Content uploaded by Adeel Saqib
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adeel Saqib on Nov 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
294
Employee Silence as Mediator in the Relationship between Toxic
Leadership Behavior and Organizational Learning
Adeel Saqib
PhD. Scholar, Bahria University, Islamabad
Muhammad Arif
Associate Professor, Bahria University, Islamabad
Abstract
Most of the organizations are striving to implement organizational leaning
philosophy to have a competitive advantage in complex, volatile and fierce
market environment. Except few, organizations mostly fail and face immense
problems to establish effective learning organization processes. In such scenario,
leadership behaviors may derail the organizational success into failures. The
study intends to examine the mediating effect of employee silence between toxic
leadership and organizational learning relationship. In all 445 responses were
collected from employees serving in Pakistani banking sector. The results
revealed that there is a significant impact of toxic leadership on employee
silence and organizational learning. Furthermore, the mediation analysis
revealed significant mediation of employee silence from toxic leadership on
organizational learning. While most of existing research has assessed positive
leadership styles and its impact on individual and organizational behaviors the
present study takes in to account negative leadership i.e. toxic leadership.
Keywords: Toxic Leadership; Employee Silence; Organizational Learning;
Hayes Process Model 4.
Leaders are considered elemental for success or failure of an
organization. As leaders, may become source of learning, innovation and
organizational success (Berson, Da'as, & Waldman, 2015) or turn out to
be barrier to learning and organizational failure by negatively influencing
the emotions and behaviors of the individuals (Schilling & Kluge, 2009;
Xu, Loi, & Lam, 2015). These contradicting leadership behaviors invite
the attention of the researchers to understand both positive and negative
aspects of leadership to fully understand the leadership phenomenon
(Kaiser, LeBreton, & Hogan, 2015; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün &
Gumusluoglu, 2013). Existing research has witnessed a number of
leadership behaviors and styles that are facilitating to organizational
learning (Vera & Crossan, 2004) like transformational leadership
(García-Morales, Miménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012),
ambidexterity leadership (Nemanich & Vera, 2009), transaction
leadership (Jansen, Vera & Crossan, 2009)). However, toxic leadership
behaviors in relationship to organizational learning is a missing link as
emphasized by Berson et al. (2015) and Walumbwa, Hartnell, Misati
(2017). The present study is an attempt to bridge this literature gap.
A growing interest of scholars has been observed on the toxic
behaviors at workplace in general (Linstead, Maréchal, & Griffin, 2014).
Especially, scholars viewe that toxic behaviors displayed by leaders have
intense detrimental effects on organizational learning and performance
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
295
(Indradevi, 2016; Mehta & Maheshwari, 2014; Schilling & Kluge, 2009).
In addition, mostly studies in toxic leadership literature have examined
negative consequences of toxic leadership behaviors on individual level
constructs (Fowlie & Wood, 2009; Kellerman, 2004), whereas, very few
studies are available on organizational level factors (Leed, 2011; Mehta
& Maheshwari, 2014; Temper, 2000). For example, literature identified
toxic leadership as a potential antecedent of increased turnover intention,
employee dissatisfaction, lack of commitment and psychological distress
like anxiety, burnout, depression, disengagement, low level of self-
esteem, emotional exhaustion, and employee Silence (Brinsfield,
Edwards, & Greenberg, 2009; Webster, Beehr, & Love, 2011; Tepper,
2000; Xu, Loi, & Lam, 2015). The study has examined both, at
individual level employee silence and at organizational level
organizational learning in relation to toxic leadership.
An extensive literature review provoked that toxic behaviors
results in to counter-productive work behaviors (Goldman 2006) and
toxic climates prevailing in the organizations, the individuals hesitate to
share their experiences, feeling uncomfortable to disclose the problems
they face during their work. This is because the leaders may negatively
perceive their capabilities or may negatively credit their contributions
(Schilling & Kluge, 2009). Furthermore, Xu et al. (2015) identified that
abusive supervision a dimension of toxic leadership behaviors causes
employee silence through employee emotional exhaustion. Similarly,
employee silence, a barrier to the upward communication, leaving
organizational decision makers unaware about the ground realities and
problems of the organization causing problems to valuable decision
making, further leading to depleted organizational performance
(Schilling & Kluge, 2009). Keeping in view the arguments, the current
study aimed to provide more insight in to the impact of toxic leadership
on organizational learning and to further evaluate the mediating role of
employee silence between the toxic leadership and organizational
learning.
