The Sound of Silence: Examining the Mediating Roles of Management Support and Interpersonal Trust on Organizational Commitment in Greek Higher Education Institutions

The Sound of Silence: Examining the Mediating Roles of Management Support and Interpersonal Trust on Organizational Commitment in Greek Higher Education Institutions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Sound of Silence: Examining the Mediating Roles of Management Support and Interpersonal Trust on Organizational Commitment in Greek Higher Education Institutions Fotis Panagiotounis, Anna Saiti This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8853984/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) operate within an increasingly complex administrative environment, where the management of human capital is vital for institutional innovation. Grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET), this study examines the associations between three dimensions of organizational silence—acquiescent, defensive, and prosocial—and the organizational commitment of administrative staff. Utilizing a quantitative, cross-sectional design with 314 administrative personnel from Greek HEIs, the research employs Hayes’s PROCESS macro to explore the mediating roles of management support and interpersonal trust. The results reveal that acquiescent and defensive silence act as 'devaluators' of social exchange. These forms of silence significantly correlate with diminished commitment, primarily through the erosion of trust and perceived support. In contrast, prosocial silence appears to be a proactive manifestation of institutional loyalty, exhibiting a direct positive association with commitment that remains stable regardless of trust levels. The study identifies a "recognition gap," where altruistic reticence remains invisible within the reciprocal exchange cycle. Practically, the findings suggest that HEI leadership should prioritize cultivating psychological safety and visible support. By addressing these communicative barriers, institutions may better acknowledge "silent loyalists" and foster an environment where a productive voice replaces strategic withdrawal, thereby sustaining long-term organizational dedication. Management Organizational Silence Social Exchange Theory Higher Education Management Interpersonal Trust Organizational Commitment Administrative Staff Introduction Public Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are currently navigating a landscape defined by escalating administrative complexity, stringent regulatory frameworks, and heightened demands for public accountability. In these knowledge-intensive environments, effective management of human capital is paramount for maintaining service quality and driving institutional innovation (Farooq & Vij, 2019). Specifically, the willingness of administrative staff—the functional backbone of academic operations—to share information, voice concerns, and engage in decision-making is a critical resource (Morrison, 2023). The escalating administrative complexity and demands for accountability within HEIs underscore the critical importance of human capital management. Within this intricate environment, the dynamics of knowledge exchange are profoundly shaped by underlying social and motivational frameworks, notably the Social Exchange Theory (SET). SET posits that organizational relationships are governed by a series of interactions that generate reciprocal obligations; when employees perceive that their organization values their contribution and well-being, they feel a felt obligation to "repay" the institution with positive work attitudes and behaviors (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). As opposed to that, when this exchange is perceived as imbalanced, employees may withdraw their intellectual contributions or engage in silence as a response to perceived manipulation or systemic inefficiencies (Kmieciak, 2021) Despite the recognized importance of knowledge sharing for innovation in HEIs, a pervasive counter-phenomenon, organizational silence, significantly impedes institutional efficacy (Milliken et al., 2003). While organizational silence has been linked to detrimental outcomes like diminished organizational commitment, empirical research remains fragmented, particularly regarding the nuanced interplay of its multidimensional forms (Van Dyne et al., 2003) and commitment within the under-researched context of Southern European public administration. Furthermore, the mechanisms through which silence impacts commitment, especially the roles of management support and interpersonal trust, are not fully understood, creating a critical gap in our knowledge regarding how HEIs can foster dedication amidst communicative challenges. Crucially, employee attitudes do not develop in isolation. Organizational context, particularly the quality of internal relationships, plays a decisive role in shaping how employees interpret and respond to silence-inducing conditions. While previous research has focused on direct effects, this study introduces Management Support and Interpersonal Trust as vital boundary conditions. Management support, defined as perceptions of managerial openness and fairness, provides the psychological safety necessary to mitigate the alienation caused by silence. Complementing this, interpersonal trust—the confidence in the reliability and integrity of colleagues and supervisors—functions as the "social glue" of the institution. In high-trust contexts, employees tend to interpret institutional practices more favorably and engage in collaborative exchanges, even when formal communication channels are strained (Kmieciak, 2021). This study aimed to investigate the complex interplay between multidimensional organizational silence—acquiescent, defensive, and prosocial—and organizational commitment among administrative staff within Greek HEIs. Grounded in SET, this study conceptualizes administrative silence as a strategic response to perceived imbalances in the reciprocal obligations between the individual and the institution. The study’s primary theoretical contribution lies in moving beyond traditional linear correlations to explore the relational configurations that sustain or erode these institutional bonds. While previous literature has largely focused on the direct negative outcomes of silence, this study introduces Interpersonal Trust and Management Support as critical mediating variables. By analyzing these factors, this study identifies the "social glue" and "relational credit" necessary to buffer the individual-organizational bond against the pressures of bureaucratic rigidity. Additionally, it is among the first to apply a complex mediation framework to the specific population of public sector HEIs, where high job security often coexists with significant hierarchical barriers to effective communication. Beyond its theoretical scope, this study offers actionable insights into institutional leadership. By framing silence as a "currency of exchange," the study provides a diagnostic map for public university administrators to identify where the "reciprocity cycle" has broken down. The findings aim to guide the development of leadership interventions that prioritize psychological safety and institutional integrity. By understanding the mechanisms through which trust and support mitigate the deleterious effects of silence, public HEIs leaders can implement targeted strategies to transform a culture of strategic withdrawal into one of proactive engagement, thereby fostering institutional innovation and administrative stability. Theoretical Background Social Exchange Theory (SET) posits that organizational behavior is governed by a series of interactions that generate obligations and are contingent upon the actions of others (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Central to this framework is the norm of reciprocity, which suggests that individuals engage in social investments, such as knowledge sharing, when they anticipate equitable future returns and maintain high levels of trust in their exchange partners. Knowledge is viewed as a valuable, intangible strategic resource; thus, its exchange is a voluntary act guided by a cost-benefit analysis in which employees weigh the effort of sharing against social or material rewards (Kmieciak, 2021). From this perspective, employee silence is conceptualized not as a passive absence of speech but as a proactive, intentional withholding of ideas or concerns critical to institutional functioning (Morrison, 2023; Van Dyne et al., 2003). While proactive voice behavior serves as a catalyst for professional visibility and institutional growth, the decision to remain silent represents a strategic choice to withhold intellectual capital (Milliken et al., 2003). From the SET perspective, silence signifies failure in the exchange process. When employees perceive their contributions as unwelcome or futile, the "reciprocity loop" is severed, and their willingness to invest further effort in the organization diminishes (Hislop, 2003). When silence becomes normative, it crystallizes into a silence climate—a collective perception that communication is either futile or professionally hazardous. For knowledge-intensive sectors like Higher Education, this acts as a "stagnation trap," leading to flawed decision-making and an inability to identify systemic problems (Fard & Karimi, 2015; Kim & Wang, 2024). This climate informs employees’ cost-benefit appraisal: if the perceived "cost" of speaking outweighs the "benefit,” the employee will logically opt for reticence to protect their personal resources. Such a climate, by disrupting social exchanges, inevitably extends its ramifications to the psychological well-being of the workforce. Withholding information often induces cognitive dissonance, creating internal tension between observed organizational issues and the forced suppression of feedback. This psychological strain frequently manifests emotional exhaustion, burnout, and depersonalization (Sherf et al., 2021). Complementarily, because SET relies on the "psychological bond" between the individual and the institution, a climate of silence directly erodes organizational commitment. Environments that stifle expression are negatively correlated with job well-being, psychological safety and perceived organizational support (Schulman, 2020; Knoll & Van Dick, 2013). As trust is compromised by a lack of communicative transparency, the employee-institution relationship shifts from a relational exchange to a transactional oneor breaks down entirely (Panahi et al., 2012). This fosters a self-reinforcing cycle of disengagement and apathy, conclusively undermining an organization’s long-term adaptability and capacity for innovation. Scholarly consensus identifies silence not as a monolithic state but as a multifaceted construct driven by divergent motivational bases (Detert & Edmondson, 2011). A pivotal contribution to this reconceptualization is the framework proposed by Van Dyne et al. (2003), which differentiates silence based on employees’ underlying intent. This multidimensional perspective is essential for understanding how different "currencies" of social exchanges, such as trust, fear, or resignation, influence an individual's decision to withhold information. Acquiescent silence is conceptualized as the intentional withholding of critical ideas, suggestions, or information, rooted in a pervasive sense of resignation and diminished self-efficacy (Morrison, 2023; Pinder & Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Unlike proactive or defensive forms of reticence, acquiescent silence signifies a state of "psychological withdrawal," wherein employees cease attempting to contribute to the organization owing to the perceived futility of their input. This behavior is most prevalent in rigid, "top-down" bureaucratic structures, where institutional norms reinforce the belief that employee agency is incapable of catalyzing meaningful change (Dedahanov et al., 2015). The psychological underpinnings of this silence suggest emotional detachment, which exacts a significant affective toll. When individuals are embedded in environments that mandate or normalize acquiescent silence, they frequently experience discrete negative emotions such as anger and chronic anxiety (Kirrane et al., 2017). This internal disharmony fundamentally undermines organizational commitment, which is the essential psychological bond between the employee and the institution. Research suggests that this relationship is often mediated by psychological empowerment; as silence becomes a normative response, the "hearted connection," or affective commitment, is the primary structural link to dissolve (Tourigny et al., 2013). Within the specific context of HEIs, rigid hierarchies and bureaucratic barriers are often interpreted by staff as a lack of organizational investment in their professional wellbeing. This dynamic is best understood through the lens of SET, which posits that organizational life is governed by a series of reciprocal interactions. Under SET, the employment relationship thrives on the principle of reciprocity; when employees perceive that the institution values their voice, they reciprocate with commitment and proactive behaviors. Conversely, if employees perceive that the institution does not value their input or intellectual agency, they "balance" the exchange by withholding their intellectual capital. In this state of perceived imbalance, acquiescent silence serves as a mechanism for employees to reduce their personal investment in environments that offer low relational returns. Consequently, as staff perceive their voices as irrelevant and their alignment with strategic objectives dissolves, institutional dedication declines. Based on these theoretical foundations, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Acquiescent silence is negatively related to organizational commitment. Defensive silence is conceptualized as a proactive and strategic behavior driven primarily by self-protection and avoidance of interpersonal or professional repercussions (Knoll & Van Dick, 2013). Unlike acquiescent silence, which stems from a resigned sense of futility, defensive silence represents an intentional withholding of relevant information rooted in fear and a calculated need for self-preservation (Baran & Giderler, 2017). In light of this, employees perform a risk-benefit appraisal of "voice" and conclude that silence is the most viable strategy to mitigate professional threats. The psychological mechanism underlying defensive silence is frequently triggered by environmental stressors such as authoritarian leadership, which fosters a climate of fear. Guo et al. (2018) demonstrated that fear and defensive silence function as sequential mediators that suppress employee creativity, particularly when individuals perceive a high degree of psychological risk. Within the framework of SET, this behavior signifies a breakdown in the "psychological contract,” the unwritten set of expectations regarding mutual obligations between employer and employee. When the organization is perceived as a source of threat rather than a source of support, social exchange shifts from a relational to a defensive orientation. Operating within such a climate requires a constant state of vigilance that consumes significant cognitive and emotional resources. This resource depletion leads to an erosion of organizational commitment as a direct consequence of the defensive posture. Because defensive silence is predicated on mistrust and the anticipation of negative outcomes, it violates the SET principle of reciprocity: employees no longer feel safe to offer their intellectual capital in exchange for institutional membership. Neves and Caetano (2009) posit that fear becomes the primary driver of behavior, and the affective bond with the institution is severed and replaced by emotional withdrawal. When employees feel compelled to prioritize self-protection over organizational contribution, their long-term identification with and loyalty to the institution inevitably decline. Drawing on these theoretical underpinnings, we propose the following: Hypothesis 2: Defensive silence is negatively related to organizational commitment. Unlike forms of silence driven by fear or resignation, prosocial silence is the intentional withholding of work-related ideas, information, or opinions for the perceived benefit of colleagues or the organization (Van Dyne et al., 2003). This behavior is fundamentally grounded in cooperative motives and concerns for collective well-being rather than individual self-preservation. Under these circumstances, silence is an intentional act of service; employees engage in this reticence out of a strong sense of responsibility, aiming to protect organizational reputation or peer relationships from potential harm (Knoll & van Dick, 2013; Hess et al., 2019). Because this behavior is motivated by altruism, it signifies a high degree of psychological alignment with the institution’s interests. However, despite its positive intentions, this altruistic reticence introduces significant institutional risks. The repetitive adoption of prosocial silence can inadvertently constrict the flow of critical information, diminish transparency, and obstruct timely identification of systemic issues (Bolino & Grant, 2016). In the long term, the institutionalization of such behavior may contribute to the concealment of operational dysfunctions and degrade the