واکاوی دلایل و پیامدهای سکوت سازمانی در سازمان های آموزشی (مورد مطالعه: آموزش وپرورش استان قم) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
«سکوت سازمانی» به معنای خودداری معلمان و کارکنان از ارائه نظرات کاربردی در جهت توسعه سازمانی، یکی از چالش های اساسی در سازمان های آموزشی است که مانع از بهره گیری بهینه از دانش و تجربیات کارکنان می شود. پژوهش حاضر با هدف طراحی مدلی برای تبیین سکوت سازمانی در آموزش وپرورش، از روش نظریه داده بنیاد بهره گرفته است. داده ها از طریق مصاحبه های نیمه ساختاریافته با ۳۰ نفر از خبرگان فرهنگی، معلمان، مدیران و کارمندان اداره کل آموزش وپرورش قم که به روش نمونه گیری هدفمند انتخاب شده بودند، گردآوری شد. در مرحله کدگذاری باز، ۳۷۵ کد مفهومی، ۶۰ مقوله فرعی و ۲۷ مقوله اصلی شناسایی شد. یافته های پژوهش بر پدیداری هشت گونه سکوت سازمانی شامل سکوت منفعلانه هژمونیک، سکوت محافظه کارانه هژمونیک، سکوت نوع دوستانه هژمونیک، سکوت منفعلانه استراتژیک، سکوت محافظه کارانه استراتژیک، سکوت منفعت طلبانه استراتژیک، سکوت رهایی و سکوت مبهم در آموزش وپرورش دلالت داشت. همچنین، از مهم ترین شرایط علّی در شکل گیری سکوت سازمانی می توان به ضعف های کلامی و شخصیتی، جامعه پذیری ناکارآمد، ادراک ناامنی، بی عدالتی سازمانی، سبک مدیریت زهرآگین و هویت سازمانی شکننده اشاره کرد. شرایط زمینه ای شامل فرهنگ سازمانی بازدارنده، سرخوردگی حمایتی، ناکارآمدی ارزیابی عملکرد، ناکارآمدی ارتباطی و ساختاری و عوامل جمعیت شناختی و عوامل مداخله گری شامل شرایط آنومیک سازمانی، فقدان استقلال نهادی و فرایندهای تسریع بخش همنوایی سازمانی نیز در تشدید آن نقش دارند. در مواجهه با سکوت سازمانی، کنشگران دو راهبرد پذیرش منفعلانه یا مقاومت و تغییر را اتخاذ می کنند. پیامدهای این پدیده در سه سطح فردی (مانند کاهش انگیزه)، سازمانی (مانند اُفت کارایی) و اجتماعی (مانند کاهش اعتماد عمومی) دسته بندی شد. این پژوهش، با ارائه یک مدل جامع، امکان درک عمیق تر و لزوم بازنگری در ساختارهای مدیریتی و فرهنگی برای کاهش سکوت سازمانی و تقویت مشارکت کارکنان را فراهم می سازد.Exploring the Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Silence in Educational Institutions (Case of Study: Education Organisation in Qom Province)
Organizational "silence" represents a critical challenge within educational institutions, obstructing the optimal utilization of employees' knowledge and experiences. This study aims to develop a model for organizational silence within the education sector, employing the Grounded Theory method. Organizational silence, defined as the reluctance of teachers and staff to voice practical opinions, stems from structural and cultural factors that threaten organizational development. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 30 cultural experts, teachers, managers, and employees of the Qom Province General Education Department, selected via purposive sampling. During the open coding phase, 375 conceptual codes, 60 subcategories, and 27 core categories were identified. The findings reveal that organizational silence manifests in eight distinct types: hegemonic passive silence, hegemonic conservative silence, hegemonic altruistic silence, strategic passive silence, strategic conservative silence, strategic self-interested silence, emancipatory silence, and ambiguous silence. Furthermore, causal factors driving silence include "personality weaknesses, inefficient socialization, perceived insecurity, organizational conformity processes, organizational injustice, toxic management styles, and fragile organizational identity," which emerge as key triggers of this phenomenon. Contextual conditions such as "inhibitive organizational culture, support-related frustration, inefficiency in performance and structural evaluation, and demographic factors," alongside intervening factors like "anomic organizational conditions, socially undesirable circumstances, politicization, and lack of institutional autonomy," exacerbate its intensity. In response to organizational silence, actors adopt one of two strategies: passive acceptance or resistance and change. The consequences of this phenomenon are categorized across three levels: individual (e.g. reduced motivation), organizational (e.g. diminished efficiency), and societal (e.g. eroded public trust). By presenting a comprehensive model, this study facilitates a deeper understanding of organizational silence and offers strategies to address it, underscoring the need to revisit managerial and cultural structures to mitigate silence and enhance employee participation.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
In contemporary society, the imperative to leverage human capital and enhance efficiency in educational organizations-especially within the public sector-is more acute than ever. Although employees constitute a critical resource for problem-solving and performance improvement, many choose, for a range of reasons, to remain silent in the face of organizational concerns. This phenomenon, known as organizational silence, denotes the deliberate withholding of opinions, suggestions, and critical feedback.
