometimes prefer keeping their opinions and ideas concerning their work and organization secret on purpose and staying silent (Çakıcı, 2007). In that case they cause some factors that would block development and productivity of the organization.

The main target of an organization should be taking necessary steps towards making the employees individuals who are identified with their organization with high organizational justice perception. Once they achieve this aim they will have employees who speak for the good of the organization sharing ideas and suggestions for improving the organization. Therefore, this study aims at determining the effects of organizational identification on organizational justice perception and organizational silence.

2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

In this section the basic variables of the study; organizational identification, silence and justice concepts will be theoretically explained.

2.1. Organizational Identification

As for the social identity theory, individuals classify themselves within a group they perceive (Dutton et al., 1994). Individuals and organizations try hard in order to join the groups they consider to be important and with the identity given by this membership they classify themselves among other individuals and groups. This classification has two main aims: first the individual consciously separates the social environment into systematic sections; second it gives the individual the opportunity of self-definition and finding their position in the social environment. As a result the concept of “identification” which is defined as the individual’s perception of belonging to a group is formed (Ashfort and Mael, 1989). On the basis of the classification they made, individuals perceive themselves as real or symbolic members of a group and with the feeling of belonging they get socially identified. Organizational identification is taken as a specific kind of social identification. In this context, organizational identification is explained as individuals’ perception of belonging to a certain organization and their defining themselves as members of that organization (Tak and Ve Çiftçioğlu, 2009). It is correct to define the concept of identification with social identity theory.

In some sources the social identity and self-classification theory which is also named “the social identity approach” (Hogg and Terry, 2000) has created an important theoretical basis for analysis of attitudes and behavior that cause organizational identification become important for organizations (Van Dick et al., 2004).

The first identification definition that is appropriate for the organizational behavior literature was developed by Edward Tolman in 1943 as the connection formed a result of an individual’s membership to a group. According to Tolman (1943) the individuals who identify themselves with the group feel themselves united with the group, so the future of the group becomes their future; the aim of the group becomes their aim; the success and failure of the group becomes the success and failure of them and finally the prestige of the group becomes these individuals’ prestige (Tolman (1943) qtd. in, Köse (2009)).

Organizational identification which extensively measures positive feelings against an organization (Mael and Ashforth, 1995) is defined in several ways in the literature. According to a definition by Hall et al. (1970) organizational identification is harmonization of an individual’s values with the values that already exist in an organization. In another definition, organizational identification is individuals’ perception of themselves as part of the organization values of which are in harmony with theirs or the perception of unity with and belonging to an organization (Mael and Ashforth, 1992).

Ashfort and Mael (1989) who had important contribution to development of the organizational identification concept, made a similar definition with that of Hall et al. and stated that organizational identification is the process during which employees become integrated with the aims of the organization. Identification is especially defined as perception of loyalty, agreement and collaboration (Ashfort and Mael, 1989).

The answers to the questions of “with what” and “how” the individuals are identifying themselves are important for the organizations. The factor to give the answers to these questions is organizational identification and its dimensions. The studies carried out so far have revealed that organizational identification is composed of some different kinds of dimensions (Polat, 2009). A commonly referred distinction is between two dimensions as identification with the organization and identification with the group. Both identification with the organization and identification with the group are analyzed as organizational identification in some studies. However, Knippenberg et al. (2000) in their study stated that the concept of identification with the organization is different from identification with the group (Knippenberg et al., 2000). In different empirical studies it was concluded that these two concepts are related but different from each other (Reade, 2001; Bartels et al., 2007).

Integration realized as a result of shared aims between the individual and the organization is named as organizational identification (Ashfort and Mael, 1989). Individuals’ consideration of themselves to be united with the organization is their perception of success or the failure of the organization as their success or failure. It is a cognitive based identification which is beneficial for and positively contributing to performance of the organization (Fuller et al., 2006). Identification with the group, on the other hand, is explained as affection of individuals about the group they belong to Tsamitis (2009). Identification with the group is integration of the individuals’ aims with the organization’s norms and values (Van Dick et al., 2004). The sub-groups of the organization are named in different ways such as work unit, sub-group and departments. The main reason for this situation is that naming style changes as for sectors. However, because they all express sub-groups in an organization they are all named as identification with a group (Tokgöz, 2012).

Considering the studies realized so far, it does not seem to possibly measure the difference between identification with the group and identification with the organization with the available scales. Therefore in this study organizational identification is analyzed as one dimension.

2.2. Organizational Justice

A review of the literature of management revealed that the concept of “justice” was studied by Aristoteles, Plato, Socrates, Rawls and Nozick (Greenberg and Bies, 1992; Colquıtt et al., 2001). In the dictionary of the Turkish Language Association, justice is defined as “compliance with rights and laws, respect to rights, giving everyone what is appropriate for them and what they deserve, righteousness (www.tdk.gov).

The first studies on organizational justice are accepted to be the Relative Depreviation Studies of Stouffer et al. (1949) who performed the studies during the Second World War (Stouffer et al. (1949); Cropanzano and Randall, 1993; qtd. in, Irak (2004)). From a historical perspective, the concept of organizational justice is observed to be a form of “social justice” adapted to organizations. “Theory of Distributive Justice” by Homans (1961) “Equity Theory” by Adams (1965) “Relative Deprivation Theory” by Crosby (1976) “Justice Judgement Theory” by Leventhal (1976); Leventhal et al. (1980) “Justice Motive Theory” by Lerner (1977) “Procedural Justice Theory” by Thibaut and Walker (1975) “Allocation Preference Theory” by Leventhal et al. (1980) are some of the basic theories of this concept. Most of these theories were influenced by the Equity Theory of Adams (Eker, 2006). In other words, the Equity Theory of Adams is the basis of the organizational justice studies. According to the Equity Theory, equity of a gain can be determined by calculating the ratio of what the individual invests as input and receives in exchange together with the gains of the other individuals (Colquıtt et al., 2001).