The study has followed the theory of conservation of resources
(COR) (Hobfoll, 1989; Xu et al., 2015) as the main source to find the
relationship between the variables of the study. The study has assumed
that the organizations having negativity in the environment tend to
impact individual’s performance negatively, because they reactively
conserve there physical , psychological and knowledge related resources
and utilize them for copping and dealing with the leader (Padilla, Hogan,
& Kaiser, 2007) one of the coping strategy that these abused individuals
is to be silent and try to hide the facts from the bosses (Xu et al. 2015),
which become a barrier to organizational learning (Kaiser & Craig, 2014;
Morrison, 2014; Schilling & Kluge, 2009).
The study is based in Pakistani banking sector which is
characterized of employee burnout, emotional exhaustion, high turnover
rate, which causes loss of valuable knowledge, teamwork spirit, high
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
296
retention and recruitment problems (Hussain, 2012). The study view,
ineffective leadership as the main cause of overall dissatisfaction and
low-level performance. Therefore, the study focused on the leadership
and employee behaviors like toxicity, and silence as an important input
to solve the overall and individual problems related to learning and
performance.
Literature Review
Toxic Leadership Behaviors
Toxic Leadership (TOXL) is considered as an array of
destructive behaviors that drive the leaders to achieve personal goals and
benefits by compromising the interests of individuals, teams and
organizations (Schmidt, 2014). Goldman (2006) further explained that
destructive behaviors of leaders have the capacity to trickle down to
lower level employees at workplace.
Scholars view that constructive or destructive behaviors of
leaders emerge from the interaction of leadership, followers, and
working environment (Bagherith, 1994; Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Padilla,
Hogan & Kaiser, 2007; Steele, 2011). Zellars, Tepper and Duffy (2002)
and Webster et al. (2011) found that toxic leadership behaviors cause
turnover intention, dissatisfaction, lack of commitment and
psychological distress like anxiety, depression, burnout and
disengagement. In addition, emotional exhaustion and employee silence
are observed due to abusive leadership behaviors (Xu, et al., 2015).
The Banking context of Pakistan seems relevant because Bartel
(2004) has suggested the exploration of behaviors in banks. Further, the
negative side of the leadership is under researched (Yukl, 2012),
specifically in the collectivist cultures like Pakistan (Khilji, 2012). The
study following Schmidt (2008) has identified five dimensions of toxic
leadership, including self-promotion, abusive supervision,
unpredictability, narcissism, and authoritarian leadership.
Organizational Learning (OL)
The OL is considered as a process where organizations get
knowledge through communication, utilize it for the solution of
problems, managing the paradoxes and adapt to their institutional fields
for success and innovation (Argyris, 1999; Crossan, Maurer & White,
2011; Huber, 1991). Huber (1991) explained that effective acquisition,
sharing, analysis and memory of knowledge leads to successful
organization.
The current literature based on the work of Vince (2004) and
Lawrence, Mauws, Dyck and Kleysen, (2005) assumes that
organizational learning is a socio-political process, where emotions and
relationships between different actors in the organizations, result in to
learning. Schelling and Kluge (2009) studied barriers to organizational
learning and have advocated that leadership is one of the main reason of
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
297
the failure of organizational learning. Hence, due to significance of the
topic in practice and literature. The study has focused on the examination
of the linkage between toxic leadership and organizational learning in
banking sector.
Employee Silence (ES)
Employee silence is considered as employees deliberate hiding
of important ideas information, queries, concerns or views about matters
related to their job position and their organizations (Brinsfield et al.
2009; Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008).
Ashford, Sutcliffe and Christianson (2009) noted that most of the key
decision makers (leaders) remain unaware about the silence behaviors of
employees and assume that employees are freely communicating up-
ward without hesitation. Detert, Burris, and Harrison (2010) reported that
there is an evidence that silence behavior exists in many organizations
and employees are often hesitant to engage in voice, specially, when they
have information that is against the leadership view point. This
deprivation of valuable knowledge leads to negative consequences and
wastage of valuable assets in the organizations (Morrison, 2014). Hence,
organizations fail to learn due to employee silence behavior, which
requires to be examined.
Toxic Leadership and Organizational Learning
Although, organizational learning is a source of innovation and
competitive advantage (Akhtar, Khan & Mujtaba, 2013). Yet, scholars
contend that the leadership specific behaviors create problems for
organizational learning by halting communication (Lawrence et al.