quality of feedback provided to management. Subsequently, while rooted in loyalty, this practice can undermine organizational learning and stifle the institution’s innovative capacity (Nechanska et al., 2020). The relationship between prosocial silence and organizational commitment is reinforced by the strategic and loyalist nature of this behavior. Nechanska et al. (2020) suggest that such silence is not an act of disengagement but rather a manifestation of loyalty in which employees prioritize long-term institutional stability over immediate disclosure. While this may inadvertently mask systemic inefficiencies, it coexists with—and often reinforces—the employee's identification with the institution. When employees perceive their silence as a contribution to organizational stability, it functions as a behavioral expression of their commitment to the collective mission. This dynamic is strongly supported by the core tenets of the SET. Within a high-value exchange relationship, employees view their silence as a form of "repayment" for collective stability and institutional support (Kızrak & Yeloğlu, 2024). The rule of reciprocity, which ensures that current interpersonal investments yield future relational gains, is central to the SET. This represents a form of "conditional kindness," where the decision to withhold potentially disruptive information is made with the expectation that such protective behavior sustains a supportive and stable work environment (Caimo & Lomi, 2015). Within this framework, prosocial silence serves as a relational currency that maintains the equilibrium of the psychological contract. Consistent with the established theoretical framework, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: Prosocial silence is positively related to organizational commitment. Managerial communication serves as a fundamental mechanism for organizational stability and change, as sustained dialogue among organizational actors effectively reduces uncertainty and bolsters employee engagement (Aggerholm & Thomsen, 2020). Within this communicative framework, supervisory behavior is a proximate determinant of employee silence. Supervisors who are perceived as unreceptive, punitive, or dismissive cultivate an environment in which "speaking up" is viewed as either high-risk or futile. Such behaviors erode psychological safety—the belief that one can take interpersonal risks without fear of reprisal—thereby diminishing employees’ willingness to disclose concerns or contribute to organizational learning (Detert & Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 1999). In highly hierarchical organizations, such as public HEIs, supervisors exert a disproportionate influence on the normalization of communication practices. While formal structures—including regular meetings, suggestion systems, and open-door policies—provide the necessary channels for knowledge transfer, their efficacy is contingent on the perceived openness of leadership (Downe et al., 2016). Without genuine management support, these channels may be dismissed as merely symbolic and fail to facilitate an authentic voice. On the other hand, when management support is high, it legitimizes dialogue and reinforces the credibility of formal communication systems (Dedahanov et al., 2016). Management support, characterized by approachability and receptiveness, is a critical buffer in the employee-organization relationship. By signaling that employee contributions are valued, supportive leadership can mitigate the disengagement and erosion of loyalty that is typically associated with acquiescent silence (Kalogiannidis, 2020). When employees feel supported, the negative impact of a silent environment on their psychological bond with the institution is reduced. In this capacity, management support does not merely encourage employees to speak up; it alters the strength and direction of the relationship between the prevailing silence and the resulting levels of organizational dedication. Therefore, we propose: Hypothesis 4: Management support moderates the relationship between organizational silence and commitment. Trust within the organizational milieu is a multidimensional construct encompassing an individual’s confidence in coworkers, immediate supervisors, senior management, and the institution (Yeboah, 2023). Beyond its ethical implications, trust serves as a structural pillar that dictates the prevalence of organizational silence. Empirical evidence suggests that the level of trust an employee places in management is a primary predictor of whether critical information is shared or withheld (Fard & Karimi, 2015; Shojaie et al., 2011). While systematic organizational recognition acts as a catalyst for the employee voice, a lack of trust—often manifested as a fear of negative repercussions, such as job insecurity—functions as a potent deterrent (Baran & Giderler, 2017). Trust-based management systems are essential for aligning individual efforts with strategic institutional objectives, as they foster cooperative environments (Galford & Drapeau, 2003; Newman et al., 2016). Central to this dynamic is the concept of psychological safety; high interpersonal trust lowers the perceived risks associated with speaking up while simultaneously heightening the perceived utility of knowledge sharing (Edmondson, 1999; Kmieciak, 2021). With this knowledge, trust in procedures and overarching cultural norms determines the extent to which employees feel empowered to challenge the status quo or provide constructive feedback. The influence of trust extends beyond its role as a direct antecedent of voice; it functions as a critical boundary condition that moderates the relationship between silence and employees’ attitudes. Interpersonal trust acts as a "relational lubricant" capable of buffering the deleterious effects of silence on organizational commitment. In high-trust environments, even when employees remain reticent, whether for prosocial or strategic reasons, their psychological bond to the institution may remain intact due to a fundamental belief in the integrity and goodwill of their supervisors and peers (Byrne & Hochwarter, 2008). In contrast, in low-trust contexts, silence is frequently filtered through a lens of suspicion, which accelerates the erosion of commitment and exacerbates the negative psychological consequences of withholding information. Because the strength of the relationship between the dimensions of silence and organizational commitment is contingent upon the quality of the interpersonal networks within the staff, we propose the following: Hypothesis 5: Interpersonal trust moderates the relationship between silence dimensions and organizational commitment. Methods Study Context This study focuses on administrative staff within Greek HEIs, a sector characterized by significant structural and operational complexities. Public-sector organizations in Greece are frequently characterized by a strong hierarchical culture and rigid bureaucratic procedures, which can create substantial barriers to open communication within the institution. These characteristics, combined with overlapping responsibilities and multilevel governance, contribute to a complex environment in which the decision to share or withhold information is highly sensitive to external conditions. Specifically, the bureaucratic nature of Greek HEIs suggests that administrative staff may perceive high risks in challenging the status quo, potentially leading to a climate in which organizational silence—the intentional withholding of information—becomes a standard coping mechanism for navigating systemic inefficiencies. From this perspective, certain relational variables are critical to institutional functioning. Trust and management support serve as primary determinants of whether employees feel empowered to provide feedback or choose to remain silent. By examining these environmental factors, this study seeks to investigate how they influence the relationship between different dimensions of silence and organizational commitment among administrative personnel. Research Design This study utilized a quantitative, cross-sectional design to investigate the relationship between various dimensions of organizational silence and organizational commitment among administrative staff in Greek HEIs. The methodology specifically examines the mediating roles of trust and support from managers. The target population consisted of administrative staff working across various Greek HEIs, utilizing a random sampling approach to ensure the selection of a diverse and representative sample of the Greek academic administrative sector. Prior to commencement, ethical approval was obtained from the University of West Attica, and all participants were required to provide electronic informed consent before accessing the survey. Data were collected through an anonymous online survey distributed via institutional email. To ensure the validity and reliability of the findings and to mitigate social desirability bias—which is particularly sensitive in a hierarchical bureaucratic environment—no personally identifiable information was gathered, and strict confidentiality was maintained throughout the research process. Sample The sample included 314 administrative staff members from Greek HEIs, characterized by a significant female majority (81.2%) and an experienced workforce with a mean age of 48.8 years. Participants demonstrated high professional stability, averaging 24.06 years of tenure, with 29.6% holding positions of responsibility and 70.4% in non-supervisory roles. Table 1. Sample Demographics Variable n % M/SD Gender at Birth Male 59 18.2 Female 255 81.2 Total 314 Age 48.8/7.17 Work tenure 24.06/7.27 Supervisor Yes 93 29.6 No 221 70.4 Measures Data were collected using a structured questionnaire that comprised validated scales. All items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to capture the intensity of the respondents' attitudes and perceptions. Organizational Silence . Academic silence was measured using an adapted 15-item version of the Organizational Silence Scale (OSS) (Van Dyne et al., 2003). The original OSS comprises three sub-dimensions: Acquiescent Silence, reflecting the withholding of ideas due to perceived low self-efficacy; Defensive Silence, capturing the tendency to remain silent out of fear of negative consequences; and Prosocial Silence, referring to intentionally withholding information to protect colleagues or the organization. Higher scores indicate stronger tendencies toward employee silence, consistent with prior research treating silence as a generalized behavioral construct. Organizational commitment was measured using nine items adapted from Cook and Wall (1980) and aggregated into a composite score on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items include, “ I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for” and “I feel myself to be part of the University/faculty .” Higher scores indicate stronger perceptions of organizational commitment. Interpersonal trust was measured using 12 items adapted and reworded from Cook and Wall’s (1980) Interpersonal Trust at Work Scale and aggregated into a composite score on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items include, “I can rely on my colleagues to support me when I need help with academic tasks,” and “University/faculty management can be trusted to make sensible decisions.” Higher scores indicate stronger perceptions of integrity, reliability, and openness among the colleagues and university leadership . Management support was measured using seven items adapted from Lu et al. (2006) Attitude of Management Scale and aggregated into a composite score on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items include, “My manager always behaves as a good example in sharing his knowledge to others.,” and “My manager tells us how to share my personal knowledge within the institution.” Results The internal consistency of the measurement scales was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha (α), with all scales demonstrating satisfactory to excellent reliability, ranging from .78 to .94. Participants reported the highest mean scores for Prosocial Silence and Organizational Commitment, while Defensive Silence and Acquiescent Silence yielded the lowest mean scores. Management support and interpersonal trust were reported at moderate to high levels. As hypothesized, Organizational Commitment was significantly and negatively correlated with Acquiescent Silence and Defensive Silence, whereas it showed a significant positive correlation with Prosocial Silence. Interpersonal Trust and Management Support were strongly and positively correlated with each other and with organizational commitment. Furthermore, both interpersonal trust and management support exhibited significant negative correlations with the more detrimental forms of silence, specifically, acquiescent and defensive silence. These findings suggest that while altruistic silence aligns with commitment, fear-based or resigned silence significantly erodes the psychological bond between employees and the institution. Table 2. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability Variables α M /SD 1 2 3 4 5 1 Acquiescent Silence ( AS) .93 2.99/1.43 2 Defensive Silence (DS) .87 2.65/1.25 .606** 3 Prosocial Silence (PS) .91 5.44/1.42 .147** .063 4 Organizational commitment .78 5.29/.99 -.328** -.465** .288** 5 Interpersonal trust .88 4.64/1.04 -.433** -.381** .021 .616** 6 Management support .94 4.76/1.59 -.464** -.377** .000 .459** .681** **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). To examine the relationships between the dimensions of organizational silence (X), mediators (M; management support and interpersonal trust), and organizational commitment (Y), a series of mediation analyses were conducted using Hayes’s (2022) PROCESS macro (Model 4). These analyses utilized 5,000 bootstrap samples to assess indirect associations, focusing on predictive correlations rather than definitive causality. For management support, analyses indicated that both acquiescent and defensive silence were significantly and negatively associated with perceived support from management. Management support was a significant positive predictor of commitment. In both models, the indirect effects were significant, and the direct effects remained statistically significant, suggesting that management support partially mediates these relationships. Conversely, prosocial silence did not significantly correlate with management support, and no mediation was observed; prosocial silence was only directly and positively associated with organizational commitment. Regarding interpersonal trust, the results revealed a full mediating effect of acquiescent silence. Acquiescent silence was a significant negative predictor of trust, which subsequently predicted organizational commitment. Upon the inclusion of trust, the baseline association between acquiescent silence and commitment became non-significant, suggesting that the negative link to commitment is channeled through trust erosion. For defensive silence, trust acted as a partial mediator, and the negative association between defensive silence and commitment remained significant even when controlling for trust. Finally, trust did not mediate the relationship between prosocial silence and commitment. While both prosocial silence and trust independently and positively predicted commitment, there was no significant correlation between them, indicating that prosocial silence may directly enhance dedication as an act of loyalty. Table 3 . Mediation Results for Dimensions of Silence on Organizational Commitment via Management Support Silence Dimension Path Predictor → Outcome β SE t 95% CI Conclusion Acquiescent a AS → MangSup -.51 .05 -9.07** [-.62, -.40] Partial mediation b MangSup → OCom .24 .03 6.82** [.17, .31] c′ AS → OCom -.10 .03 -2.53* [-.17, -.02] a x b AS → MangSup → OCom -.12 .02 — [-.17, -.08] c AS → OCom -.18 .03 — [-.24, -.11] Defensive a DS → MangSup -.47 .06 -7.02** [-.6, -.34] Partial mediation b MangSup → OCom .19 .03 6.08** [.13, .26] c′ DS → OCom -.27 .04 -6.63** [-.35, -.19] a x b DS → MangSup → OCom -.09 .02 — [-.13, .05] c DS → OCom -.12 .02 — [-.17, -.07] Prosocial a PS → MangSup -.000 .06 -.005 [-.12, .12] No Mediation b MangSup → OCom .29 .03 9.66** [.23, .35] c′ PS → OCom .2 .03 5.99** [.13, .27] a x b PS → MangSup → OCom .000 .02 — [-.04, .04] c PS → OCom -.000 .03 — [-.06, .06] *p < .05, **p < .001 Table 4. Mediation Results for Dimensions of Silence on Organizational Commitment via Trust Silence Dimension Path Predictor → Outcome β SE t 95% CI Conclusion Acquiescent a AS → Trust -.32 .04 -8.38** [-.39, -.24] Full mediation b Trust → OCom .56 .05 11.73** [.46, .65] c′ AS → OCom -.05 .03 -1.36 [-.12, .02] a x b AS → Trust → OCom -.18 .03 — [-.23, -.13] c AS → OCom -.22 .03 — [-.3, -.15] Defensive a DS → Trust -.31 .04 -7.16** [-.4, -.23] Partial mediation b Trust → OCom .49 .05 10.81** [.4, .58] c′ DS → OCom -.21 .04 -5.70** [-.28, -.14] a x b DS → Trust → OCom -.15 .03 — [-.21, .1] c DS → OCom -.36 .04 — [-.44, -.28] Prosocial a PS → Trust -.01 .04 .036 [-.06, .09] No Mediation b Trust → OCom .58 .43 14.377** [.5, .66] c′ PS → OCom .19 .03 6.437** [.13, .24] a x b PS → Trust → OCom .009 .02 — [-.04, .06] c PS → OCom .01 .02 — [-.06, .08] *p < .05, **p < .001 Discussion This study uses a quantitative, cross-sectional design to examine the communicative and relational dynamics within the