The concept of organizational justice was introduced by Greenberg in 1987. Greenberg (1990) defined organizational justice basically as defining and explaining the role of justice at work place together with perception of the employees about the justice of their superiors, managers and work place (Greenberg, 1990). In other words, organizational justice is about the methods individuals use for deciding whether they are treated fairly at the work place and how justice affects other things concerning work (Moorman, 1991).

James (1993) defines organizational justice as the perception of the individuals and the group about how fair the actions of the organization are and their reactions as a result of these perceptions (James (1993) qtd. in, (Irak, 2004))

Organizational justice is the basic prerequisite of establishing regular procedures and increasing satisfaction level of the employees. Different opinions have been stated in literature concerning the number of the dimensions of this concept which is very crucial in the success of an organization. A review of the studies performed on this topic reveals that there are three basic dimensions of organizational justice. Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) put forward three dimensions, namely; distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Although the dimensions are interrelated they have different structures (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001).

Distributive justice is the first type of justice studied by social psychologists and is concerned with gains of the employees (such as payment, promotion and rewards) (Gilliland and Chan, 2009). This dimension of organizational justice explains whether all kinds of gains of the employees like payment, promotion, reward and punishment are distributed among them fairly or not. Distributive justice guarantees the employees’ chances of reaching some rewards in condition that they perform some certain behavior (İşcan and Ve Naktiyok, 2004).

The second dimension of organizational justice, procedural justice is about the perception of justice concerning the methods and procedures used for determining the gains (Lee, 2000). Konowsky (2000) stated that procedural justice is not only about how the decisions of distribution are made but also about the objective and subjective situations (Konowsky, 2000). If the decision made was realized with procedural justice, the gains distributed would get accepted by the employees even though they are below the expectations of the individual. For instance, although the level of pay rises in the organization are quite low, any negative reaction would not appear among the employees as long as the performance evaluations and rewarding are performed with fair procedures (Niehoff and Ve Moorman, 1993). From the organization’s perspective, procedural justice is more important than distributive justice for formation of attitudes and shaping the behavior (Greenberg, 1987).

The concept of interactional justice, which is the third dimension of organizational justice, was first used by Bies and Moag in 1986. It is concerned with the quality of the social and emotional support that individuals receive during their interactions with other individuals (Colquıtt et al., 2001). In parallel with the studies on distributive justice and procedural justice the studies on the concept of “interactional justice”, which focuses on interpersonal aspect of organizational activities, especially inter-individual behavior and the relationships between the management and the employees, were introduced. In this context, interactional justice is the perception of justice that appears during the communication between the managers who undertake distribution of resources and the employees (Özdevecioğlu, 2003). This concept is interested in the social aspect of the applications within the organization (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001).

Greenberg in his study in 1993 stated that interactional justice is composed of two dimensions, namely; interpersonal justice and informational justice. Interpersonal justice is the perception of justice that appear during the communication between decision makers and practitioners (Colquıtt et al., 2001). Informational justice on the other hand is defined by Tyler and Bies (1990) as transfer of adequate and reasonable information concerning the decisions made to the employees. Employees usually react more tolerantly to unpleasant results when they are given explanations (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). This statement was first tested by Colquıtt et al. (2001) in their empirical study and as result of the analyses they stated that there are four sub-dimensions of organizational justice, namely; distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice (Colquıtt et al., 2001). However, in this study organizational justice is analyzed in three dimensions as distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice.

2.3. Organizational Silence

When the behavior of staying silent by the individuals in organizations reached a level that would threaten the organization and the employees themselves, this new concept was born. Silence was first studied by Hirschman (1970) as employee silence. Later, it was defined by Johannesen (1974) but the first definition at organizational level came from Morrison and Milliken (2000) and this concept of organizational silence which is considered to be a barrier in front of change and development of organizations has become a subject for researches (Vokola and Bouradas, 2005).

In management literature, the employee silence is observed to be used as a synonym for organizational silence. In this study the term of organizational silence is used. In some previous studies silence was evaluated as an indicator of organizational commitment and harmonious behavior. However, nowadays organizational silence is considered to be a behavior aimed at some certain, active and conscious aims by the employees (Çakıcı and Çakıcı, 2007). Another reason for the late awareness of the need for studying organizational silence is that silence had been interpreted as a kind of acceptance and had limited concern for evaluation.

Johannesen (1974) defined silence as “employees’ hiding information from other individuals” (Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2009). In their study, Morrison and Milliken (2000) defined organizational silence as employees’ hiding opinions and information needed for improvement of the organization deliberately and silence was evaluated as a reaction against and retreat from the organization.

Pinder and Harlos (2001) considered organizational silence as a reaction to unfair practices in the organization. They defined organizational silence as the situation in which employees who are aware of the possible contribution they can make to the improvement of their organization with their knowledge and opinions keep their emotional and cognitive deductions secret deliberately and stint from their organization (Pinder and Harlos, 2001).