2005). The research explains that leaders and followers cannot interact
together at workplace without following their cultural values, political
affiliations and emotional conditions (Lawrence et al. 2005; Vince, 2004;
Vince & Saleem, 2004). Thus, resultant learning in the organizations is
the outcome of their social and emotional interactions subject to personal
interests, which impedes the organizational learning. Similarly, the
cultures rich with the power distance between the subordinate and leader
are more inclined towards the hording of information, creates a gap,
where the subordinate feels uncomfortable to communicate with the boss
(Hofstede,1991). Based on the discussion, the study postulated that:
H1: Toxic Leadership behaviors have significant negative impact on
organizational learning.
Toxic Leadership Behavior and Employee’s Silence
Toxic leadership behaviors are destructive to emotions, leading
to emotional exhaustion and employee Silence with in work setting (Ng
& Feldman, 2012). Tepper (2007) and Whitman et al. (2014) based on
the theory of conservation of resources explained that when subordinates
face negative behavior of their supervisors. They intend to adopt
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
298
avoidant or passive copping behaviors and hence try to remain away
from the source of stress and exhaustion i.e. toxic leader. Based on these
assumptions the study postulated that toxic leadership behaviors cause
increase in employee silence.
H2: Toxic Leadership have significant negative impact on employees
Silence.
Employee Silence and Organizational Learning.
Literature provide evidence that employee silence behavior is a
hurdle in the way to organizational learning (Morrison, 2014).
Employees silence which is viewed as an individual choice involves a
decision about whether to have a voice or to remain silent in the context
of an organizational problem that affects the individual employee (Lewin
& Mitchell, 1992; McCabe & Lewin, 1992; Withey & Cooper, 1989).
Staying silent about organizational problems can result in a decision to
leave the job or remain silent if the cost of voice is too high or if there is
no upward communication mechanism (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). In
addition, organizational silence can stifle organizational learning by
restricting the amount and flow of information that could affect
decisions, problem-solving and innovation processes. In result, the study
postulated H3b, that
H3: Employee Silence has negative impact on Organizational Learning
Mediating Role of Employee Silence Between Toxic Leadership and
Organizational Learning
The study based on the theory of conservation of resources view
that toxic leadership cause the employees in to conserve their physical,
psychological and knowledge resources for coping strategies instead of
contributing in the decision making and performance outcomes (Xu, et
al. 2015). Hence the study based on the discussion in the previous
sections and theory of conservation of resources postulated H4, that
H4: Employee Silence mediates between Toxic Leadership and
Organizational Learning relationship
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1: Mediating role of ES between TXLB and OL
Toxic Leadership
Employee Silence
Organizational Learning
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
299
Research Methodology
Population and Sample
Individuals working in 24 commercial banks, listed in Pakistan
Stock Exchange (PSE) were selected with a total population of 2100
employees serving in different branches in one of the cities of Pakistan.
Stratified random sampling helped in categorizing the banks into large
(Total assets greater than Rs. 500 billion), medium (total assets greater
than or equal to 100 billion - Rs. 500 billion) and small (total assets less
than or equal to Rs. 100 billion) banks. A total of 715 questionnaires
were distributed among the employees working in the three categories of
the banks and retrieved back 445 (72%) sound responses, included in the
data analysis. To measure main variables, the study adapted different
scales from already established literature. To assess toxic leader (IV),
Employee Silence (M) and Organizational learning the study adapted the
scales developed by Schmidt (2008), Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008)
and García-Morales, Lloréns-Montes and Verdú-Jover (2007)
respectively. The five point Likert scale is maintained for all the
variables.
Data Analysis and Results
The data was analyzed using AMOS and SPSS for this study.
The demographic information of the respondents revealed that an
average age of the respondents is in the category from 20 to 29 years,
consisting of 51.5% of the sample. Whereas, minimum number of
respondents fall in a category of 60 and above consisting of only one
employee. Gender distribution of the study illustrated that majority of the
respondents were Male (84.4%). Whereas, female respondents were just
15.5% of the sample. Educational qualification depicted that majority of
bankers i.e. 236 (53%) fall in post graduate level/ master’s degree,
following graduate level (B.A, B.Sc.) 152 (34.2%). Whereas, small
number of respondents only 23 (5.2%) have research degrees (MS or
PhD.). The descriptive statistic (mean and standard deviation) of the
main variables for n=445 illustrated with Toxic leadership (M=2.68;
SD=.73), Employee Silence (M=3.12; SD=.82) and organizational
learning (M=3.56; SD=.83).
