In most organisations, silence speaks louder than words. When employees choose to withhold ideas,

feedback, or concerns, organisational silence can quietly undermine the foundations of employee

engagement, eroding trust, collaboration, and performance. Although this relationship has been studied

internationally, its dynamics within the Malaysian private information technology (IT) sector remain

employee engagement. The study is expected to provide both theoretical and practical contributions by

offering culturally relevant insights for Malaysian organisations. Findings are anticipated to guide leaders

Employees are regarded as the driving force behind an organisation's performance and productivity. The

statement suggests that employees share their opinions either individually or collectively to resolve issues,

and their insights are valuable for enhancing the organisation (Al-Abbrow, 2022). However, when an

employee chooses to remain silent, the organisation misses out on valuable opportunities to learn from

mistakes and improve operations (Montgomery et al., 2023). Morrison and Milliken (2000) first defined and

to note that the terms 'organisational silence' and 'employee silence' are often used interchangeably; they

involve complex behavioural dimensions. Accordingly, Van Dyne et al. (2003) identifies three types of

silence that can be categorised as organisational silence. These are acquiescent silence, defensive silence,

and prosocial silence. In recent years, the issue of employee silence has gained relevance due to its potential

impact on employee engagement. Organisations recognise the need to work closely with their employees to

succeed, but a culture of silence can develop if employees choose to remain silent (Cetin, 2020).

Employee engagement is crucial within an organisation and depends on various factors such as

communication, leadership skills, and workplace culture (Tham et al., 2022). These factors can be

that when their safety needs are unmet, employees are less likely to be engaged. Another study by Cetin

(2020) in Turkey indicated a close relationship between organisational silence and employee commitment,

highlighting the complexity of silence as a behavioural phenomenon.

Since silence is a complex behaviour, this calls for further investigation into the different types of

organisational silence in Malaysia and the connection between organisational silence and employee

engagement. Additionally, most existing studies are conducted in Western countries; therefore, it is essential

to explore the context within Malaysia to ensure cultural relevance (Yen & Yeong, 2024). This study will

focus on employees from the private information technology (IT) sector in Malaysia, especially in the Klang

Valley, to gain a deeper understanding, as previous research has primarily concentrated on general

professions, such as teachers and doctors.

influence organisational outcomes. The term organisational silence is also used interchangeably with

"employee silence' (Cetin, 2020). Building on this, Morrison and Milliken (2000) argue that silence is not an

individual weakness but is shaped by organisational factors, such as leadership behaviour, cultural norms,

and restrictive communication structures.

Building on this foundation, Wen et al. (2025), in their systematic review and meta-analysis of

organisational silence among nursing professionals, highlight that organisational silence involves

employees refraining from voicing concerns due to feelings of powerlessness, fear, and perceived

organisational injustice. It emphasises the harmful impact of silence as a form of coded protest and

defensive behaviour in such contexts. They note that silence is often a defensive response to an

environment perceived as unjust, unwelcoming, or unreceptive. In this context, employees silence their

whether silence stems from organisational culture or personal choice.

Alongside Morrison and Milliken's (2000) concept of organisational silence, Van Dyne et al. (2003)

provided a clearer understanding of this complex behaviour by examining silence and its underlying causes.

Van Dyne et al. (2003) proposed that silence arises from various reasons and can be categorised into three

Acquiescent silence, as described by Van Dyne et al. (2003), occurs when employees choose to remain

silent because they believe speaking up will not make a difference. This type of silence often occurs in

organisations with strict hierarchies, where leaders frequently disregard feedback or engage in unethical

behaviour. As a result, employees may feel angry, but instead of speaking out, they opt to stay quiet due to

the belief that no action will be taken or out of fear of repercussions (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009).

Over time, this silent behaviour, driven by feelings of frustration or hopelessness, can lead to employees

feeling disconnected. Furthermore, when concerns are left unspoken, it can cause stress, reduce

2021).

employees are hesitant to speak up, which can lead to low productivity and diminished workforce

engagement (Wang et al., 2024). Additionally, defensive silence may also negatively impact organisational

performance.