Dyne et al. (2003) stated that organizational silence is deliberate abstention from manifestation of ideas, knowledge and opinions. According to Van Dyne et al. when the employees have some useful ideas concerning their work or organization they can either share them in order to contribute to improvement of the organization or avoid from sharing them due to a fear of disfavor or as a reaction Dyne et al. (2003). As a matter of fact, organizations need the labor; that is the most important component of production, to share their ideas and opinions (Milliken et al., 2003).

A review of the literature revealed that silence was first examined by Pinder and Harlos (2001) in two groups, and later it was examined in three groups by Dyne et al. (2003). Pinder and Harlos (2001) developed the concept of employee silence and classified silence in two groups as “quiescent silence” and “acquiescent silence”. Quiescent silence is the employees’ preferring not to talk deliberately in order to defend themselves, while acquiescent silence is employees’ resigning themselves to the situation and submission (Pinder and Harlos, 2001).

Dyne et al. (2003) basing their studies on those of Pinder and Harlos grouped silence under three headings. They added Pinder and Harlos’s types of silence a third type which they named “prosocial silence”. In this study, researchers analyzed silence in comparison with voice and tried to prove that silence does not always appear in the absence of voice Dyne et al. (2003). In a study by Çakıcı (2008) these three types of silence were introduced to local literature as 3Ks of silence: acquiescent silence, quiescent silence and prosocial silence (Çakıcı, 2008). In this study the classification made by Van Dyne et al. and used by Çakıcı in local literature is used.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE RESEARCH VARIABLES

In literature there are some studies that have revealed the relationship and interaction among the three variables of this study. Therefore, first, some studies that proved the relationship and interaction among the variables are introduced in this section in order to put forward the basis of this present study.

For formation of organizational justice perception, the individuals need to feel themselves as important members of the organization. If the individuals actively participate in decision making, have positive relationships with their managers and co-workers and feel that they are appreciated, their self-esteem will increase, which in turn will result in a need for developing themselves and realize identification with the organization (Smidts et al., 2001). In other words, establishment of organizational justice by the managers and its perception by the individuals would suffice for realizing organizational identification. Researches should be performed in order to reveal the relationship between organizational identification and justice. So far, some studies have proved that the perception of justice effects identification (De Cremer, 2005; Olkkonen and Ve Lipponen, 2006; Cheung and Law, 2008; Michel et al., 2010) while some revealed that identification effects the perception of justice (De Cremer, 2006; De Cremer and Blader, 2006; Blader, 2007). Some information concerning these studies are given below.

De Cremer and Blader (2006) in their study determined that procedural justice is related with organizational identification. Moreover, they stated that among the individuals with high levels of need for belonging, procedural justice has stronger influence on organizational identification.

Blader (2007) in his research concluded that having information about the procedures in the organization would affect identification and the positive opinions of the identified individuals would in turn affect procedural justice perception. De Cremer (2006) stated that a strong identification of individuals with their organization would encourage them to think positively about their organization and managers, which in turn result on higher levels of sensitivity among individuals in terms of procedural justice.

Individuals’ unwillingness to share their knowledge, opinions, worries and suggestions concerning the problems about the activities they are responsible for or other activities of the organization and preference of keeping silent is defined as organizational silence (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Vokola and Bouradas, 2005). The individuals who are identified with their organization are committed to their organization emotionally and have high levels of job satisfaction; besides, they consider success and failure of their organization as theirs (Bartels, 2006). In this context, organizational silence is an undesired behavior negatively effecting development of the organization, while organizational identification is a beneficial kind of behavior that is desired to be of high levels in the organization.

Vakola and Bouradas (2005) in their study tried to explain the relationship among the variables of organizational culture, silence and identification. As a result of the analyses they made they determined that, in organizations with open communication canals, employees’ participation in decisions and active employees, individuals’ silence levels are low. Studies revealed that in organizations where participative organizational culture and communication possibilities are present organizational identification levels would increase. Among the individuals with increased identification levels fewer tendencies to keeping silent is observed.

Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) searched for the regulatory impact of organizational identification between procedural justice perception and silence. The results of the analyses made revealed that the individuals with high levels of procedural justice perception would identify with their organizations more strongly and this in turn would decrease organizational silence among the individuals.

Tangirala and Ramanujam (2009) in their study aimed at explaining the silence in organizations stated that the commitment of the individuals towards their organization contains their emotional loyalty and their identification with their jobs or organization. Moreover, it was determined that the identified employees shared their ideas and opinions for solving the problems of the organization with their managers and coworkers, that is they preferred talking.

Knoll and Van (2013) in their study examined the relationship among authenticity, employee silence and prohibitive voice and regulatory role of organizational identification in these relationships. Authenticity, which is concerned with well-being, health and leadership, is an important concept of positive science. The related literature argues that authenticity is a determiner of some organizational behavior such as employee silence and prohibitive voice. In other words, it was determined that the higher organizational identification levels of the individuals are, the stronger the relationship between authenticity and silence would be.

4. RESEARCH

4.1.Aim of the Research

This study tries to identify to what extent the organizational identification of individuals effect their perception of organizational justice and their levels of organizational silence. In the meantime the values pertaining to the organizational justice perceptions, organizational identification, and organizational silence levels of the individuals working at the studied enterprises were determined.