Reliability and Validity
Cronbach alpha test has been used to test the reliability of the
constructs (Wong, 2016). In addition, Convergent validity is established
if an AVE of 0.5 or greater is achieved for the constructs. AVE is
calculated, the results revealed that convergent validity for all constructs
is established since the statistics for AVE for all the factors is
approximately equal to or greater than .50. Furthermore, Ping (2004) and
Wong (2016) explained that in case where AVE is lower than .5 value of
convergent validity should be evaluated along with composite reliability.
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
300
Here the composite reliability for all constructs is well above .70 i.e.
between .718 and 859.
Table 1 Cronbach’s Alpha & AVE
Construct
No. of
Items
Cronbach’s
Alpha
AVE
Toxic Leadership
30
.940
Abusive Supervision
7
.861
0.45
Authoritative
6
.759
0.47
Narcissism
5
.800
0.55
Self-Promotion
5
.800
0.40
Unpredictability
7
.843
0.50
Employee Silence
5
.771
0.54
Organizational Learning
4
.751
0.62
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity satisfy the condition that how much
sufficiently distinct constructs are strongly non-correlated with each
other. The discriminant validity condition is satisfied if the value of
square root of AVE for individual construct is more than the Inter-
correlation of all the distinct constructs. Malhotra and Dash (2011)
further explained that AVE is the strict measure and we can use
composite reliability along with the AVE while conferring reliability and
validity. The composite reliability for all the constructs were between
.718 and .859. Which is more than the cutoff value of .7, as shown in
table 2.
Table 2: Comparison of Square root of AVE and Inter-Construct
Correlations
Self_
Lack
Abusive
Authoritative
Narcissism
Unpredictable
ES
OL
Self_Lack
(0.76)
Abusive
.77
(0.72)
Authoritative
.64
.58
(0.67)
Narcissism
.70
.58
.55
(0.74)
Unpredictable
.75
.72
.67
.66
(0.74)
ES
.11
.22
.16
.13
.21
(.68)
OL
-.10
-.11
-.06
.02
-.06
.12
(.63)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and evaluation of Measurement
Models
The model of the present study proposed three different
constructs namely TXLB (IV), OL (DV) and ES (M) and their direct and
indirect effects. This section covers the confirmatory factor analysis to
evaluate that whether the data fits the measurement and structural models
or not.
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
301
Evaluations of Measurement Models:
Exploratory factor analysis revealed a five factors solution for
toxic leadership where, the model extracted comprised of 23 items. The
model was then exposed to confirmatory factor analysis. The results
showed a good fit to a five-factor model: (
2/df = 467.9/217 (CMIN =
2.156), SRMR = .04; CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .05. None of the
items were removed as part of CFA. Standardized regressions weights
and CR values are reported in table 4.
Exploratory factor analysis revealed a single factor solution for
employee silence. The model consisted of five items. The model was
then estimated through confirmatory factor analysis. The results revealed
a relatively good fit to the model: (
2/df = 2.944/3 (CMIN = 2.944),
SRMR = .02; CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .08. None of the items
were removed as part of CFA. Standardized regressions weights and CR
values are reported in table 4.
Exploratory factor analysis revealed a single factor solution for
organizational learning. The model consisted of overall five items. The
model was then subjected to confirmatory factor analysis. The
measurement model estimation showed a relatively good fit to the model:
(
2/df = 12.616/3 (CMIN = 1.633), SRMR = .02; CFI = .98, TLI = .96,
RMSEA = .08. None of the items were removed as part of CFA.
Standardized regressions weights and CR values are reported in table 4.
Table 4: Toxic Leadership, Employee Silence and OL Regression
Weights & CR Values
Estimate
S.E.
C.R.