administrative workforce of Greek HEIs. A defining characteristic of this sample is its demographic stability, which reflects a highly experienced workforce with significant institutional tenure. This professional longevity is essential for investigating organizational commitment, as it provides a robust lens through which to observe the cumulative effects of silence over extended career trajectories (Howell et al., 2015). The results of this study indicate that organizational silence is closely associated with a disruption in the reciprocal exchange between administrative staff and Greek HEIs. Grounded in SET, these associations suggest that silence acts as a critical currency—or devaluator—within institutional social exchanges. By examining both the "negative" dimensions and the "positive" dimensions, this study illustrates how communicative reticence is woven into the fabric of organizational behavior. Importantly, while these variables demonstrate strong statistical pathways, the following discussion interprets these relationships as evidence of theoretical fit and relational interconnectivity rather than absolute causality, reflecting the cross-sectional nature of the data. A pivotal finding of this study is the full mediation of interpersonal trust in the relationship between acquiescent silence and organizational commitment. This suggests a robust theoretical alignment, where, in the presence of perceived futility, the decline in commitment is statistically explained by the erosion of trust in institutional integrity (Zhao et al., 2019). The data indicate that withholding ideas due to resignation does not merely coexist with low commitment; rather, it is part of a relational configuration that dissolves the reciprocal trust essential for a functional psychological contract. Within the rigid hierarchies typical of Greek public universities, these power distances appear to function as significant barriers to expression, correlating with a state of "psychological withdrawal" that undermines the foundation of dedication. Administrative staff in lower tiers often report a lack of organizational "space" or authority to voice critical observations (Dedahanov et al., 2015). This lack of psychological safety (Kmieciak, 2021) is associated with superficial professional interactions. As trust serves as a fundamental mechanism for reducing perceived risk in social transactions (Chiu et al., 2006), its absence is strongly linked to a severed employee-organization bond. In this connection, acquiescent silence is not an isolated behavior but an indicator of a systemic breakdown in the exchange process, where the employee no longer views the institution as a reliable partner in the social contract. In contrast to acquiescence, interpersonal trust appears to be a partial mediator of defensive silence. This suggests that while trust explains a significant portion of the variance in commitment, defensive silence has a strong direct association with diminished loyalty. Because defensive silence is theoretically rooted in fear and self-protection, it may function as a barrier to exchanges that persist even when moderate trust levels are reported. Framed as a counterproductive work behavior governed by deficient organizational goals (Götz et al., 2020), defensive silence is associated with a corrosive feedback loop in the Greek HEI context. The data show that staff prioritize risk mitigation, suggesting that the structural "high-risk" nature of the hierarchy may keep defensive barriers intact regardless of relational trust, directly correlating with lower attachment to the institution. The analysis further demonstrates that management support partially mediates both silence dimensions. From a SET perspective, supportive leadership provides "relational credit" associated with a buffered transition from silence to disengagement. Leadership appears to act as an institutional guarantor (Sherf et al., 2021). When staff perceive supervisors as receptive, there is a corresponding increase in the psychological safety necessary to sustain social exchange (Semerci, 2019). This is particularly relevant in bureaucratic contexts, where supportive leadership may prevent the "misfit" with organizational identity that correlates with knowledge hiding (Zhao et al., 2019). By signaling that employees’ voices are valued, management can mitigate the associative link between hierarchical pressure and psychological withdrawal (Sun, 2021). In stark contrast to the deleterious forms of silence, prosocial silence directly and positively associates with organizational commitment, with no significant mediation observed through interpersonal trust or management support. This finding suggests that prosocial silence—the deliberate withholding of information to protect colleagues or the institution—functions as a proactive manifestation of institutional loyalty, rather than a reactive response to the organizational climate. Within the SET framework, this significant direct association confirms that administrative staff associate withholding information for the collective benefit as an act of service. Prosocial silence is grounded in genuine altruism and the desire to shield others from negative consequences, disruption, or unfair sanctions (Hawass, 2016). Modern scholarship frames this behavior as a deliberate and altruistic decision aimed at maintaining organizational harmony and reinforcing social bonds (Bolino & Grant, 2016; Morrison, 2023). The near-zero correlation with interpersonal trust and the lack of mediation via management support indicate that staff engage in prosocial silence as a "pro-social duty" toward the collective mission. This behavior appears to be an internalized manifestation of high organizational identification (Kim & Wang, 2024) and remains stable regardless of the perceived quality of current managerial support or relational trust. A compelling insight from this research is the identification of a "recognition gap" within the social exchange process of Greek HEIs. While administrative staff often perceive their strategic reticence as a high-value contribution to institutional stability (Nechanska et al., 2020), this behavior remains invisible to management. According to the SET, high-value contributions typically trigger a reciprocal increase in organizational investment. However, because prosocial silence is a "non-event" (Rhee et al., 2014), it fails to activate the expected cycle of reciprocity. Unlike overt participation or "voice," which are visible and rewardable, prosocial silence performs as a "silent service" that management often overlooks. Crucially, the study suggests that rather than being causal prerequisites for one another, prosocial silence and commitment emerge from a shared psychological root: identification with the institution's mission. Within the bureaucratic culture of Greek HEIs, prosocial silence appears to function as a stable "loyalist" trait, persisting independently of immediate relational fluctuations. This altruistic reticence is most prevalent among staff who are deeply integrated into institutional networks and share task strategies (Hawass, 2016). Within this framework, silence is not a withdrawal but a sophisticated interpersonal tool used by those most invested in the institution to preserve group harmony and shield colleagues from unnecessary disruption or "unjust" repercussions (Wen et al., 2025). In conclusion, these findings suggest that in high-security but high-hierarchy environments, silence is a complex regulator of social exchange. This aligns with previous research suggesting that silence is woven into the fabric of organizational behavior (Efthymiopoulos et al., 2024; Gambarotto & Cammozzo, 2010). While negative forms of silence signal a breakdown in the reciprocal bond, prosocial silence maintains institutional continuity behind the scenes. Recognizing these associative patterns allows for a more nuanced understanding of administrative commitment, highlighting that the stability of Greek HEIs relies not only on what is said but increasingly on the strategic and protective nature of what is left unsaid. Practical Implications The study’s findings suggest that institutional leaders must move beyond simply encouraging "voice" and focus on repairing the underlying exchange relationships that sustain silence. Since trust fully mediates the impact of acquiescent silence on commitment, managers cannot rely on structural changes alone. Building trust requires "high-visibility" managerial support—actions that signal institutional investment in employee input. When employees perceive a lack of reciprocity, they default to silence to balance the exchanges. To counter this, HEIs should implement feedback loops in which the "benefit of voice" is clearly demonstrated through tangible institutional changes, thereby rebuilding the perceived value of social exchange. Given that defensive silence operates through a "dual path" of direct fear and trust degradation, leadership must prioritize psychological safety. Reducing the perceived risk of speaking up is essential to stop the corrosive feedback loop that consumes employees' cognitive resources. This can be achieved through anonymous reporting channels or "blame-free" post-mortems of institutional projects, which decouple the person from the problem and lower the professional threat associated with disclosure. A critical discovery in this study is the recognition gap regarding prosocial silence. Because prosocial silence has a significant direct link to commitment but is invisible to management support channels, "silent loyalists" may feel unappreciated despite their protective efforts. Leaders should foster a culture where the value of strategic discretion is acknowledged and the "burden of silence" is eased. By creating transparent communication norms, organizations can ensure that employees do not feel they must choose between protecting and improving the institution. Finally, the results highlight that the dimensions of silence are not uniform in their origins. While negative silence is a reaction to perceived relational failure, prosocial silence is a duty-bound choice. Therefore, shifting from a silent climate to a voice climate requires a multi-pronged approach: eliminating the bureaucratic rigidity that fosters acquiescence, removing the fear that drives defensive withholding, and providing healthy outlets for the altruism that currently manifests as prosocial silence. Limitation and Future Direction This study has several limitations, which provide avenues for future research. First, the cross-sectional design precludes definitive causal inference. While grounded in SET, the observed relationships identify predictive correlations rather than temporal precedence. Future research should employ longitudinal or experimental frameworks to confirm the directional flow from silence dimensions to commitment. Second, the demographic composition of the sample features a gender imbalance, with an overrepresentation of female participants. Although this may reflect the specific administrative structures of the Greek HEIs surveyed, gender-related differences in communication styles and psychological safety perceptions may have introduced response bias. Future studies should utilize stratified sampling to examine gender as a potential moderator of the silence-commitment nexus (Howell et al., 2015). Third, the contextual scope is limited to the Greek academic sector only. While the findings regarding the "trust erosion" of acquiescent silence remain highly relevant due to the universal structural characteristics of academia—such as rigid hierarchies and academic autonomy—comparative cross-national studies are necessary to ensure global generalizability. Finally, reliance on self-reported data may introduce a common method bias. Although statistical remedies were applied, the subjective nature of silence behavior reporting remains a constraint. Future research should incorporate multi-source data, such as supervisor evaluations or objective behavioral indicators of institutional participation, to provide a more robust and holistic assessment of the silence-commitment dynamic. Conclusion This study establishes employee silence as a critical barometer of social exchange equilibrium in the academic environment. The findings reveal that silence is not a monolithic construct but a multifaceted communicative choice that reflects the strength of the psychological bond between administrative staff and their institutions. In the hierarchical context of Greek HEIs, understanding these dynamics is essential for identifying the relational factors associated with a committed and engaged workforce. The results demonstrate a clear bifurcation in the relationship between various forms of communicative reticence and organizational commitment. Rather than implying a unidirectional causal sequence, these behaviors are interpreted as part of a broader, self-reinforcing cycle of strategic intellectual withdrawal in response to perceived institutional failure. Specifically, this study offers a robust theoretical map of the interconnectivity between silence, trust, and management support. In the Greek public sector, silence is statistically linked to a deficit in vital feedback loops, a state that potentially hinders innovation. Although the cross-sectional design precludes definitive claims of absolute causality, the strong alignment between the observed data and Social Exchange Theory confirms a high degree of theoretical fit. In conclusion, this research provides a validated framework for understanding how silence serves as a relational currency within public higher education, signifying either a rupture in the psychological contract or an invisible manifestation of institutional loyalty. References Aggerholm, H.K. & Thomsen, C. (2020). Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations, In The Handbook of Public Sector Communication (eds V. Luoma-aho and M.-J. Canel). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119263203.ch13 Baran, H., & Giderler, C. (2017) ‘A study on determining the influence of organizational identification on organizational justice and organizational silence’, International Journal of Asian Social Science, 7 (3), pp. 242-258. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1/2017.7.3/1.3.242.258 Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological inquiry , 34 (2). Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 10 (1), 599–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1153260 Byrne, Z. S., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Perceived organizational support and performance: Relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810849666 Caimo, A., & Lomi, A. (2015). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A Bayesian analysis of the role of reciprocity and formal structure. Journal of Management , 41 (2), 665–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314552192 Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems , 42 (3), 1872–1888. Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980). New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational Commitment and Personal Need Non-Fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 53, 39-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Dedahanov, A. T., Kim, C., & Rhee, J. (2015). Centralization and communication opportunities as predictors of acquiescent or prosocial silence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43 (3), pp. 481-492. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.3.481 Dedahanov, A. T., Lee, D. H., & Rhee, J. (2016). Silence as a mediator between organizational factors and stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31 (8), pp. 1251-1264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2015-0250 Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (4), pp. 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183 Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work’, Academy of Management Journal, 54 (3), pp. 461–488. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61967925 Downe, J., Cowell, R. and Morgan, K. (2016). What Determines Ethical Behavior in Public Organizations: Is It Rules or Leadership?. Public Admin Rev, 76: 898-909. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12562 Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), pp. 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 Efthymiopoulos, A., Goula, A., & Psychogios, A. (2024). Organizational silence and organizational commitment: empirical evidence from the Greek public sector. Journal of Applied Social Science , 18(3), 346-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/19367244241263576 Fard, P. G., & Karimi, F. (2015). The relationship between organizational trust and organizational silence with job satisfaction and organizational commitment of the employees of university. International Education Studies, 8(11), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n11p219 Farooq, R., & Vij, S. (2019). Does market orientation mediate between knowledge management orientation and business performance?. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 18 (4), pp. 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649219500394 Galford, R., & Drapeau, A. S. (2003). The enemies of trust. Harvard Business Review , 81 (2), 88-95. PMID: 12577656. Gambarotto, F., & Cammozzo, A. (2010). Dreams of silence: Employee voice and innovation in a public sector community of practice. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 12 (2), 166-179. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.12.2.166 Götz, M., Donzallaz, M., and Jonas, K. (2020). Leader–member exchange fosters beneficial and prevents detrimental workplace behavior: Organizational identification as the linking pin. Front. Psychol. 11:1788. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01788 Guo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., & Riisla, K. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive silence. Journal of Business Research, 92, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.034 Hawass, H.H. (2016). Examining the antecedents of prosocial silence: a relational perspective. Euromed Journal of Business, 11 , 248-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-07-2015-0031 Hess, M. F., Treviño, L. K., Chen, A., & Cross, R. (2019). Beyond silence or compliance: The complexities of reporting a friend for misconduct. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(4), pp. 546-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12238 Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda. Employee Relations, 25 (2), pp. 182-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450310456479 Howell, T. M., Harrison, D. A., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2015). Who gets credit for input? Demographic and structural status cues in voice recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (6), 1765–1784. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000025 Kalogiannidis, S. (2020). Impact of effective business communication on employee performance. European Journal of Business Management & Research, 5 (6). https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2020.5.6.631 Kim, H.S. & Wang, J. (2024). Silence in the workplace: what do we know from research?. European Journal of Training and Development , Vol. 48 No. 10 pp. 56–83, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2024-0077 Kirrane, M., O'Shea, D., Buckley, F., Grazi, A., & Prout, J. (2017). Investigating the role of discrete emotions in silence versus speaking up. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 90 (3), 354-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12175 Kızrak, M. & Yeloğlu, H., O. (2024). How can prosocial silence be golden? The roles of commitment to learning and organizational support. The Learning Organization: An International Journal , Vol. 31 No. 2 pp. 250–267, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-03-2023-0040 Kmieciak, R. (2021). Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior: Empirical evidence from Poland. European Journal of Innovation Management , 24(5), 1832–1859. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2020-0134 Knoll, M., & Van Dick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, pp. 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1308-4 Lu, L., Leung, K. and Koch, P.T. (2006), Managerial Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Individual, Interpersonal, and Organizational Factors. Management and Organization Review , 2: 15-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00029.x 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, pp. 1453-1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387 Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, pp . 173-197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328 Morrison, E. W. (2023). Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a decade later’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10 (1), pp. 79-107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654 Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 706-725. https://doi.org/10.2307/259200 Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 706-725. https://doi.org/10.2307/259200 Nechanska, E., Hughes, E., & Dundon, T. (2020). Towards an integration of employee voice and silence. Human Resource Management Review, 30 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.11.002 Neves, P., & Caetano, A. (2009). Commitment to Change: Contributions to Trust in the Supervisor and Work Outcomes. Group & Organization Management , 34 (6), 623-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601109350980 (Original work published 2009) Newman, A., Rose, P.S. and Teo, S.T.T. (2016), The Role of Participative Leadership and Trust-Based Mechanisms in Eliciting Intern Performance: Evidence from China. Hum Resour Manage, 55: 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21660 Panahi, B., Veiseh, S., Divkhar, S., & Kamari, F. (2012). An empirical analysis on influencing factors on organizational silence and its relationship with employees' organizational commitment. Management Science Letters, 2 (3), pp. 735-744. https://doi.org/ 10.5267/j.msl.2012.01.007 Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, pp. 331-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20007-3 Rhee, J., Dedahanov, A., & Lee, D. (2014). Relationships among power distance, collectivism, punishment, and acquiescent, defensive, or prosocial silence. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal , 42 (5), 705-720. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.705 Schulman, P. R. (2020). Organizational structure and safety culture: Conceptual and practical challenges. Safety Science, 126, 104669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104669 Semerci, A. B. (2019). Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values. Int. J. Confl. Manage. 31, 111–131. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2018-0044 Sherf, E. N., Gajendran, R. S., & Posner, B. Z. (2021). Seeking and finding justice: Why and when managers' feedback seeking enhances justice enactment. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 42 (6), 741-766. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2481 Sherf, E. N., Parke, M. R., & Isaakyan, S. (2021). Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological safety, and burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 64 (1), 114–148. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1428 Shojaie, S., Matin, H. Z., & Barani, G. (2011). Analyzing the infrastructures of organizational silence and ways to get rid of it. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 30 , 1731-1735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.334 Sun, S. (2021). The relationship between public service motivation and affective commitment in the public sector change: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 631948. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631948 Tourigny, L., Baba, V. V., Han, J., & Wang, X. (2013). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating role of organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 24 (3), 514–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.694109 Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), pp. 1359-1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384 Wen, S., Ji, W., Gao, D., Lu, X., Zhao, T., Gao, J., et al. (2025). Heeding the voices of nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis of organizational silence levels among clinical nurses. BMC Nurs. 24:552. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03138-1 Yeboah, A. (2023). Knowledge sharing in organization: A systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2195027 Zhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J., and Yu, X. (2019). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. J. Organ. Behav. 40, 834–848. doi: 10.1002/job.2359 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8853984","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":589759044,"identity":"84a0e782-5985-4b32-b1a9-a82622b9eb47","order_by":0,"name":"Fotis Panagiotounis","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fotis","middleName":"","lastName":"Panagiotounis","suffix":""},{"id":589759045,"identity":"24b96eec-fee3-4dd1-84b2-3fb284b71563","order_by":1,"name":"Anna Saiti","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anna","middleName":"","lastName":"Saiti","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-11 16:33:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8853984/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8853984/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102746380,"identity":"62062d07-f4b4-43f4-8b5c-e39b7e64b4aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 08:57:12","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":751841,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8853984/v1/4fbea9a9-9c10-40b4-b88c-f38fd6486742.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Sound of Silence: Examining the Mediating Roles of Management Support and Interpersonal Trust on Organizational Commitment in Greek Higher Education Institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePublic Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are currently navigating a landscape defined by escalating administrative complexity, stringent regulatory frameworks, and heightened demands for public accountability. In these knowledge-intensive environments, effective management of human capital is paramount for maintaining service quality and driving institutional innovation (Farooq \u0026amp; Vij, 2019). Specifically, the willingness of administrative staff\u0026mdash;the functional backbone of academic operations\u0026mdash;to share information, voice concerns, and engage in decision-making is a critical resource (Morrison, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe escalating administrative complexity and demands for accountability within HEIs underscore the critical importance of human capital management. Within this intricate environment, the dynamics of knowledge exchange are profoundly shaped by underlying social and motivational frameworks, notably the Social Exchange Theory (SET). SET posits that organizational relationships are governed by a series of interactions that generate reciprocal obligations; when employees perceive that their organization values their contribution and well-being, they feel a felt obligation to \u0026quot;repay\u0026quot; the institution with positive work attitudes and behaviors (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, 2005). As opposed to that, when this exchange is perceived as imbalanced, employees may withdraw their intellectual contributions or engage in silence as a response to perceived manipulation or systemic inefficiencies (Kmieciak, 2021)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the recognized importance of knowledge sharing for innovation in HEIs, a pervasive counter-phenomenon, organizational silence, significantly impedes institutional efficacy (Milliken et al., 2003). While organizational silence has been linked to detrimental outcomes like diminished organizational commitment, empirical research remains fragmented, particularly regarding the nuanced interplay of its multidimensional forms (Van Dyne et al., 2003) and commitment within the under-researched context of Southern European public administration. Furthermore, the mechanisms through which silence impacts commitment, especially the roles of management support and interpersonal trust, are not fully understood, creating a critical gap in our knowledge regarding how HEIs can foster dedication amidst communicative challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCrucially, employee attitudes do not develop in isolation. Organizational context, particularly the quality of internal relationships, plays a decisive role in shaping how employees interpret and respond to silence-inducing conditions. While previous research has focused on direct effects, this study introduces Management Support and Interpersonal Trust as vital boundary conditions. Management support, defined as perceptions of managerial openness and fairness, provides the psychological safety necessary to mitigate the alienation caused by silence. Complementing this, interpersonal trust\u0026mdash;the confidence in the reliability and integrity of colleagues and supervisors\u0026mdash;functions as the \u0026quot;social glue\u0026quot; of the institution. In high-trust contexts, employees tend to interpret institutional practices more favorably\u0026nbsp;and engage in collaborative exchanges, even when formal communication channels are strained (Kmieciak, 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to investigate the complex interplay between multidimensional organizational silence\u0026mdash;acquiescent, defensive, and prosocial\u0026mdash;and organizational commitment among administrative staff within Greek HEIs. Grounded in SET, this study conceptualizes administrative silence as a strategic response to perceived imbalances in the reciprocal obligations between the individual and the institution. The study\u0026rsquo;s primary theoretical contribution lies in moving beyond traditional linear correlations to explore the relational configurations that sustain or erode these\u0026nbsp;institutional bonds. While previous literature has largely focused on the direct negative outcomes of silence, this study introduces Interpersonal Trust and Management Support as critical mediating variables. By analyzing these factors, this study identifies the \u0026quot;social glue\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;relational credit\u0026quot; necessary to buffer the individual-organizational bond against the pressures of bureaucratic rigidity. Additionally, it is among the first to apply a complex mediation framework to the specific population of public sector HEIs, where high job security often coexists with significant hierarchical barriers to effective\u0026nbsp;communication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond its theoretical scope, this study offers actionable insights into institutional leadership. By framing silence as a \u0026quot;currency of exchange,\u0026quot; the study provides a diagnostic map for public university administrators to identify where the \u0026quot;reciprocity cycle\u0026quot; has broken down. The findings aim to guide the development of leadership interventions that prioritize psychological safety and institutional integrity. By understanding the mechanisms through which trust and support mitigate the deleterious effects of silence, public HEIs leaders can implement targeted strategies to transform a culture of strategic withdrawal into one of proactive engagement, thereby fostering institutional innovation and administrative stability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical Background\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial Exchange Theory (SET) posits that organizational behavior is governed by a series of interactions that generate obligations and are contingent upon the actions of others (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, 2005). Central to this framework is the norm of reciprocity, which suggests that individuals engage in social investments, such as knowledge sharing, when they anticipate equitable future returns and maintain high levels of trust in their exchange partners. Knowledge is viewed as a valuable, intangible strategic resource; thus, its exchange is a voluntary act guided by a cost-benefit analysis in which employees weigh the effort of sharing against social or material rewards (Kmieciak, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom this perspective, employee silence is conceptualized not as a passive absence of speech but as a proactive, intentional withholding of ideas or concerns critical to institutional functioning (Morrison, 2023; Van Dyne et al., 2003). While proactive voice behavior serves as a catalyst for professional visibility and institutional growth, the decision to remain silent represents a strategic choice to withhold intellectual capital (Milliken et al., 2003). From the SET perspective, silence signifies failure in the exchange process. When employees perceive their contributions as unwelcome or futile, the \u0026quot;reciprocity loop\u0026quot; is severed, and their willingness to invest further effort in the organization diminishes (Hislop, 2003).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen silence becomes normative, it crystallizes into a silence climate\u0026mdash;a collective perception that communication is either futile or professionally hazardous. For knowledge-intensive sectors like Higher Education, this acts as a \u0026quot;stagnation trap,\u0026quot; leading to flawed decision-making and an inability to identify systemic problems (Fard \u0026amp; Karimi, 2015; Kim \u0026amp; Wang, 2024). This climate informs employees\u0026rsquo; cost-benefit appraisal: if the perceived \u0026quot;cost\u0026quot; of speaking outweighs the \u0026quot;benefit,\u0026rdquo; the employee will logically opt for reticence to protect their personal resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch a climate, by disrupting social exchanges, inevitably extends its ramifications to the psychological well-being of the workforce. Withholding information often induces cognitive dissonance, creating internal tension between observed organizational issues and the forced suppression of feedback. This psychological strain frequently manifests emotional exhaustion, burnout, and depersonalization (Sherf et al., 2021). Complementarily, because SET relies on the \u0026quot;psychological bond\u0026quot; between the individual and the institution, a climate of silence directly erodes organizational commitment. Environments that stifle expression are negatively correlated with job well-being, psychological safety and perceived organizational support (Schulman, 2020; Knoll \u0026amp; Van Dick, 2013). As trust is compromised by a lack of communicative transparency, the employee-institution relationship shifts from a relational exchange to a transactional oneor breaks down entirely (Panahi et al., 2012). This fosters a self-reinforcing cycle of disengagement and apathy, conclusively undermining an organization\u0026rsquo;s long-term adaptability and capacity for innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScholarly consensus identifies silence not as a monolithic state but as a multifaceted construct driven by divergent motivational bases (Detert \u0026amp; Edmondson, 2011). A pivotal contribution to this reconceptualization is the framework proposed by Van Dyne et al. (2003), which differentiates silence based on employees\u0026rsquo; underlying intent. This multidimensional perspective is essential for understanding how different \u0026quot;currencies\u0026quot; of social exchanges, such as trust, fear, or resignation, influence an individual\u0026apos;s decision to withhold information.