It is a given fact that the human factor is essential to all fields of activity of organizations. Thus, in the service sector, the importance of human resources that establish communication with external customers gradually increases. Service businesses need individuals who identify themselves with the organization and share their views and ideas for the improvement of the organization. Thus the organizational silence of the individuals should be decreased and the individuals would be transformed to people who have a strong sense of justice and identify themselves with the organization. The organizational justice levels of individuals who identify themselves with their organizations would increase and they would value the interests of the organization better than their own and act for the benefit of the organization sharing their views and ideas. In this context the results of our study provides guidelines for the businesses from which data was gathered. It is also expected to contribute to the body of research in the related literature.

4.2. Research Model and Hypotheses

During the literature review we came across with research aimed at determining the level of the relationship between the perception of organizational justice, organizational identification and organizational silence. It has been observed during the literature review that all the three variables studied are significantly interrelated. The model in Figure 1 was constructed in view of the existing research in order to determine the effects of the variables of organizational identification, organizational justice and organizational silence over each other. Although only one dimension of the variables was studied in foreign literature our study explores all the dimensions of the variables. Thus it is expected that this study would contribute to the existing literature.

Figure-1. Research Model

Source: This table is done by me. It is my research model. So there is no source

Hypotheses have been formulated to determine the effect of organizational identification on organizational justice and organizational silence in line with the model presented in Figure 1. The hypotheses of the research are as follows:

• H₁: Organizational identification significantly affects the distributive justice sub-dimension of organizational justice.
• H₂: Organizational identification significantly affects the procedural justice sub-dimension of organizational justice.
• H₃: Organizational identification significantly affects the interactional justice sub-dimension of organizational justice.
• H₄: Organizational identification significantly affects the acquiescent silence sub-dimension of organizational silence.
• H₅: Organizational identification significantly affects the defensive silence sub-dimension of organizational silence.
• H₆: Organizational identification significantly affects the prosocial silence sub-dimension of organizational silence.

4.3. Research Population and Sampling

The research population consists of the staff of two five-star hotels located in Afyonkarahisar. The names of the hotels will not be displayed as demanded by the hotel managers. A total of 500 employees work for these hotels. Thus the sampling of the research was chosen using convenience sampling which is a simple non-random sampling method. This method was chosen as the research was carried out at hotels which generally have busy schedules and the time limit planned for the study.

The researchers gathered data through questionnaires. 226 question forms returned out of the 400 questionnaires handed out to a research population of 500 individuals. When the question forms were examined it was discovered that 13 questionnaires were not properly answered or contained missing information thus these were not included in our analyses. Remaining 213 questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS 18 and AMOS 16 software.

The participants of the research were 68,5% males, 60,6% between 26-40 years of age, 61,5% married, 40,4% high school graduates, 83,6% worked in the service sector and 48,8% worked below 5 years.

4.4. Data Gathering Tools

The research uses questionnaires for gathering data. The question for was structured using three scales which aimed at determining the impact of organizational identification over perception of organizational justice and organizational silence. The demographic data pertaining to the participants were questioned at the last part of the question form and this part included questions regarding gender, age, marital status, educational background, occupation and years of work experience.

Organizational Identification Scale; The one-dimensional scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) was used for measuring the organizational identification levels of the individuals. The scale consists of six statements. A 5-point Likert scale was used for evaluating the statements. The validity and reliability of the scale was performed by Tüzün (2006) and it was used in various other studies. According to Tüzün (2006) the reliability of the scale is 0,78.

Organizational Justice Scale; A scale with three dimensions which consists of 20 statements developed by Niehoff and Ve Moorman (1993) was used for measuring the organizational justice perception. This scale measures organizational justice in three sub-dimensions; distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. The scale has 5 statements on distributive justice perception, 6 statements on procedural justice perception and 9 statements on interactional justice perception and is built on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale was translated into Turkish and its validity in education sector was assessed by Polat (2007) and industrial sector by Yürür (2008). It was also observed that the scale was used in various masters’ and doctoral studies.

Organizational Silence Scale; A scale with three dimensions developed by Dyne et al. (2003) was used for determining the organizational silence levels of the participants. There are 5 statements each for acquiescent silence, defensive silence and prosocial silence. It is a 5-point Likert scale. The version used in the study was adapted by Taşkıran (2011). In this study the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was determined as 0,74.

4.5.Findings

4.5.1. Reliability Analysis Results of the Scales

The reliability of organizational justice perception, organizational identification and organizational silence scales used for measuring the research variables were tested using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

Findings related to the reliability analyses concerning the three research variables and their sub-dimensions were presented on Table 1. It was observed that the reliability results for sub-dimensions of organizational justice, that is distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice, were very high (α: 0,86; α: 0,87; α: 0,93).

Table-1. Reliability Analysis Results of the Variables used in the Study

Variables	Cronbach’s Alpha	Number of Statements in Scale	Total Scale Reliability
Distributive Justice	0,864	5	0,936
Procedural Justice	0.875	5
Interactional Justice	0,923	5
Acquiescent Silence	0,849	5	0,841
Defensive Silence	0,875	5
Prosocial Silence	0,923	5
Organizational Identification	0,902	6	0,902

Source: They are my research results. I reached them by using statical anlaysis in data. There is no reference for

The total reliability of the organizational justice scale was also high (α: 0,95). As a result of the analyses it was detected that a number of questions in the organizational justice scale queried the same thing. Thus a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted and the statements that referred to the same questions were removed in order to achieve model goodness of fit values. The statements 6, 12 15, 18 and 20 were not included in the analyses. Organizational justice perception was evaluated over a sum of 15 questions. As shown in Table 1 the second variable of the study, organizational identification scale, has a high reliability value (α: 0,90). The third variable of the study, organizational silence scale, has a total scale reliability of (α: 0,84). It was also observed that the sub-dimensions of organizational silence; acquiescent, defensive and prosocial silence have also high reliability values (α: 0,84; α:0,87; α:0,92, respectively).