TSP1_19
Self-Promotion and Lack of Concern
.643
-
-
TSP3_21
Self-Promotion and Lack of Concern
.633
.087
11.409
TSP4_22
Self-Promotion and Lack of Concern
.642
.090
11.542
TSP5_23
Self-Promotion and Lack of Concern
.711
.096
12.517
TUP1_24
Self-Promotion and Lack of Concern
.687
.096
12.179
TUP2_25
Self-Promotion and Lack of Concern
.637
.087
11.465
TUP3_26
Self-Promotion and Lack of Concern
.675
.100
11.043
TXAS1_1
Abusive
. 737
-
-
TXAS2_2
Abusive
.607
.069
12.103
TXAS3_3
Abusive
.745
.066
14.877
TXAS4_4
Abusive
.712
.069
14.144
TXAS5_5
Abusive
.676
.069
13.401
TXAS7_7
Abusive
.692
.067
13.831
TAUT3_10
Authoritative
.603
-
-
TAUT4_11
Authoritative
.729
.111
11.063
TAUT5_12
Authoritative
.685
.111
10.673
TAUT6_13
Authoritative
.644
.106
10.252
TNAR2_15
Narcissism
.628
-
-
TNAR3_16
Narcissism
.831
.107
12.689
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
302
Estimate
S.E.
C.R.
TNAR4_17
Narcissism
.758
.100
12.223
TUP5_28
Unpredictability
.608
-
-
TUP6_29
Unpredictability
.664
.085
12.357
TUP7_30
Unpredictability
.759
.122
11.080
OL01
Organizational Learning
1
-
-
OL02
Organizational Learning
.853
.091
9.381
OL03
Organizational Learning
.957
.098
9.797
OL04
Organizational Learning
.878
.092
9.539
ES_5
Employee Silence
.711
-
-
ES_4
Employee Silence
.393
.065
8.217
ES_3
Employee Silence
.667
.052
12.207
ES_2
Employee Silence
.852
.066
13.857
ES_1
Employee Silence
.689
.091
10.570
Hypothesis Testing
Toxic Leadership and Organizational Learning
For hypothesis 1, structural model was developed. The model
when subjected to confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit: (
2/df
= 601.911/312 (CMIN = 1.929), SRMR = .04; CFI = .94, TLI = .93,
RMSEA = .04. Overall the results indicate the 8% change in
organizational learning can be attributed through toxic leadership
behaviors. The results of analysis revealed that toxic leadership has
insignificantly negative impact on organizational learning (Std. Est. = -
.082, C.R = -1.155 p > .05) Hence, H1 is not Supported. Although as per
Baron and Kenny (1986) first condition of direct relationship between IV
and DV is not satisfied. Yet Preacher & Hayes (2008) argued that the
process can be proceeded and mediation can be established without the
condition of significant total effect i.e. relationship between IV and DV.
Consequently, following Preacher and Hayes (2008) the study tested
mediation.
Employee Silence as Mediator
During the analysis, the study estimated three models. i.e. (1) the
model that estimated the path “a”, (2) the path b and c’ and (3) the direct
impact of the iv on the dv, path c. The table 8. illustrates the model
fitness summary.
The study revealed that toxic leadership significantly predict the
mediator “employee silence” “a path” (b = .20, SE= 0.05, t=3.82.
p<.001). Secondly, the test showed that mediator “employee silence” has
significant impact on organizational learning (DV) “b path” (b=.12,
SE=.05, t=2.45, p<.05). In addition to path a and b, the study estimated
the direct effect of TOXL on OL i.e. “c’ path” (b=-.11, SE=.05, t=-2.16,
p<.05) by controlling mediator. and finally, total effect of toxic
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
303
leadership on organizational learning was estimated “c path” (b=-.09,
SE=.05, t=-1.69, p=.09), which indicated that direct effects is non-
significant.
The study analyzed the mediation effect by assessing the
significance of the indirect effect i.e. (a * b). Where, the estimation
indirect effect (a * b) test is considered the best among all the available
methods for mediation testing (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West
& Sheets, 2002; MacKinnon, Lockwood & Williams, 2004). To estimate
the effect size of the mediator the study utilized the Preacher and Hayes
(2004) suggestion for effect size. The test revealed that a*b or indirect
effect size is significant at 95%, confidence interval (CI), as CI (.01, .05)
does not consist zero between the upper and lower limit of CI, therefore
the indirect effect is significant. To further confirm indirect effect size
the study estimated the standardized indirect effect size which was also
significant at 95% CI, with b=.02, Boot SE=.01 and CI (.01, .05) as CI
upper and lower does not consist zero. Similarly, SOBEL test result
revealed significance of effect size with z=2.16 and p<.05. Hence
following Hayes (2013) the study has revealed that the relationship
between toxic leadership and organizational learning is mediated by
employee silence. Hence it proves our hypothesis 4. The table 9 depict
the summarized estimates.