Whereas silence once carried a positive connotation-signifying loyalty, respect, and discipline-it has, over recent decades, been reconceptualized as a barrier to organizational and social development. In Iran, particularly within educational institutions, silence has become institutionalized: teachers and staff often refrain from voicing concerns in formal settings. This pattern intensifies under bureaucratic hierarchies and authoritarian managerial styles that structure organizational life.
In Qom Province, the phenomenon is especially salient in formal meetings, where teachers and staff avoid expressing dissatisfaction or proposing solutions, reserving such discussions for informal contexts. These practices erode organizational participation and intrinsic motivation, lower service quality, and diminish public trust in the educational system. The present study analyzes the antecedents and consequences of organizational silence in Qom’s educational sector and proposes avenues for mitigation.
2. Methodology
Guided by an interpretivist paradigm, this study adopts a qualitative design and employs grounded theory to capture the complexity and multi-dimensionality of organizational silence and to access participants’ lived meanings. This approach is well-suited to uncovering facets of social reality that are not readily measurable through quantitative methods.
Sampling was purposive followed by theoretical sampling. Participants comprised 23 teachers, school leaders (principals/vice-principals), student-teachers, and administrative officers from the Qom Provincial Department of Education, along with 7 educational experts (total n = 30). The sample size was determined by theoretical saturation; data collection ceased once additional interviews no longer yielded novel categories relevant to the research questions. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews.
Data analysis followed Strauss and Corbin’s three-stage coding scheme: open, axial, and selective coding. This iterative process facilitated the identification of concepts, the aggregation of subcategories and categories, and, ultimately, the development of an integrated conceptual model.
3. Findings
A total of 375 concepts were distilled into 60 subcategories and 27 core categories, forming a paradigmatic model of organizational silence encompassing causal, contextual, and intervening conditions, strategies, and consequences. Key factors contributing to silence include individual traits (e.g., low self-efficacy, introversion, Machiavellian tendencies), ineffective socialization, perceived insecurity, organizational injustice, toxic leadership, and weak professional or organizational identity. Contextual conditions such as a hostile cultural climate, poor communication channels, lack of support, dysfunctional performance appraisal, rigid bureaucracy, and demographic moderators further reinforce employees’ reluctance to speak up. Participants employed two main strategies in response: passive accommodation, through conformity, self-censorship, and performative alignment, or active resistance, including micro-resistance, peer networking, and occasional counterproductive tactics when formal avenues were blocked. The consequences span multiple levels: individually, employees experience hopelessness, burnout, and career stagnation; organizationally, silence fosters ritualism, reduced collaboration, poor decision-making, and lower productivity; societally, it contributes to moral decline and weakened institutional trust. Overall, organizational silence emerges as a collective phenomenon shaped by the interaction of personal dispositions, cultural norms, and structural constraints, producing cascading negative effects across micro, meso, and macro levels.
4. Conclusion
The study demonstrates that organizational silence in Qom’s educational sector is a culturally and institutionally constructed phenomenon amplified by bureaucratic hierarchy, authoritarian leadership, and deficient communicative infrastructures. Antecedents span individual dispositions, silence-centered socialization, perceived insecurity, and injustice; yet silence often operates as a rational coping strategy to manage risks in constrained settings. Drawing on interactionist and power/helplessness perspectives, the analysis locates silence in everyday role expectations, surveillance, and unequal access to decision-making.
Mitigation requires rebuilding communicative spaces, cultivating voice-supportive cultures (psychological safety, recognition, and fair appraisal), and structural reforms that decentralize authority and institutionalize inclusive participation. Such interventions can shift the system from silence and defensive compliance toward active professional agency and collaborative problem-solving.
تبلیغات