4.5.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

One of the factor analysis tests DFA serves to analyze the structure of the existing factors rather than revealing the structure of the factors (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2006).

The organizational justice perception scale, organizational silence scale and organizational identification scale used in the question form were already tested in terms of reliability and validity. However, since these scales were applied to a new sampling the reliability and validity tests were renewed. In order to verify the validity of the scales a DFA was carried out at YEM. The DFA results pertaining to organizational justice perception, organizational silence and organizational identification scales will be given here.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Organizational Identification Scale: In order to verify the factor structure of organizational identification scale a first level DFA model was prepared at YEM using the data gathered from hotel employees. After the model improvement applied to the organizational identification scale which has 6 statements the goodness of fit values in Table 2 were obtained. The statements in the organizational identification scale matched the sampling and the scale was verified.

Table-2. DFA Goodness of Fit values for Organizational Identification Scale

Model	X2	X2/sd	GFI	IFI	CFI	NFI	AGFI	RMSEA
3-factor structure	15,393	1,914	0,975	0,990	0,990	0,979	0,935	0,066
Acceptable fit*	-	≤4-5	≥085	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,90	≥0,85	≤0,08
Good fit*	-	≤3	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,97	≥0,95	≥0,90	≤0,05

*(Meydan and Şeşen, 2011)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Organizational Justice Scale: In order to verify the factor structure of organizational justice scale a first level DFA model was prepared at YEM using the data gathered from hotel employees. However acceptable goodness of fit values could not be reached after the initial DFA applied to the 20-item scale. The problematic statements were removed respectively and the DFA was repeated. The model improvement revealed that item 6 of procedural justice and items 12, 15, 18, and 20 of interactional justice disturbed the fit and the mentioned items were removed from the questionnaire. The acceptable goodness of fit values of the model after the improvements are shown in Table 3.

Table-3. DFA Goodness of Fit values for Organizational Justice Scale

Model	X2	X2/sd	GFI	IFI	CFI	NFI	AGFI	RMSEA
3-factor structure	154,35	1,795	0,915	0,969	0,969	0,933	0,881	0,061
Acceptable fit*	-	≤4-5	≥085	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,90	≥0,85	≤0,08
Good fit*	-	≤3	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,97	≥0,95	≥0,90	≤0,05

*(Meydan and Şeşen, 2011)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Organizational Silence: In order to verify the factor structure of organizational silence scale a first level DFA model was prepared at YEM using the data gathered from hotel employees. However acceptable goodness of fit values could not be reached after the initial DFA applied to the 15-item scale. The model was improved to acceptable goodness of fit values without removing statements. The acceptable goodness of fit values of the model after the improvements are shown in Table 4.

Table-4. DFA Goodness of Fit values for Organizational Silence Scale

Model	X2	X2/sd	GFI	IFI	CFI	NFI	AGFI	RMSEA
3-factor structure	158,091	1,860	0,911	0,963	0,963	0,923	0,874	0,064
Acceptable fit*	-	≤4-5	≥085	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,90	≥0,85	≤0,08
Good fit*	-	≤3	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,97	≥0,95	≥0,90	≤0,05

*(Meydan and Şeşen, 2011)

4.6. Path Analysis Results

4.6.1. Path Analysis Results Concerning the Relationship between Organizational Identification and Dimens and the Dimensions of Organizational Justice

The structural regression model which was constructed in order to analyze the impact of organizational identification over the sub-dimensions of organizational justice is presented in Figure 2. The goodness of fit values which establish the validity of the model are given in Table 5.

Figure-2. The structural regression model concerning the influence of organizational identification over the sub-dimensions of organizational justice

Source: They are my research results. I reached them by using statical anlaysis in data. There is no reference for

Table-5. The goodness of fit values for the structural regression model concerning the influence of organizational identification over the sub-dimensions of organizational justice

Model	X2	X2/sd	GFI	IFI	CFI	NFI	AGFI	RMSEA
Regression model	310,439	1,725	0,886	0,957	0,957	0,904	0,854	0,058
Acceptable fit *	-	≤4-5	≥085	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,90	≥0,85	≤0,08
Good fit*	-	≤3	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,97	≥0,95	≥0,90	≤0,05

*(Meydan and Şeşen, 2011)

The goodness of fit values in Table 5 demonstrate that the model is valid and compatible with the gathered data.

Table-6. Results concerning the impact of Organizational Identification on the Sub-Dimensions of Organizational Justice

	Standardized Regression Coefficients	S.E.	C.R.	P
Organizational Identification Distributive Justice	0,314	,097	3,950	***
Organizational Identification Procedural Justice	0,168	,106	2,210	,027
Organizational Identification Interactional Justice	0,173	,087	2,297	,022

S.E: Standard Error, P:Significance, *** p <0,01

It might be observed in Table 6 that organizational identification significantly affects the sub-dimensions of organizational justice. The path analysis results have revealed that organizational identification positively affects distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice (β:0,314, β:0,168, β:0,177 ). Thus it is possible to deduce that organizational justice perceptions of hotel employees would increase as the organizational identification level also increases. Standardized regression coefficients in Table 6 point to the fact that organizational identification is more effective on distributive justice. Hence, it is possible to assert that the individuals who identify themselves with their organization also believe that earnings are justly distributed within the organization.