Table 9. Bootstrapped point estimate and confidence intervals of the
mediating effect of employee silence between toxic leadership and
organizational learning
Mediation
path vis
Employee
Silence
X–M
M(X)–Y
X–Y
X(M)
–Y
Mediation
effect
Bootstrapping
(95%) CI
a path
b path
c
path
c’
path
SE
Lower
limit
Upper
Limit
TOXL
OL
0.20***
0.12*
0.20
n.s.
-.11*
0.02
0.0
1
0.01
0.05
Note. N = 445. bootstrap sample size = 5000. CI = confidence interval;
n.s.= insignificant.
***p ≤ 0.001, **p ≤ 0.01, *p ≤ 0.05.
Discussion
The study aimed to examine the mediating role of employee
silence between toxic leadership behaviors and organizational learning.
The findings of the study revealed that toxic leadership has non-
significant impact on organizational learning in banking sector of
Pakistan, which is against the main understanding that toxic leadership is
a barrier to organizational learning (Aygyris, 1997). In response, the
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
304
study based on the work of Schilling and Kluge (2009), view that
preventing the acquisition, processing, and distribution of information is
a micro-political activity that is supported by Lawrence et al (2005) who
consider that the episodic power is exercised by the leaders and
organizations benefitting the self-interested actors, instead of
contributing truly to the organizational learning.
The present findings illustrated that toxic leadership behaviors
have significant positive impact on the employee silence. Which is in
line with the previous studies (See, Xu, 2015; Tepper, 2007; Schilling &
Kluge, 2009; Goldman, 2012). These scholars have identified that the
toxic leadership behaviors have the capacity to tickle down and
negatively affect employees causing emotional exhaustion and silence.
The third finding reveled interesting research finding that
employee silence increases when the toxic leadership behaviors
increases, but these employees has also shown that their silence
contribute positively to the organizational learning. Which as per the
concept of proactive silence phenomenon the employees remain silent to
bring prosperity in the organization and allow the organization to work
for the benefit of the organizations at large (Huang, Vliert, & Vegt,
2005).
The main finding that employee silence mediates between toxic
leadership and organizational learning is supported and is in line with the
assumptions of (Schilling and Kluge, 2009; Xu et al, 2015). This is
because the trickling down effect of the toxic leadership that leads to the
employee silence and then ultimately to organizational learning
(Goldman, 2012). Furthermore, the theory of conservation of resources
theory the employees hid their resources information and knowledge, as
a coping strategy (Xu, et al. 2015).
Furthermore, Hofstede (1991) pointed out that people from
cultures with a large power distance are less likely to voice their
concerns. One possible explanation could be the conflict avoidance and
acceptance of the norms and values of the system as they feel that these
policies are broader and employees are unable to amend them, so they
communicate with filtered information without considering broader
outcomes (See. Argyris, 1999).
The study has contributed in knowledge, research and practice.
Where the study has explained toxic leadership, employee silence and
organizational performance relationship using conservation of resources
theory. The study revealed that even though the toxic leadership is not
directly related to the organizational learning, there are evidences that
toxic leadership influences employee silence behavior and that contribute
in to the organizational learning process indirectly.
The study is first in its type, as per researcher’s knowledge, that
has collectively considered TOXL behaviors (namely narcissism, self-
promotion, abusive supervision, unpredictability, and authoritarian
leadership), employees silence and organizational learning in a single
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
305
model. Most of the TOXL studies are conducted in the individualistic
cultures whereas the collectivist culture like Pakistan is neglected (See.
Khilji, 2012). Methodologically, the study has utilized process model
developed by Hayes (2013) to assess the mediating effect, instead of
Barron and Kenny (1986) logic and secondly, the research has employed
probability sampling “Stratified Random Sampling” technique that
helped to minimize the sampling biases.
The study findings hold several important managerial
implications. Firstly, it is suggested that the organizations should set up
such channels that provide leverage to the employees to voice out against
their leaders’ behaviors. Human resource developmental and employee
assistance programs should be initiated to make their employees capable
to effectively cope up toxic leadership through planned behaviors. The
study suggests the adoption of different organizational learning processes
that can motivate individuals to share information. In addition, the
employees should be equipped with knowledge, skills and mindsets that
enable them to cope up with the adverse behaviors of their leaders. In
this continuation, the OD interventions like appreciation inquiry
(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) and development of positive
psychological capitals (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007) would be of
worth.