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcquiescent silence is conceptualized as the intentional withholding of critical ideas, suggestions, or information, rooted in a pervasive sense of resignation and diminished self-efficacy (Morrison, 2023; Pinder \u0026amp; Harlos, 2001; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Unlike proactive or defensive forms of reticence, acquiescent silence signifies a state of \u0026quot;psychological withdrawal,\u0026quot; wherein employees cease attempting to contribute to the organization owing to the perceived futility of their input. This behavior is most prevalent in rigid, \u0026quot;top-down\u0026quot; bureaucratic structures, where institutional norms reinforce the belief that employee agency is incapable of catalyzing meaningful change (Dedahanov et al., 2015). The psychological underpinnings of this silence suggest emotional detachment, which exacts a significant affective toll. When individuals are embedded in environments that mandate or normalize acquiescent silence, they frequently experience discrete negative emotions such as anger and chronic anxiety (Kirrane et al., 2017). This internal disharmony fundamentally undermines organizational commitment, which is the essential psychological bond between the employee and the institution. Research suggests that this relationship is often mediated by psychological empowerment; as silence becomes a normative response, the \u0026quot;hearted connection,\u0026quot; or affective commitment, is the primary structural link to dissolve (Tourigny et al., 2013).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the specific context of HEIs, rigid hierarchies and bureaucratic barriers are often interpreted by staff as a lack of organizational investment in their professional wellbeing. This dynamic is best understood through the lens of SET, which posits that organizational life is governed by a series of reciprocal interactions. Under SET, the employment relationship thrives on the principle of reciprocity; when employees perceive that the institution values their voice, they reciprocate with commitment and proactive behaviors. Conversely, if employees perceive that the institution does not value their input or intellectual agency, they \u0026quot;balance\u0026quot; the exchange by withholding their intellectual capital. In this state of perceived imbalance, acquiescent silence serves as a mechanism for employees to reduce their personal investment in environments that offer low relational returns. Consequently, as staff perceive their voices as irrelevant and their alignment with strategic objectives dissolves, institutional dedication declines. Based on these theoretical foundations, we propose the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 1:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eAcquiescent silence is negatively related to organizational commitment.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefensive silence is conceptualized as a proactive and strategic behavior driven primarily by self-protection and avoidance of interpersonal or professional repercussions (Knoll \u0026amp; Van Dick, 2013). Unlike acquiescent silence, which stems from a resigned sense of futility, defensive silence represents an intentional withholding of relevant information rooted in fear and a calculated need for self-preservation (Baran \u0026amp; Giderler, 2017). In light of this, employees perform a risk-benefit appraisal of \u0026quot;voice\u0026quot; and conclude that silence is the most viable strategy to mitigate professional threats.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe psychological mechanism underlying defensive silence is frequently triggered by environmental stressors such as authoritarian leadership, which fosters a climate of fear. Guo et al. (2018) demonstrated that fear and defensive silence function as sequential mediators that suppress employee creativity, particularly when individuals perceive a high degree of psychological risk. Within the framework of SET, this behavior signifies a breakdown in the \u0026quot;psychological contract,\u0026rdquo; the unwritten set of expectations regarding mutual obligations between employer and employee. When the organization is perceived as a source of threat rather than a source of support, social exchange shifts from a relational to a defensive orientation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOperating within such a climate requires a constant state of vigilance that consumes significant cognitive and emotional resources. This resource depletion leads to an erosion of organizational commitment as a direct consequence of the defensive posture. Because defensive silence is predicated on mistrust and the anticipation of negative outcomes, it violates the SET principle of reciprocity: employees no longer feel safe to offer their intellectual capital in exchange for institutional membership. Neves and Caetano (2009) posit that fear becomes the primary driver of behavior, and the affective bond with the institution is severed and replaced by emotional withdrawal. When employees feel compelled to prioritize self-protection over organizational contribution, their long-term identification with and loyalty to the institution inevitably decline. Drawing on these theoretical underpinnings, we propose the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 2:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eDefensive silence is negatively related to organizational commitment.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike forms of silence driven by fear or resignation, prosocial silence is the intentional withholding of work-related ideas, information, or opinions for the perceived benefit of colleagues or the organization (Van Dyne et al., 2003). This behavior is fundamentally grounded in cooperative motives and concerns for collective well-being rather than individual self-preservation. Under these circumstances, silence is an intentional act of service; employees engage in this reticence out of a strong sense of responsibility, aiming to protect organizational reputation or peer relationships from potential harm (Knoll \u0026amp; van Dick, 2013; Hess et al., 2019). Because this behavior is motivated by altruism, it signifies a high degree of psychological alignment with the institution\u0026rsquo;s interests. However, despite its positive intentions, this altruistic reticence introduces significant institutional risks. The repetitive adoption of prosocial silence can inadvertently constrict the flow of critical information, diminish transparency, and obstruct timely identification of systemic issues (Bolino \u0026amp; Grant, 2016). In the long term, the institutionalization of such behavior may contribute to the concealment of operational dysfunctions and degrade the quality of feedback provided to management. Subsequently, while rooted in loyalty, this practice can undermine organizational learning and stifle the institution\u0026rsquo;s innovative capacity (Nechanska et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between prosocial silence and organizational commitment is reinforced by the strategic and loyalist nature of this behavior. Nechanska et al. (2020) suggest that such silence is not an act of disengagement but rather a manifestation of loyalty in which employees prioritize long-term institutional stability over immediate disclosure. While this may inadvertently mask systemic inefficiencies, it coexists with\u0026mdash;and often reinforces\u0026mdash;the employee\u0026apos;s identification with the institution. When employees perceive their silence as a contribution to organizational stability, it functions as a behavioral expression of their commitment to the collective mission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis dynamic is strongly supported by the core tenets of the SET. Within a high-value exchange relationship, employees view their silence as a form of \u0026quot;repayment\u0026quot; for collective stability and institutional support (Kızrak \u0026amp; Yeloğlu, 2024). The rule of reciprocity, which ensures that current interpersonal investments yield future relational gains, is central to the SET. This represents a form of \u0026quot;conditional kindness,\u0026quot; where the decision to withhold potentially disruptive information is made with the expectation that such protective behavior sustains a supportive and stable work environment (Caimo \u0026amp; Lomi, 2015). Within this framework, prosocial silence serves as a relational currency that maintains the equilibrium of the psychological contract. Consistent with\u0026nbsp;the established theoretical framework, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 3:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eProsocial silence is positively related to organizational commitment.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eManagerial communication serves as a fundamental mechanism for organizational stability and change, as sustained dialogue among organizational actors effectively reduces uncertainty and bolsters employee engagement (Aggerholm \u0026amp; Thomsen, 2020). Within this communicative framework, supervisory behavior is a proximate determinant of employee silence. Supervisors who are perceived as unreceptive, punitive, or dismissive cultivate an environment in which \u0026quot;speaking up\u0026quot; is viewed as either high-risk or futile. Such behaviors erode psychological safety\u0026mdash;the belief that one can take interpersonal risks without fear of reprisal\u0026mdash;thereby diminishing employees\u0026rsquo; willingness to disclose concerns or contribute to organizational learning (Detert \u0026amp; Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 1999).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn highly hierarchical organizations, such as public HEIs, supervisors exert a disproportionate influence on the normalization of communication practices. While formal structures\u0026mdash;including regular meetings, suggestion systems, and open-door policies\u0026mdash;provide the necessary channels for knowledge transfer, their efficacy is contingent on the perceived openness of leadership (Downe et al., 2016). Without genuine management support, these channels may be dismissed as merely symbolic and fail to facilitate an authentic voice. On the other hand, when management support is high, it legitimizes dialogue and reinforces the credibility of formal communication systems (Dedahanov et al., 2016).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eManagement support, characterized by approachability and receptiveness, is a critical buffer in the employee-organization relationship. By signaling that employee contributions are valued, supportive leadership can mitigate the disengagement and erosion of loyalty that is typically associated with acquiescent silence (Kalogiannidis, 2020). When employees feel supported, the negative impact of a silent environment on their psychological bond with the institution is reduced. In this capacity, management support does not merely encourage employees to speak up; it alters the strength and direction of the relationship between the prevailing silence and the resulting levels of organizational dedication. Therefore, we propose:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 4:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eManagement support moderates the relationship between organizational silence and commitment.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrust within the organizational milieu is a multidimensional construct encompassing an individual\u0026rsquo;s confidence in coworkers, immediate supervisors, senior management, and the institution (Yeboah, 2023). Beyond its ethical implications, trust serves as a structural pillar that dictates the prevalence of organizational silence. Empirical evidence suggests that the level of trust an employee places in management is a primary predictor of whether critical information is shared or withheld (Fard \u0026amp; Karimi, 2015; Shojaie et al., 2011). While systematic organizational recognition acts as a catalyst for the employee voice, a lack of trust\u0026mdash;often manifested as a fear of negative repercussions, such as job insecurity\u0026mdash;functions as a potent deterrent (Baran \u0026amp; Giderler, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrust-based management systems are essential for aligning individual efforts with strategic institutional objectives, as they foster cooperative environments (Galford \u0026amp; Drapeau, 2003; Newman et al., 2016). Central to this dynamic is the concept of psychological safety; high interpersonal trust lowers the perceived risks associated with speaking up while simultaneously heightening the perceived utility of knowledge sharing (Edmondson, 1999; Kmieciak, 2021). With this knowledge, trust in procedures and overarching cultural norms determines the extent to which employees feel empowered to challenge the status quo or provide constructive feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe influence of trust extends beyond its role as a direct antecedent of voice; it functions as a critical boundary condition that moderates the relationship between silence and employees\u0026rsquo; attitudes. Interpersonal trust acts as a \u0026quot;relational lubricant\u0026quot; capable of buffering the deleterious effects of silence on organizational commitment. In high-trust environments, even when employees remain reticent, whether for prosocial or strategic reasons, their psychological bond to the institution may remain intact due to a fundamental belief in the integrity and goodwill of their supervisors and peers (Byrne \u0026amp; Hochwarter, 2008).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, in low-trust contexts, silence is frequently filtered through a lens of suspicion, which accelerates the erosion of commitment and exacerbates the negative psychological consequences of withholding information. Because the strength of the relationship between the dimensions of silence and organizational commitment is contingent upon the quality of the interpersonal networks within the staff, we propose the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis 5:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eInterpersonal trust moderates the relationship between silence dimensions and organizational commitment.