As the results suggest the H₁ hypothesis; “organizational identification significantly effects the distributive justice sub-dimension of organizational justice”, H₂ hypothesis; “organizational identification significantly effects the procedural justice sub-dimension of organizational justice”, and H₃ hypothesis; “organizational identification significantly effects the interactional justice sub-dimension of organizational justice”, are accepted.

4.6.2. Path Analysis Results concerning the Relationship between Organizational Identification and the Dimensions of Organizational Silence

The structural regression model which was constructed in order to analyze the impact of organizational identification over the sub-dimensions of organizational silence is presented in Figure 3. The goodness of fit values which establish the validity of the model are given in Table 7.

Figure-3. The structural regression model concerning the impact of organizational identification over the sub-dimensions of organizational silence

Source: They are my research results. I reached them by using statical anlaysis in data. There is no reference for

Table-7. The goodness of fit values for the structural regression model concerning the impact of organizational identification over the sub-dimensions of organizational silence

Model	X2	X2/sd	GFI	IFI	CFI	NFI	AGFI	RMSEA
3-factor structure	289,548	1,609	0,889	0,961	0,961	0,903	0,858	0,054
Acceptable fit *	-	≤4-5	≥085	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,90	≥0,85	≤0,08
Good fit*	-	≤3	≥0,90	≥0,95	≥0,97	≥0,95	≥0,90	≤0,05

*(Meydan and Şeşen, 2011)

The goodness of fit values in Table 7 demonstrate that the model is valid and compatible with the gathered data.

Table-8. Results concerning the impact of organizational identification on the sub-dimensions of organizational silence

	Standardized Regression Coefficients (β)	S.E.	C.R.	P
Organizational Identification Acquiescent Silence	-0,289	0,076	-3,492	***
Organizational Identification Defensive Silence	-0,168	0,110	-2,446	0,014
Organizational Identification Prosocial Silence	0,359	0,092	4,613	***

S.E: Standard Error, P: Significance, *** p <0,01

It might be observed in Table 8 that organizational identification significantly affects the sub-dimensions of organizational silence. The path analysis results have revealed that organizational identification negatively affects acquiescent and defensive silence (β: -0,274, β: 0,184) it positively affects prosocial silence (β:0346). Thus, it is possible to deduce that as organizational justice perceptions of hotel employees increase, they are expected to have less acquiescent and defensive silence. Standardized regression coefficients in Table 8 point to the fact that organizational identification is more effective on prosocial silence. Hence, it is possible to assert that the individuals who identify themselves with their organization would keep silent for the well-being of the organization.

As the results suggest the H₄ hypothesis; “organizational identification significantly effects the acquiescent silence sub-dimension of organizational silence”, H₅ hypothesis; “organizational identification significantly effects the defensive silence sub-dimension of organizational silence”, and H₆ hypothesis; “organizational identification significantly effects the prosocial silence sub-dimension of organizational silence”, are accepted.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the difficulty of both finding and keeping highly qualified personnel today, it is possible to state that organizational identification, justice and silence are concepts that should be seriously handled. It is deemed that in order to increase performance of an organization and employees it is necessary to focus on these three subjects. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to find the answer to the question of “how does organizational identification affect the perception of organizational justice and organizational silence?” To this end, two different regression models were set and impact of organizational identification on organizational justice perception and organizational silence was examined, while the information considered to contribute to the literature and the businesses on which the research was applied was presented.

The sample of the study is composed of hotel employees, who have busy working conditions. With the analyses applied on the data received from 500 hotel employees who participated in the study the hypotheses of this research study were tested and beneficial results in parallel with those that are present in the literature were reached.

As a result of testing the first structural regression model with YEM it was determined that organizational identification has positive significant effect on distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice dimensions of organizational justice. In other words, it is possible to state that among the employees who embrace their organizations a perception of fair distribution of gains, fairness of the methods used for determining the gains and fairness of the communication they establish with the individuals who realize distribution of the gains is formed. In brief, organizational identification increases the perception of organizational justice. This result is in parallel with some studies present in the literature (De Cremer and Blader, 2006; Blader, 2007). Literature review has shown that the impact of organizational justice perception on organizational justice was searched for more frequently. Therefore, this study is deemed to contribute to the literature with its different and rarely handled approach.

As a result of testing the second structural regression model with YEM it was determined that organizational identification has negative significant effect on acquiescent and defensive silence dimensions of organizational silence, while it has positive significant effect on prosocial silence. Organizationally identified employees would not just agree with every decision made but they would share their ideas and opinions trying to contribute to the organization. Besides, as their organizational identification levels increase they would get rid of the fear of losing their jobs and probably prefer talking. In brief, it is possible to state that employees who identify themselves with the organization would display less acquiescent and defensive silence behavior while they display more prosocial silence. In literature there are studies that have determined that organizational identification decreases the level of organizational silence among employees, while it increases the level of beneficial employee voice for the organizations (Vokola and Bouradas, 2005; Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2008; Tangirala and Ramanujam, 2009).

The results of this research have clearly shown the answer to the main question of this study. In this context, identification of the hotel employees with their organizations increases their perception of organizational justice, while it decreases their level of organizational silence. Having employees who attribute success or failure of their organization to themselves and consider themselves to be united with the organization would have important benefits for the organization. Silence levels of the employees would decrease and they would willingly contribute to the activities aimed at enhancing productivity of the organization. In this context it is responsibility of the managers to undertake supportive activities to facilitate the employees’ identification with their organization.