Conclusion
The study intended to examine mediating role of employee silence
between toxic leadership and organizational learning. The results
revealed that the employee silence mediates the relationship between
toxic leadership and organizational performance. Consequently, it is the
responsibility of the organizations to take necessary actions for the
curtailment of the toxic leadership behaviors by establishing diagnostics
procedures for the identification of toxic leadership behaviors and
developmental programs for leadership should be introduced. On the
other side, the organizations should formulate policies and procedures
preemptive to the exposure of employees to toxic behaviors. This
research suggests the development of organizational interventions to
increase levels of employee coping and well-being so that leaders and
employees together work for organizational learning and success of the
organizations.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The study is cross-sectional, the data was collected from a single
city of Pakistan, therefore it is subject to generalizability issue. The study
suggests the addition of more potential variables that might mediate
between the toxic leadership and organizational learning like leader
member exchange quality, organizational politics and mechanisms
(Schilling & Kluge, 2009). The future studies should validate these
results in other sectors and geographical areas.
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
306
References
Akhtar, N., Khan, R. A., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2013). Exploring and measuring
organizational learning capability and competitive advantage of
petroleum industry firms. International Business and Management,
6(1), 89-103.
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell Publisher.
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up
and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of voice in
organizations. In Greenberg, J., & Edwards, M. S. (Eds.). (2009).
Voice and silence in organizations. Emerald Group Publishing, pp.
175-202.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty Tyranny in Organizations. Human Relations,
47(7), 755-778.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current
theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of
psychology, 60, 421-449.
Baron, R. B., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1173-1182.
Bartel, A. P. (2004). Human resource management and organizational
performance: Evidence from retail banking. Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 57(2), 181-
Berson, Y., Da'as, R., & Waldman, D. A. (2015). How do leaders and their
teams bring about organizational learning and outcomes?.
Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 79-108.
Birasnav, M. (2014). Knowledge management and organizational
performance in the service industry: The role of transformational
leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership. Journal of
Business Research, 67(8), 1622-1629.
Brinsfield. CT, Edwards, S, & Greenberg, J. (2009). Voice and Silence in
Organizations: Historical Review and Current Conceptualizations.
In: Greenberg, J & Edwards, M S, editors. Voice and Silence in
Organizations. London: Emerald.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in
organizational life. Research in organizational change and
development, 1(1), 129-169.
Crossan, M. M., Maurer, C. C., & White, R. E. (2011). Reflections on the
2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational
learning?. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 446-460.
Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., & Harrison, D. A. (2010). Debunking four myths
about employee silence. Harvard business review, 88(6), 26-26.
Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee
silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal
of management studies, 40(6), 1359-1392.
Fowlie, J., & Wood, M. (2009). The emotional impact of leaders' behaviours.
Journal of European Industrial Training. 33(6), 559 – 572.
García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez,
L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
307
performance through organizational learning and innovation.
Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.
García-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2007).
Influence of personal mastery on organizational performance
through organizational learning and innovation in large firms and
SMEs. Technovation, 27(9), 547-568.
Goldman, A. (2006). High toxicity leadership: Borderline personality
disorder and the dysfunctional organization. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21, 733-746.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at
conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. Intercultural cooperation
and its importance for survival. Software of the mind. London: Mc
Iraw-Hill.
Huang, X., Vliert, E. V. D., & Vegt, G. V. D. (2005). Breaking the silence
culture: Stimulation of participation and employee opinion
withholding cross‐nationally. Management and Organization
Review, 1(3), 459-482.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and
the literatures. Organization science, 2(1), 88-115.
Indradevi, R. (2016). Toxic Leadership over the Years–A Review.
Purushartha: A Journal of Management Ethics and Spirituality,
9(1).
Jansen, J. J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for
exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental
dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5-18.
Kaiser, R., LeBreton, J., & Hogan, J. (2015). The dark side of personality
and extreme leader behavior. Applied Psychology.
Kaiser, R. B., & Craig, S. B. (2014). Destructive Leadership in and of
Organizations. In D.V. Day (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
leadership and organizations (pp.439-454), New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-975561-5
Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., & Gumusluoglu, L. (2013). The bright and dark
sides of leadership: Transformational vs. non-transformational
leadership in a non-Western context. Leadership.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it
matters. Harvard Business Press.