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Context\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study focuses on administrative staff within Greek HEIs, a sector characterized by significant structural and operational complexities. Public-sector organizations in Greece are frequently characterized by a strong hierarchical culture and rigid bureaucratic procedures, which can create substantial barriers to open communication within the institution. These characteristics, combined with overlapping responsibilities and multilevel governance, contribute to a complex environment in which the decision to share or withhold information is highly sensitive to external conditions. Specifically, the bureaucratic nature of Greek HEIs suggests that administrative staff may perceive high risks in challenging the status quo, potentially leading to a climate in which organizational silence\u0026mdash;the intentional withholding of information\u0026mdash;becomes a standard coping mechanism for navigating systemic inefficiencies. From this perspective, certain relational variables are critical to institutional functioning. Trust and management support serve as primary determinants of whether employees feel empowered to provide feedback or choose to remain silent. By examining these environmental factors, this study seeks to investigate how they influence the relationship between different dimensions of silence and organizational commitment among administrative personnel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study utilized a quantitative, cross-sectional design to investigate the relationship between various dimensions of organizational silence and organizational commitment among administrative staff in Greek HEIs. The methodology specifically examines the mediating roles of trust and support from managers. The target population consisted of administrative staff working across various Greek HEIs, utilizing a random sampling approach to ensure the selection of a diverse and representative sample of the Greek academic administrative sector. Prior to commencement, ethical approval was obtained from the University of West Attica, and all participants were required to provide electronic informed consent before accessing the survey. Data were collected through an anonymous online survey distributed via institutional email. To ensure the validity and reliability of the findings and to mitigate social desirability bias\u0026mdash;which is particularly sensitive in a hierarchical bureaucratic environment\u0026mdash;no personally identifiable information was gathered, and strict confidentiality was maintained throughout the research process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSample\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample included 314 administrative staff members from Greek HEIs, characterized by a significant female majority (81.2%) and an experienced workforce with a mean age of 48.8 years. Participants demonstrated high professional stability, averaging 24.06 years of tenure, with 29.6% holding positions of responsibility and 70.4% in non-supervisory roles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Sample Demographics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM/SD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender at Birth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFemale\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e255\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTotal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e314\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.8/7.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork tenure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.06/7.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Supervisor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 337px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNo\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e221\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected using a structured questionnaire that comprised validated scales. All items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to capture the intensity of the respondents\u0026apos; attitudes and perceptions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational Silence\u003c/em\u003e. Academic silence was measured using an adapted 15-item version of the Organizational Silence Scale (OSS) (Van Dyne et al., 2003). The original OSS comprises three sub-dimensions: Acquiescent Silence, reflecting the withholding of ideas due to perceived low self-efficacy; Defensive Silence, capturing the tendency to remain silent out of fear of negative consequences; and Prosocial Silence, referring to intentionally withholding information to protect colleagues or the organization. Higher scores indicate stronger tendencies toward employee silence, consistent with prior research treating silence as a generalized behavioral construct.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational commitment\u003c/em\u003e was measured using nine items adapted from Cook and Wall (1980) and aggregated into a composite score on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items include, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cstrong\u003eI\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eam quite proud to be able to tell people who it is \u003cstrong\u003eI\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ework for\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;I feel myself to be part of the University/faculty\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo; Higher scores indicate stronger perceptions of organizational commitment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInterpersonal trust\u003c/em\u003e was measured using 12 items adapted and reworded from Cook and Wall\u0026rsquo;s (1980) Interpersonal Trust at Work Scale and aggregated into a composite score on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items include, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I can rely on my colleagues to support me when I need help with academic tasks,\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;University/faculty management can be trusted to make sensible decisions.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e Higher scores indicate stronger perceptions of integrity, reliability, and openness among the colleagues and university leadership\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eManagement support\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ewas measured using seven items adapted from Lu et al. (2006) Attitude of Management Scale and aggregated into a composite score on a 7-point Likert scale. Sample items include, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;My manager always behaves as a good example in sharing his knowledge to others.,\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;My manager tells us how to share my personal knowledge within the institution.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe internal consistency of the measurement scales was evaluated using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha (\u0026alpha;), with all scales demonstrating satisfactory to excellent reliability, ranging from .78 to .94. Participants reported the highest mean scores for Prosocial Silence and Organizational Commitment, while Defensive Silence and Acquiescent Silence yielded the lowest mean scores. Management support and interpersonal trust were reported at moderate to high levels. As hypothesized, Organizational Commitment was significantly and negatively correlated with Acquiescent Silence and Defensive Silence, whereas it showed a significant positive correlation with Prosocial Silence. Interpersonal Trust and Management Support were strongly and positively correlated with each other and with organizational commitment. Furthermore, both interpersonal trust and management support exhibited significant negative correlations with the more detrimental forms of silence, specifically, acquiescent and defensive silence. These findings suggest that while altruistic silence aligns with commitment, fear-based or resigned silence significantly erodes the psychological bond between employees and the institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u003c/strong\u003e Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"664\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026alpha;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e/SD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcquiescent Silence\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;(\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.99/1.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDefensive Silence (DS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.65/1.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.606**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProsocial Silence (PS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.44/1.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.147**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.063\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational commitment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.29/.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.328**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.465**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.288**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInterpersonal trust\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.64/1.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.433**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.381**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.616**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 19px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 182px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eManagement support\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.76/1.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.464**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.377**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.459**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.681**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine the relationships between the dimensions of organizational silence (X), mediators (M; management support and interpersonal trust), and organizational commitment (Y), a series of mediation analyses were conducted using Hayes\u0026rsquo;s (2022) PROCESS macro (Model 4). These analyses utilized 5,000 bootstrap samples to assess indirect associations, focusing on predictive correlations rather than definitive causality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor management support, analyses indicated that both acquiescent and defensive silence were significantly and negatively associated with perceived support\u0026nbsp;from management. Management support was a significant positive predictor of commitment. In both models, the indirect effects were significant, and the direct effects remained statistically significant, suggesting that management support partially mediates these relationships. Conversely, prosocial silence did not significantly correlate with management support, and no mediation was observed; prosocial silence was only directly and positively associated with organizational\u0026nbsp;commitment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding interpersonal trust, the\u0026nbsp;results revealed a full mediating effect of acquiescent silence. Acquiescent silence was a significant negative predictor of trust, which subsequently predicted organizational\u0026nbsp;commitment. Upon the inclusion of trust, the baseline association between acquiescent silence and commitment became non-significant, suggesting that the negative link to commitment is channeled through trust erosion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor defensive silence, trust acted as a partial mediator, and\u0026nbsp;the negative association between defensive silence and commitment remained significant even when controlling for\u0026nbsp;trust. Finally, trust did not mediate the relationship between prosocial silence and commitment. While both prosocial silence and trust independently and positively predicted commitment, there was no significant correlation between them, indicating that prosocial silence may directly enhance dedication as an act of loyalty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e. Mediation Results for Dimensions of Silence on Organizational Commitment via Management Support\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"690\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSilence Dimension\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePredictor \u0026rarr; Outcome\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcquiescent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;MangSup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-9.07**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.62, -.40]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMangSup \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.82**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.17, .31]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u0026prime;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.53*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.17, -.02]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea x b\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;MangSup \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.17, -.08]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.24, -.11]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDefensive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;MangSup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.02**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.6, -.34]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMangSup \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.08**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.13, .26]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;c\u0026prime;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDS \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-6.63**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.35, -.19]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea x b\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDS \u0026rarr; MangSup \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.13, .05]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.17, -.07]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsocial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;MangSup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.12, .12]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo Mediation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMangSup \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.66**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.23, .35]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;c\u0026prime;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.99**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.13, .27]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea x b\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS \u0026rarr; MangSup \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.04, .04]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 39px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 178px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 36px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.06, .06]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*p \u0026lt; .05, **p \u0026lt; .001\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eMediation Results for Dimensions of Silence on Organizational Commitment via Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\" width=\"680\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSilence Dimension\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePredictor \u0026rarr; Outcome\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95% CI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcquiescent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS \u0026rarr; Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-8.38**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.39, -.24]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFull mediation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrust \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.73**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.46, .65]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u0026prime;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.12, .02]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea x b\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Trust \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.23, -.13]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAS \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.3, -.15]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDefensive\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-7.16**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.4, -.23]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrust \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.81**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.4, .58]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;c\u0026prime;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDS \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.70**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.28, -.14]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea x b\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDS \u0026rarr; Trust \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.21, .1]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.44, -.28]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 125px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProsocial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;Trust\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.036\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.06, .09]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo Mediation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrust \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.377**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.5, .66]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;c\u0026prime;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS \u0026nbsp;\u0026rarr; OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.437**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[.13, .24]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea x b\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS \u0026rarr; Trust \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.04, .06]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 157px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePS \u0026rarr; \u0026nbsp;OCom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 35px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 45px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-.06, .08]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*p \u0026lt; .05, **p \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study uses a quantitative, cross-sectional design to examine the communicative and relational dynamics within the administrative workforce of Greek HEIs. A defining characteristic of this sample is its demographic stability, which reflects a highly experienced workforce with significant institutional tenure. This professional longevity is essential for investigating organizational commitment, as it provides a robust lens through which to observe the cumulative effects of silence over extended career trajectories (Howell et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study indicate that organizational silence is closely associated with a disruption in the reciprocal exchange between administrative staff and Greek HEIs. Grounded in SET, these associations suggest that silence acts as a critical currency\u0026mdash;or devaluator\u0026mdash;within institutional social exchanges. By examining both the\u0026nbsp;\u0026quot;negative\u0026quot; dimensions and the \u0026quot;positive\u0026quot; dimensions, this study illustrates how communicative reticence is woven into the fabric of organizational behavior. Importantly, while these variables demonstrate strong statistical pathways, the following discussion interprets these relationships as evidence of theoretical fit and relational interconnectivity rather than absolute causality, reflecting the cross-sectional nature of the data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA pivotal finding of this study is the full mediation of interpersonal trust in the relationship between acquiescent silence and organizational commitment. This suggests a robust theoretical alignment, where, in the presence of perceived futility, the decline in commitment is statistically explained by the erosion of trust in institutional integrity (Zhao et al., 2019). The data indicate that withholding ideas due to resignation does not merely coexist with low commitment; rather,\u0026nbsp;it is part of a relational configuration that dissolves the reciprocal trust essential for a functional psychological contract. Within the rigid hierarchies typical of Greek public universities, these power distances appear to function as significant barriers to expression, correlating with a state of \u0026quot;psychological withdrawal\u0026quot; that undermines the foundation of dedication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdministrative staff in lower tiers often report a lack of organizational \u0026quot;space\u0026quot; or authority to voice critical observations (Dedahanov et al., 2015). This lack of psychological safety (Kmieciak, 2021) is associated with superficial professional interactions. As trust serves as a fundamental mechanism for reducing perceived risk in social transactions (Chiu et al., 2006), its absence is strongly linked to a severed employee-organization bond. In this connection, acquiescent silence is not an isolated behavior but an indicator of a systemic breakdown in the exchange process, where the employee no longer views the institution as a reliable partner in the social contract.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast to acquiescence, interpersonal trust appears to be a partial mediator of defensive silence. This suggests that while trust explains a significant portion of the variance in commitment, defensive silence has a strong direct association with diminished loyalty. Because defensive silence is theoretically rooted in fear and self-protection, it may function as a barrier to exchanges that persist even when moderate trust levels are reported. Framed as a counterproductive work behavior governed by deficient organizational goals (G\u0026ouml;tz et al., 2020), defensive silence is associated with a corrosive feedback loop in the Greek HEI context. The data show that staff prioritize risk mitigation, suggesting that the structural \u0026quot;high-risk\u0026quot; nature of the hierarchy may keep defensive barriers intact regardless of relational trust, directly correlating with lower attachment to the institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis further demonstrates that management support partially mediates both silence dimensions. From a SET perspective, supportive leadership provides \u0026quot;relational credit\u0026quot; associated with a buffered transition from silence to disengagement. Leadership appears to act as an institutional guarantor (Sherf et al., 2021). When staff perceive supervisors as receptive, there is a corresponding increase in the psychological safety necessary to sustain social exchange (Semerci, 2019). This is particularly relevant in bureaucratic contexts, where supportive leadership may prevent the \u0026quot;misfit\u0026quot; with organizational identity that correlates with knowledge hiding (Zhao et al., 2019). By signaling that employees\u0026rsquo; voices are valued, management can mitigate the associative link between hierarchical pressure and psychological withdrawal (Sun, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn stark contrast to the deleterious forms of silence, prosocial silence directly and positively associates with organizational commitment, with no significant mediation observed through interpersonal trust or management support. This finding suggests that prosocial silence\u0026mdash;the deliberate withholding of information to protect colleagues or the institution\u0026mdash;functions as a proactive manifestation of institutional loyalty, rather than a reactive response to the organizational climate. Within the SET framework, this significant direct association confirms that administrative staff associate withholding information for the collective benefit as an act of service.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProsocial silence is grounded in genuine altruism and the desire to shield others from negative consequences, disruption, or unfair sanctions (Hawass, 2016). Modern scholarship frames this behavior as a deliberate\u0026nbsp;and altruistic decision aimed at maintaining organizational harmony and reinforcing social bonds (Bolino \u0026amp; Grant, 2016; Morrison, 2023). The near-zero correlation with interpersonal trust and the lack of mediation via management support indicate that staff engage in prosocial silence as a \u0026quot;pro-social duty\u0026quot; toward the collective mission. This behavior appears to be an internalized manifestation of high organizational identification (Kim \u0026amp; Wang, 2024)\u0026nbsp;and remains stable regardless of the perceived quality of current managerial support or relational trust.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA compelling insight from this research is the identification of a \u0026quot;recognition gap\u0026quot; within the social exchange process of Greek HEIs. While administrative staff often perceive their strategic reticence as a high-value contribution to institutional stability (Nechanska et al., 2020), this behavior remains invisible to management. According to the\u0026nbsp;SET, high-value contributions typically trigger a reciprocal increase in organizational investment. However, because prosocial silence is a \u0026quot;non-event\u0026quot; (Rhee et al., 2014), it fails to activate the expected cycle of reciprocity. Unlike overt participation or \u0026quot;voice,\u0026quot; which are visible and rewardable, prosocial silence performs as a \u0026quot;silent service\u0026quot; that management often overlooks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCrucially, the study suggests that rather than being causal prerequisites for one another, prosocial silence and commitment emerge from a shared psychological root: identification with the institution\u0026apos;s mission. Within the bureaucratic culture of Greek HEIs, prosocial silence appears to function as a stable \u0026quot;loyalist\u0026quot; trait, persisting independently of immediate relational fluctuations. This altruistic reticence is most prevalent among staff who are deeply integrated into institutional networks and share task strategies (Hawass, 2016). Within this framework, silence is not a withdrawal but a sophisticated interpersonal tool used by those most invested in the institution to preserve group harmony and shield colleagues from unnecessary disruption or \u0026quot;unjust\u0026quot; repercussions (Wen et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, these findings suggest that in high-security but high-hierarchy environments, silence is a complex regulator of social exchange. This aligns with previous research suggesting that silence is woven into the fabric of organizational behavior (Efthymiopoulos et al., 2024; Gambarotto \u0026amp; Cammozzo, 2010). While negative forms of silence signal a breakdown in the reciprocal bond, prosocial silence maintains institutional continuity behind the scenes. Recognizing these associative patterns allows for a more nuanced understanding of administrative commitment, highlighting that the stability of Greek HEIs relies not only on what is said but increasingly on the strategic and protective nature of what is left unsaid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePractical Implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s findings suggest that institutional leaders must move beyond simply encouraging \u0026quot;voice\u0026quot; and focus on repairing the underlying exchange relationships that sustain silence. Since trust fully mediates the impact of acquiescent silence on commitment, managers cannot rely on structural changes alone. Building trust requires \u0026quot;high-visibility\u0026quot; managerial support\u0026mdash;actions that signal institutional investment in employee input. When employees perceive a lack of reciprocity, they default to silence to balance the exchanges. To counter this, HEIs should implement feedback loops in which the \u0026quot;benefit of voice\u0026quot; is clearly demonstrated through tangible institutional changes, thereby rebuilding the perceived value of social exchange.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven that defensive silence operates through a \u0026quot;dual path\u0026quot; of direct fear and trust degradation, leadership must prioritize psychological safety. Reducing the perceived risk of speaking up is essential to stop the corrosive feedback loop that consumes employees\u0026apos; cognitive resources. This can be achieved through anonymous reporting channels or \u0026quot;blame-free\u0026quot; post-mortems of institutional projects, which decouple the person from the problem and lower the professional threat associated with disclosure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA critical discovery in this study is the recognition gap regarding prosocial silence. Because prosocial silence has a significant direct link to commitment but is invisible to management support channels, \u0026quot;silent loyalists\u0026quot; may feel unappreciated despite their protective efforts. Leaders should foster a culture where the value of strategic discretion is acknowledged\u0026nbsp;and the \u0026quot;burden of silence\u0026quot; is eased. By creating transparent communication norms, organizations can ensure that employees do not feel they must choose between protecting and improving the institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the results highlight that the dimensions of silence\u0026nbsp;are not uniform in their origins. While negative silence is a reaction to perceived relational failure, prosocial silence is a duty-bound choice. Therefore, shifting from a silent climate to a voice climate requires a multi-pronged approach: eliminating the bureaucratic rigidity that fosters acquiescence, removing the fear that drives defensive withholding, and providing healthy outlets for the altruism that currently manifests as prosocial silence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitation and Future Direction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations, which provide avenues for future research. First, the cross-sectional design precludes definitive causal inference. While grounded in SET, the observed relationships identify predictive correlations rather than temporal precedence. Future research should employ longitudinal or experimental frameworks to confirm the directional flow from silence dimensions to commitment. Second, the demographic composition of the sample features a gender imbalance, with an overrepresentation of female participants. Although this may reflect the specific administrative structures of the Greek HEIs surveyed, gender-related differences in communication styles and psychological safety perceptions may have introduced response bias. Future studies should utilize stratified sampling to examine gender as a potential moderator of the silence-commitment nexus (Howell et al., 2015). Third, the contextual scope is limited to the Greek academic sector only. While the findings regarding the \u0026quot;trust erosion\u0026quot; of acquiescent silence remain highly relevant due to the universal structural characteristics of academia\u0026mdash;such as rigid hierarchies and academic autonomy\u0026mdash;comparative cross-national studies are necessary to ensure global generalizability. Finally, reliance on self-reported data may introduce a common method bias. Although statistical remedies were applied, the subjective nature of silence behavior reporting remains a constraint. Future research should incorporate multi-source data, such as supervisor evaluations or objective behavioral indicators of institutional participation, to provide a more robust and holistic assessment of the silence-commitment dynamic.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study establishes employee silence as a critical barometer of social exchange equilibrium in the academic environment. The findings reveal that silence is not a monolithic construct but a multifaceted communicative choice that reflects the strength of the psychological bond between administrative staff and their institutions. In the hierarchical context of Greek HEIs, understanding these dynamics is essential for identifying the relational factors associated with a committed and engaged workforce.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results demonstrate a clear bifurcation in the relationship between various forms of communicative reticence and organizational commitment. Rather than implying a unidirectional causal sequence, these behaviors are interpreted as part of a broader, self-reinforcing cycle of strategic intellectual withdrawal in response to perceived institutional failure. Specifically, this study offers a robust theoretical map of the interconnectivity between silence, trust, and management support. In the Greek public sector, silence is statistically linked to a deficit in vital feedback loops, a state that potentially hinders innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the cross-sectional design precludes definitive claims of absolute causality, the strong alignment between the observed data and Social Exchange Theory confirms a high degree of theoretical fit. In conclusion, this research provides a validated framework for understanding how silence serves as a relational currency within public higher education, signifying either a rupture in the psychological contract or an invisible manifestation of institutional loyalty.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAggerholm, H.K. \u0026amp; Thomsen, C. (2020). Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations, In The \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Public Sector Communication\u003c/em\u003e (eds V. Luoma-aho and M.-J. Canel). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119263203.ch13\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaran, H., \u0026amp; Giderler, C. (2017) \u0026lsquo;A study on determining the influence of organizational identification on organizational justice and organizational silence\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Asian Social Science, 7\u003c/em\u003e(3), pp. 242-258. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1/2017.7.3/1.3.242.258 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. \u003cem\u003eSociological inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolino, M. C., \u0026amp; Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. \u003cem\u003eThe Academy of Management Annals, 10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 599\u0026ndash;670. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1153260\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eByrne, Z. S., \u0026amp; Hochwarter, W. A. (2008). Perceived organizational support and performance: Relationships across levels of organizational cynicism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Managerial Psychology, 23\u003c/em\u003e(1), 54\u0026ndash;72. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810849666\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaimo, A., \u0026amp; Lomi, A. (2015). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A Bayesian analysis of the role of reciprocity and formal structure. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 665\u0026ndash;691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314552192\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., \u0026amp; Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. \u003cem\u003eDecision Support Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1872\u0026ndash;1888. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCook, J. and Wall, T. (1980). New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational Commitment and Personal Need Non-Fulfilment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 53, 39-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1980.tb00005.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, R., \u0026amp; Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 874\u0026ndash;900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDedahanov, A. T., Kim, C., \u0026amp; Rhee, J. (2015). Centralization and communication opportunities as predictors of acquiescent or prosocial silence. \u003cem\u003eSocial Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43\u003c/em\u003e(3), pp. 481-492. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.3.481 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDedahanov, A. T., Lee, D. H., \u0026amp; Rhee, J. (2016). Silence as a mediator between organizational factors and stress. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Managerial Psychology, 31\u003c/em\u003e(8), pp. 1251-1264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2015-0250 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDetert, J. R., \u0026amp; Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 50\u003c/em\u003e(4), pp. 869\u0026ndash;884. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.26279183\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDetert, J. R., \u0026amp; Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 54\u003c/em\u003e(3), pp. 461\u0026ndash;488. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61967925\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDowne, J., Cowell, R. and Morgan, K. (2016). What Determines Ethical Behavior in Public Organizations: Is It Rules or Leadership?. \u003cem\u003ePublic Admin Rev,\u003c/em\u003e 76: 898-909. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12562\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly, 44\u003c/em\u003e(2), pp. 350\u0026ndash;383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEfthymiopoulos, A., Goula, A., \u0026amp; Psychogios, A. (2024). Organizational silence and organizational commitment: empirical evidence from the Greek public sector. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, 18(3), 346-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/19367244241263576\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFard, P. G., \u0026amp; Karimi, F. (2015). The relationship between organizational trust and organizational silence with job satisfaction and organizational commitment of the employees of university. International Education Studies, 8(11), 219\u0026ndash;227. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n11p219\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarooq, R., \u0026amp; Vij, S. (2019). Does market orientation mediate between knowledge management orientation and business performance?. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Information \u0026amp; Knowledge Management, 18\u003c/em\u003e(4), pp. 1\u0026ndash;35. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649219500394 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalford, R., \u0026amp; Drapeau, A. S. (2003). The enemies of trust. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Business Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(2), 88-95. PMID: 12577656.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGambarotto, F., \u0026amp; Cammozzo, A. (2010). Dreams of silence: Employee voice and innovation in a public sector community of practice. \u003cem\u003eInnovation: Management, Policy \u0026amp; Practice, 12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 166-179. https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.12.2.166 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026ouml;tz, M., Donzallaz, M., and Jonas, K. (2020). Leader\u0026ndash;member exchange fosters beneficial and prevents detrimental workplace behavior: Organizational identification as the linking pin. \u003cem\u003eFront. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e 11:1788. \u003cu\u003edoi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01788\u003c/u\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., \u0026amp; Riisla, K. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive silence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research, 92,\u003c/em\u003e 219\u0026ndash;230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHawass, H.H. (2016). Examining the antecedents of prosocial silence: a relational perspective. \u003cem\u003eEuromed Journal of Business, 11\u003c/em\u003e, 248-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-07-2015-0031 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHess, M. F., Trevi\u0026ntilde;o, L. K., Chen, A., \u0026amp; Cross, R. (2019). Beyond silence or compliance: The complexities of reporting a friend for misconduct. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Ethics: A European Review, \u003c/em\u003e28(4), pp. 546-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12238 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda. \u003cem\u003eEmployee Relations, 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), pp. 182-202. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450310456479 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHowell, T. M., Harrison, D. A., Burris, E. R., \u0026amp; Detert, J. R. (2015). Who gets credit for input? Demographic and structural status cues in voice recognition. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 100\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1765\u0026ndash;1784. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000025 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKalogiannidis, S. (2020). Impact of effective business communication on employee performance. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Business Management \u0026amp; Research, 5\u003c/em\u003e(6). https://doi.org/10.24018/ejbmr.2020.5.6.631 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, H.S. \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2024). Silence in the workplace: what do we know from research?. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Training and Development\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 48 No. 10 pp. 56\u0026ndash;83, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2024-0077\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirrane, M., O\u0026apos;Shea, D., Buckley, F., Grazi, A., \u0026amp; Prout, J. (2017). Investigating the role of discrete emotions in silence versus speaking up. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e(3), 354-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12175\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKızrak, M. \u0026amp; Yeloğlu, H., O. (2024). How can prosocial silence be golden? The roles of commitment to learning and organizational support. \u003cem\u003eThe Learning Organization: An International Journal\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 31 No. 2 pp. 250\u0026ndash;267, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-03-2023-0040\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKmieciak, R. (2021). Trust, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior: Empirical evidence from Poland. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Innovation Management\u003c/em\u003e, 24(5), 1832\u0026ndash;1859. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2020-0134\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnoll, M., \u0026amp; Van Dick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics, 113,\u003c/em\u003e pp. 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1308-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu, L., Leung, K. and Koch, P.T. (2006), Managerial Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Individual, Interpersonal, and Organizational Factors. \u003cem\u003eManagement and Organization Review\u003c/em\u003e, 2: 15-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00029.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., \u0026amp; Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don\u0026rsquo;t communicate upward and why\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management Studies, \u003c/em\u003e40, pp. 1453-1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, \u003c/em\u003e1, pp\u003cem\u003e. \u003c/em\u003e173-197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrison, E. W. (2023). Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a decade later\u0026rsquo;, \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10\u003c/em\u003e(1), pp. 79-107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrison, E. W., \u0026amp; Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review, 25,\u003c/em\u003e pp. 706-725. https://doi.org/10.2307/259200 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorrison, E. W., \u0026amp; Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review, 25,\u003c/em\u003e pp. 706-725. https://doi.org/10.2307/259200 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNechanska, E., Hughes, E., \u0026amp; Dundon, T. (2020). Towards an integration of employee voice and silence. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review, 30\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.11.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeves, P., \u0026amp; Caetano, A. (2009). Commitment to Change: Contributions to Trust in the Supervisor and Work Outcomes. \u003cem\u003eGroup \u0026amp; Organization Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(6), 623-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601109350980 (Original work published 2009)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman, A., Rose, P.S. and Teo, S.T.T. (2016), The Role of Participative Leadership and Trust-Based Mechanisms in Eliciting Intern Performance: Evidence from China. Hum Resour Manage, 55: 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21660\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePanahi, B., Veiseh, S., Divkhar, S., \u0026amp; Kamari, F. (2012). An empirical analysis on influencing factors on organizational silence and its relationship with employees\u0026apos; organizational commitment. \u003cem\u003eManagement Science Letters, 2\u003c/em\u003e(3), pp. 735-744. \u003cu\u003ehttps://doi.org/ 10.5267/j.msl.2012.01.007 \u003c/u\u003e \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinder, C. C., \u0026amp; Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20,\u003c/em\u003e pp. 331-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20007-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRhee, J., Dedahanov, A., \u0026amp; Lee, D. (2014). Relationships among power distance, collectivism, punishment, and acquiescent, defensive, or prosocial silence. \u003cem\u003eSocial Behavior and Personality: an international journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(5), 705-720. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.705\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchulman, P. R. (2020). Organizational structure and safety culture: Conceptual and practical challenges. \u003cem\u003eSafety Science, 126,\u003c/em\u003e 104669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104669 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemerci, A. B. (2019). Examination of knowledge hiding with conflict, competition and personal values. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Confl. Manage.\u003c/em\u003e 31, 111\u0026ndash;131. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-03-2018-0044 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSherf, E. N., Gajendran, R. S., \u0026amp; Posner, B. Z. (2021). Seeking and finding justice: Why and when managers\u0026apos; feedback seeking enhances justice enactment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(6), 741-766. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2481 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSherf, E. N., Parke, M. R., \u0026amp; Isaakyan, S. (2021). Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological safety, and burnout. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal, 64\u003c/em\u003e(1), 114\u0026ndash;148. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1428\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShojaie, S., Matin, H. Z., \u0026amp; Barani, G. (2011). Analyzing the infrastructures of organizational silence and ways to get rid of it. \u003cem\u003eProcedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 1731-1735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.334\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun, S. (2021). The relationship between public service motivation and affective commitment in the public sector change: A moderated mediation model. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 12, \u003c/em\u003e631948. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631948 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTourigny, L., Baba, V. V., Han, J., \u0026amp; Wang, X. (2013). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: the mediating role of organizational commitment. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Human Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 514\u0026ndash;532. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.694109\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Dyne, L., Ang, S., \u0026amp; Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management Studies, \u003c/em\u003e40(6), pp. 1359-1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWen, S., Ji, W., Gao, D., Lu, X., Zhao, T., Gao, J., et al. (2025). Heeding the voices of nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis of organizational silence levels among clinical nurses. \u003cem\u003eBMC Nurs.\u003c/em\u003e 24:552. doi: 10.1186/s12912-025-03138-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYeboah, A. (2023). Knowledge sharing in organization: A systematic review. Cogent Business \u0026amp; Management, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2195027\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhao, H., Liu, W., Li, J., and Yu, X. (2019). Leader\u0026ndash;member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader\u0026ndash;member exchange. \u003cem\u003eJ. Organ. Behav.\u003c/em\u003e 40, 834\u0026ndash;848. doi: 10.1002/job.2359\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Organizational Silence, Social Exchange Theory, Higher Education Management, Interpersonal Trust, Organizational Commitment, Administrative Staff","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8853984/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8853984/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePublic Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) operate within an increasingly complex administrative environment, where the management of human capital is vital for institutional innovation. Grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET), this study examines the associations between three dimensions of organizational silence\u0026mdash;acquiescent, defensive, and prosocial\u0026mdash;and the organizational commitment of administrative staff. Utilizing a quantitative, cross-sectional design with 314 administrative personnel from Greek HEIs, the research employs Hayes\u0026rsquo;s PROCESS macro to explore the mediating roles of management support and interpersonal trust. The results reveal that acquiescent and defensive silence act as 'devaluators' of social exchange. These forms of silence significantly correlate with diminished commitment, primarily through the erosion of trust and perceived support. In contrast, prosocial silence appears to be a proactive manifestation of institutional loyalty, exhibiting a direct positive association with commitment that remains stable regardless of trust levels. The study identifies a \"recognition gap,\" where altruistic reticence remains invisible within the reciprocal exchange cycle. Practically, the findings suggest that HEI leadership should prioritize cultivating psychological safety and visible support. By addressing these communicative barriers, institutions may better acknowledge \"silent loyalists\" and foster an environment where a productive voice replaces strategic withdrawal, thereby sustaining long-term organizational dedication.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Sound of Silence: Examining the Mediating Roles of Management Support and Interpersonal Trust on Organizational Commitment in Greek Higher Education Institutions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-12 08:00:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8853984/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"44c584dc-3c8d-4c5e-908b-8ad5cc93771c","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 12th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":62755932,"name":"Management"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-12T08:00:56+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-12 08:00:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8853984","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8853984","identity":"rs-8853984","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}