It is necessary for the organizations to create a transparent and participative understanding of management for their employees and realize information sharing within the organization. This is the only way of increasing organizational justice perception of the employees. Only when employees feel that they are valuable for their organization they would identify themselves with the organization and share their ideas and opinions they consider to be beneficial for the organization. Today, the best way of keeping the employees in the organization is creating individuals who are identified with their organization. Identified individuals would internalize the values of the organization like their own and protect the organization in any case. Organizations should make necessary effort for realizing these types of positive organizational behavior.

There are a limited number of studies on the impact of identification over justice and silence. Therefore, the study might be repeated on different populations. Moreover, the study might be reinforced in further studies interrogating regulatory or moderator variables which might influence the relationship among the present variables. It is essential to study the concepts of organizational identification and organizational silence in detail which are very important for successful businesses. Discovering the causes of these might help in identifying the organizational conditions for having more organizational identification and less organizational silence

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S., 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press, 2: 267-299.

Ashfort, B.E. and F. Mael, 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1): 20–39.

Ashforth, B.E., S.H. Harrison and K.G. Corley, 2008. Identification İn organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3): 325-374.

Bartels, J., 2006. Organizational identification and communication: Employees’ evaluation of internal communication and its effects on identification at different organizational levels, enschede. The Netherlands: University of Twente.

Bartels, J., A. Pruyn, M.D. Jong and I. Joustra, 2007. Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2): 173–190.

Blader, S.L., 2007. What determines people’s fairness judgments? Identification and outcomes İnfluence procedural justice evaluations under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6): 986-994.

Bowen, F. and K. Blackmon, 2003. Spirals of silence: The dynamics effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies 40(6): 1393-1417.

Çakıcı, A., 2007. Örgütlerde Sessizlik: Sessizliğin Teorik Temelleri Ve Dinamikleri. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(1): 145-162.

Çakıcı, A., 2008. Örgütlerde Sessizlik Tercihi Ve Sessizlik Türleri, İş Ve Özel Yaşama Psikolojik Bakışlar’ın İçinde, Editör: Tarık Solmuş, İstanbul: Epsilon Yayınları.

Çakıcı, A. and A.C. Çakıcı, 2007. İşgören Sessizliği: Konuşmak Mı Zor, Sessiz Kalmak Mı Zor?, 15. Ulusal Yönetim Ve Organizasyon Kongresi. Sakarya Üniversitesi. pp: 389-400.

Cheung, M.F.Y. and M.C.C. Law, 2008. Relationships of organizational justice and organizational ıdentification: The mediating effects of perceived organizational support in Hong Kong. Asia Pasific Review, 14(2): 213-231.

Cohen-Charash, Y. and P.E. Spector, 2001. The role of justice İn organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2): 278–321.

Colquıtt, J.A., D.E. Conlon, M.J. Wesson, C.O.L.H. Porter and N.K. Yee, 2001. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psyhology, 86(3): 425-445.

Crosby, F.J., 1976. A model of egotistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83(2): 85–113.

De Cremer, D., 2005. Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational identification. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(1): 4- 13.

De Cremer, D., 2006. Unfair treatment and revenge taking: The role of collective identification and feelings of disappointmnet, group dynamics: Theory. Research, And Practice, 10(3): 220-232.

De Cremer, D. and S.L. Blader, 2006. Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness İn responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Psychology, 36(2): 211-228.

Dutton, J.E., J.M. Dukerich and C.V. Harquail, 1994. Organizational images and membership commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2): 239-263.

Dyne, V.L., A. Soon and C.B. Isabel, 2003. Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6): 1359-1392.

Eker, G., 2006. Örgütsel Adalet Algısı Boyutları Ve İş Doyumu Üzerindeki Etkileri, Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İzmir.

Folger, R. and R. Cropanzano, 1998. Organizational justice and human resource management. USA: Sage Publications Inc.

Fuller, J.B., L. Marler, K. Hester, L. Frey and C. Relyea, 2006. Construed external image and organizational identification: A test of the moderating influence of need for self-esteem. Journal of Social Psychology, 146(6): 701-716.

Gilliland, S.W. and D. Chan, 2009. Örgütsel adalet: Teori, Yöntemler Ve Uygulamalar” İçinde N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K.. Sinangir, C.Viswesvaran (Ed). Endüstri, İş Ve Örgüt Psikolojisi El Kitabı, Cilt 2. İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.

Greenberg, J., 1987. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1): 9-22.

Greenberg, J., 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2): 399-432.

Greenberg, J. and R.J. Bies, 1992. Establishing the role of empirical studies of organizational justice İn philosophical inquiries İnto business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5/6): 433-444.

Hall, D.T., B. Schneider and H.T. Nygren, 1970. Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2): 176-190.

Hirschman, A.O., 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty. Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge/Mass: Harvard University Press.

Hogg, A.M. and J.D. Terry, 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes İn organizational context. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 121-140.

Homans, G., 1961. Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Irak, D.U., 2004. Örgütsel Adalet: Ortaya Çıkışı, Kuramsal Yaklaşımlar Ve Bugünkü Durumu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 7(13): 25-43.

İşcan, Ö.F. and A. Ve Naktiyok, 2004. Çalışanların Örgütsel Bağdaşımlarının Belirleyicileri Olarak Örgütsel Bağlılık Ve Örgütsel Adalet Algıları. Ankara Üniversitesi Sbf Dergisi, 59(1): 181-281.