Khilji, S. E. (2012). Editor's perspective: does South Asia matter?
Rethinking South Asia as relevant in international business
research. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 1(1), 8-
21.
Kitapçi, H., & Çelik, V. (2014). The Relationship between Ambidexterity,
Organizational Learning Capacity and Firm Quality Performance:
An Empirical Study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
109, 827-836.
Laeeque, S. H., & Bakhtawari, N. Z. (2014). Employee silence as a
determinant of organizational commitment: evidence from the
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
308
higher education sector of Pakistan. European Journal of Business
and Management, 6(20), 46-51.
Lawrence, T. B., Mauws, M. K., Dyck, B., & Kleysen, R. F. (2005). The
politics of organizational learning: integrating power into the 4I
framework. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 180-191.
Lewin, D., & Mitchell, D. J. (1992). Systems of employee voice: Theoretical
and empirical perspectives. California Management Review, 34(3),
95-111.
Linstead, S., Maréchal, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2014). Theorizing and
researching the dark side of organization. Organization Studies,
35(2), 165-188.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why followers rarely
escape their clutches. Ivey business Journal, 1-8.
Luthans , F., Youssef, C., M., & Avolio, B., J.(2007). Psychological Capital:
Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press.
Mackie, D. (2008). Leadership derailment and psychological harm. InPsych,
30(2), 12–13.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and
resampling methods. Multivariate behavioral research, 39(1), 99-
128.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and
other intervening variable effects. Psychological methods, 7(1), 83.
Malhotra N. K. & Dash S. (2011). Marketing Research an Applied
Orientation. London: Pearson Publishing.
McCabe, D. M., & Lewin, D. (1992). Employee voice: A human resource
management perspective. California Management Review, 34(3),
112-123.
Mehta, S., & Maheshwari, G. (2014). Toxic leadership: tracing the
destructive trail. Journal Impact Factor, 5(10), 18-24.
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(6), 1453-1476.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annu. Rev. Organ.
Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(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(4), 706-725.
Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and
ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership
Quarterly, 20(1), 19-33.
Ng, T. W. H. and Feldman, D. C. (2012), Employee voice behavior: A meta-
analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. J. Organiz.
Behav., 33: 216–234.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle;
Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive
environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
309
Pelletier, K. L. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic
behavior and rhetoric. Leadership, 6, 373–389.
Ping, R. A. (2004). On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using
survey data. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 125-141.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior
research methods, 36(4), 717-731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Assessing mediation in
communication research. The Sage sourcebook of advanced data
analysis methods for communication research, 13-54.
Reed, G. E. (2004). Toxic leadership. Military Review, 84(4), 67-71.
Schilling, J., & Kluge, A. (2009). Barriers to organizational learning: An
integration of theory and research. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 11(3), 337-360.
Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the toxic leadership
scale (Master’s thesis, University of Maryland). Retrieved from
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/2
Schmidt, A. A. (2014). An examination of toxic leadership, job outcome, and
the impact of military deployment, (Doctorate thesis), University of
Maryland.
Steele, J. P. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of toxic leadership in the
US Army: A two-year review and recommended solutions. Center
for army leadership fort leavenworth ks
Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work
issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate.
Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37-68.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review,
synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of management, 33(3), 261-
289.
Tseng, S. M. (2010). The correlation between organizational culture and
knowledge conversion on corporate performance. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 14(2), 269-284.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational
learning. Academy of management review, 29(2), 222-240.
Vince, R. (2004). Action learning and organizational learning: power,
politics and emotion in organizations 1. Action Learning: Research
and Practice, 1(1), 63-78.
Vince, R., & Saleem, T. (2004). The impact of caution and blame on
organizational learning. Management Learning, 35(2), 133-154.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Misati, E. (2017). Does ethical
leadership enhance group learning behavior? Examining the
mediating influence of group ethical conduct, justice climate, and
peer justice. Journal of Business Research, 72, 14-23.
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-
hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 505-516.
Whitman, M.V., Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Holmes, O., IV (2014). Abusive
supervision and feedback avoidance: The mediating role of
emotional exhaustion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1),
38–53.
Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences – Vol (10), Issue (2), 2017.
310
Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and
neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly, 521-539.
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(5), 763-
774.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What
Questions Need More Attention. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85. doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0088
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision
and subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068.