Finally, unlike acquiescent silence and defensive silence, the last type of silence introduced by Van Dyne et

al. (2003) is prosocial silence. According to the suggested dimensions, prosocial silence is when workers

remain silent to protect their colleagues or the organisation. A 2025 conceptual model studied by Hosseini

& Rakhshani (2025) also describes prosocial silence as withholding information out of loyalty, altruism, or

to avoid burdening others. It recognises the positive intentions but warns of possible negative effects like

delayed interventions or suppressed ideas, highlighting the need for a balance between silence and

communication. For example, an employee might choose not to disclose a colleague's mistake to prevent

silence involve the suppression of voice, they differ in motives. It is essential to recognise these differences,

especially for leaders seeking to foster a collaborative environment within an organisation. Team leaders

could address these issues directly and implement strategies tailored to improve the situation.

Employee engagement can be defined as the extent to which employees are emotionally, cognitively, and

behaviourally invested in their work and committed to achieving organisational goals (Kaur, 2023). It is a

condition where employees are more than just satisfied with their work; they are committed and actively

engaged in achieving organisational objectives. The foundational definition of employee engagement was

introduced by Kahn (1990), who described engagement as the "harnessing of employees' selves to their

work." He proposed that engagement occurs when employees invest their physical, emotional, and cognitive

energy into their work. Building on Kahn's framework, Saks (2006) conceptualised employee engagement

as a measurable and differentiated construct. He argued that engagement is a response to the perceived

Employee engagement, as proposed by Kahn (1990), emphasises the significance of psychological presence

within the organisation. He argued that employees are most engaged when they can fully invest themselves

physically, emotionally, and mentally in their jobs. These three conditions which are meaningfulness

availability (having the energy and resources to engage) are essential for sustained engagement (Kahn,

1990). When these conditions are not met, employees are more likely to disengage.

turn leads to them putting in minimal effort and becoming emotionally detached from work.

themselves without fear of consequences. According to him, it is fostered through trust in supervisors, open

communication, and a non-threatening environment. If an employee is in an environment where fear or

criticism is common, they are less likely to speak up. Such climates limit productivity and honest dialogue,

which could contribute to disengagement.

Finally, the third psychological condition in this framework is availability, which relates to how much

individuals feel mentally, emotionally, and physically ready to go to work. If employees are tired, burned

out, or emotionally drained, it becomes difficult for them to stay engaged. Kahn (1990) noted that

employees must feel personally equipped to handle work challenges; however, when stressors surpass their

capacity, employees may withdraw. This withdrawal is not caused by a lack of interest or safety, but may

stem from high job strain, poor work-life balance, and ongoing stress. Therefore, when these conditions are

not satisfied, employees' level of engagement may decrease. This disengagement can manifest as reduced

motivation, minimal involvement in tasks, or avoidance behaviours such as absenteeism.

Kahn (1990) conceptualised disengagement as a self-protective mechanism rather than merely a lack of

when driven by fear or frustration. Van Dyne et al. (2003) proposed a framework to explain this silent

behaviour. They identified three types of silence: acquiescence, defensive, and prosocial silence. The

framework emphasises that when employees remain silent, they are likely to start feeling disconnected.

Over time, employees who consistently withhold their opinions may become disengaged and undervalued.

Two major theoretical frameworks that will be employed in this study include those of Van Dyne et al.

(2003), Dimensions of Organisational Silence, and Kahn's (1990) Employee Engagement framework.

Organisational silence will be used as an independent variable. Organisational silence will be

conceptualised in three forms: acquiescence silence (feeling of helplessness), defensive silence (fear of

consequences), and prosocial silence (motivated by the desire to protect others or the organisation). These

situations.

and the degree of employee commitment. The theoretical basis established here will inform the design of

the instrument and support the use of correlational and regression analyses to assess the levels of

organisational silence and employee engagement within Malaysia's private IT sector.

dynamics within Malaysia's cultural context, the results of this study will be particularly relevant, as

Malaysia's cultural values of respect and hierarchy frequently reinforce silence. These relationships will be

explored through a quantitative approach using an online structured questionnaire that will be distributed to

purposively selected private IT employees in Klang Valley that fit the study’s criteria. A filter question will

be asked before they could proceed to the next section of the survey. This is to ensure respondents fulfil the

study’s criteria. The collected data will then be examined using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation

and availability. By analysing Malaysia's private IT sector, the research addresses a significant gap and

offers a particularly relevant context. It will also provide recommendations, particularly in reducing harmful

silence and encouraging openness among employees within organisations.