James, K., 1993. The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions, In R.Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resources management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp: 21-50.

Johannesen, R.L., 1974. The functions of silence: A plea for communication research. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports), 38(1): 25-35.

Knippenberg, D.V., S. Van and C.M. Els, 2000. Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(2): 137-147.

Knoll, M. and D.R. Van, 2013. Do i hear the whistle? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal Business Ethics, 113(2): 349-362.

Konowsky, M.A., 2000. Understanding procedural justice and it’s impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(6): 489-511.

Köse, C.G., 2009. Örgütsel Özdeşleşmenin Çalışanların Sürekli İyileştirme Çabalarına Katkısı: Bir Araştırma, Yayınlanmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.

Lee, H.-R., 2000. An empirical study of organizational justice as a mediator of the relationships among leader-member exchange and job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover ıntentions in the lodging ındustry. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Blackburg: Verginia Tech.

Lerner, M.J., 1977. The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45(1): 1–52.

Leventhal, G.S., 1976. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press, 9: 91–131.

Leventhal, G.S., J. Karuza and W.R. Fry, 1980. Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences, In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp: 167-218.

Mael, F.A. and E.B. Ashforth, 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational İdentifiction. Journal of Organiational Behavior, 13(2): 103–123.

Mael, F.A. and E.B. Ashforth, 1995. Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2): 309-333.

Meydan, H.C. and V.H. Şeşen, 2011. Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları, Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.

Michel, A., R. Stegmaier and K. Sonntag, 2010. I scratch your back – you scratch mine. Do procedural justice and organizational identification matter for employees‘ cooperation during change? Journal of Change Management, 10(1): 41–59.

Milliken, F.J., E.W. Morrison and P.E. Hewlin, 2003. An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6): 1-34.

Moorman, R.H., 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions İnfluence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6): 845-855.

Morrison, E.W. and F.J. Milliken, 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 706-714.

Niehoff, B.P. and R.H. Ve Moorman, 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 527-556.

Olkkonen, M.E. and J. Ve Lipponen, 2006. Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2): 202-215.

Özdevecioğlu, M., 2003. Algılanan Örgütsel Adaletin Bireylerarası Saldırgan Davranışlar Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(Temmuz-Aralık): 77-96.

Pinder, C.C. and K.P. Harlos, 2001. Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Research Management, 20: 331-369.

Polat, M., 2009. Örgütsel Özdeşleşmenin Öncülleri Ve Ardılları Üzerine Bir Saha Çalışması, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Bursa.

Polat, S., 2007. Ortaöğretim Öğretmenlerinin Örgütsel Adalet Algıları, Örgütsel Güven Düzeyleri İle Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışları Arasındaki İlişki. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kocaeli.

Raykov, T. and G.A. Marcoulides, 2006. A first course İn structural equation modeling. 2nd Edn., London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reade, C., 2001. Antecedents of organizational identification İn multinational corporations: Fostering psychological attachment to the local subsidiary and the global organization. International Journal of Human Resoune Management, 12(8): 1269-1291.

Smidts, A., C.B.M. Van Riel and A.T.H. Pruyn, 2001. The İmpact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational İdentification. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5): 1051-1062.

Stouffer, S.A., E.A. Suchman, L.C. DeVinney, S.A. Starr and R.M. Williams., 1949. The American soldier: Adjustment to army life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1.

Tak, B. and A. Ve Çiftçioğlu, 2009. Algılanan Örgütsel Prestij İle Örgütsel Bağlılık Ve Örgütsel Özdeşleşme Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Akdeniz Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, 18: 100-116.

Tangirala, S. and R. Ramanujam, 2008. Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1): 37–68.

Tangirala, S. and R. Ramanujam, 2009. The sound of loyalty: Voice Or Silence. J. Greenberg Ve M. Edwards. İçinde Voice and Silence in Organizations. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Taşkıran, E., 2011. Liderlik Ve Örgütsel Sessizlik Arasındaki Etkileşim Örgütsel Adaletin Rolü, Beta Basım A.Ş., İstanbul.

Thibaut, J. and L. Walker, 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tokgöz, E., 2012. Relationship between organizational trust, organizational Identification and organizational citizenship behavior, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Balıkesir Universitesi, Balıkkesir.

Tolman, E.C., 1943. Identification and the post-war world. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 38(2): 141-148.

Tsamitis, D.H., 2009. An exploration of the ınfluence of ınstitutional factors and practices on organizational ıdentification ın students enrolled ın transnational university partnership programs. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, US.

Tüzün, K.İ., 2006. Örgütsel Güven, Örgütsel Kimlik Ve Örgütsel Özdeşleşme İlişkisi; Uygulamalı Bir Çalışma. Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Tyler, T.R. and R.J. Bies, 1990. Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice, In J. Carroll (Ed.), Advances in applied social psychology: Business settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. pp: 77-98.

Vakola, M. and D. Bouradas, 2005. Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27(5): 441 – 458.

Van Dick, R., U. Wagner, J. Stellmacher and O. Christ, 2004. The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification: Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 171–191.

Vokola, M. and D. Bouradas, 2005. Antecedents and consequences of organizational silence: An empirical investigation Employee Relations, 27(5): 441-458.

Yürür, Ş., 2008. Örgütsel Adalet İle İş Tatmini Ve Çalışanların Bireysel Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişkilerin Analizine Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2): 295-312.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Asian Social Science shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.