Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the mediating role of work alienation in the relationship between organizational silence and teachers’ turnover intention within the context of a developing country. Drawing on data from 707 teachers across nine provinces in Türkiye, the study adopts a cross-sectional correlational design and employs structural equation modeling for analysis. The findings indicate that organizational silence significantly contributes to teachers’ turnover intention, both directly and indirectly through heightened work alienation. These dynamics represent critical challenges for the sustainability and quality of educational systems, particularly in middle-income countries where teacher retention remains a pressing policy concern. By highlighting the structural and relational factors influencing teacher attrition, the study offers valuable insights for education policymakers and stakeholders aiming to strengthen teacher engagement and long-term development goals in the education sector.

Keywords

organizational silence work alienation turnover intention teacher retention

Introduction

Teaching is inherently a multidimensional, complex, and demanding profession that encompasses the unique challenges and dynamics of the instructional process. Classrooms, in this context, are not merely spaces for knowledge transmission; rather, they are complex social environments where teachers’ psychological characteristics significantly shape teaching and learning experiences. This underscores the importance of exploring teacher psychology, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of both classroom practices and the social and cognitive processes that occur within them (Agarwal & Roediger III, 2018). Among the psychological factors related to teachers, one prominent construct is turnover intention, which refers to an individual’s tendency to leave their current educational institution or the teaching profession altogether (McInerney et al., 2015). Indeed, teacher turnover has emerged as a critical issue within global education systems (Federičová, 2021). It not only incurs substantial direct and indirect costs (Mor Barak et al., 2001) but also disrupts the continuity of institutional culture (Robinson et al., 2014). Teacher turnover contributes to shortages of qualified teachers, declines in educational quality, and lower student achievement (Zhou & Ma, 2022), while also negatively affecting learning processes, teacher behavior, and instructional goals (Alshammari, 2022). In this regard, turnover is widely regarded as a problematic and highly undesirable outcome (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Therefore, identifying the factors influencing teachers’ turnover intentions is a critical step toward developing effective management strategies to reduce turnover rates (Yin et al., 2023). Within this context, work alienation and organizational silence have drawn attention as key determinants of teachers’ intentions to leave the profession.

Research indicates that bureaucratic school structures, intensive curricula, non-democratic leadership styles, and excessive workloads contribute significantly to teacher alienation (Hascher & Hadjar, 2018; Sidorkin, 2004). In addition, lack of job satisfaction, unmet professional needs, and ineffective communication further exacerbate this process (Şimşek et al., 2012). Teachers who are excluded from decision-making processes and overburdened with non-instructional duties experience even higher levels of alienation (Tsang & Kwong, 2017). As a result, increased workload and stress can trigger feelings of work alienation, ultimately leading some teachers to consider leaving the profession (Brooks et al., 2008). Moreover, organizational silence experienced by teachers has also emerged as a significant factor influencing their turnover intentions. Schools are inherently dynamic environments built upon collaboration, social interaction, and communication. When communication is disrupted, organizational silence becomes a critical issue for school functioning. Previous studies have examined the relationship between employee silence and organizational commitment, revealing that higher levels of silence negatively affect commitment (Fu, 2013; Y. Liu et al., 2014; X. M. Yu, 2019). Furthermore, organizational silence has been shown to adversely impact not only commitment but also job satisfaction and performance, thereby increasing turnover intention (Parlar Kılıç et al., 2021; Reyhanoglu & Akin, 2022). In this regard, both organizational silence and work alienation can be considered key predictors that strengthen teachers’ intentions to leave their profession.

A review of the literature reveals that numerous studies have established direct relationships between turnover intention and organizational silence (Chung et al., 2010; Saeidipour et al., 2021) as well as work alienation (Çiftci, 2021; Durrah & Chaudhary, 2020). However, there is a notable scarcity of research addressing the mediating role of work alienation in the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention. Moreover, existing studies on teacher attrition and turnover intention have predominantly focused on Western contexts (Adnot et al., 2017; Collie, 2025; Lee, 2019; Rahimi & Arnold, 2025; Rajendran et al., 2020; Räsänen et al., 2020; Tiplic et al., 2015; Van Eycken et al., 2024), while research in developing countries such as Türkiye remains limited. To contribute to the literature and enable international comparisons concerning factors driving teachers’ intentions to leave the profession, the present study examines the direct and indirect effects of organizational silence on teachers’ turnover intentions using data collected from teachers working in various provinces across different regions of Türkiye. The study is guided by the following research questions:

What is the relationship between organizational silence, work alienation, and turnover intention?

What is the direct effect of organizational silence on turnover intention?

Does work alienation mediate the effect of organizational silence on turnover intention?

Conceptual Framework

Organizational Silence

Organizational silence refers to the phenomenon in which members of an organization refrain from expressing ideas, knowledge, or opinions that could contribute to the development of the organization or the improvement of work processes. It represents a collective behavior wherein individuals deliberately withhold their thoughts, insights, and perspectives (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Organizational silence is characterized by the inability or unwillingness of individuals to freely participate in organizational discourse and is often conceptualized as the opposite of organizational voice (Bowen & Blackmon, 2003). According to Pinder and Harlos (2001), organizational silence involves employees consciously choosing not to share their genuine thoughts related to behavioral, cognitive, or emotional evaluations of the organization, particularly with those who have the authority to enact change. Although silence is commonly perceived as a passive behavior, it is often interpreted as a sign of employee compliance or organizational alignment. However, silence can also function as a form of resistance or protest against perceived injustices or dissatisfaction within the workplace (Brett et al., 1995).

Organizational silence manifests in three distinct forms: acquiescent silence, defensive silence, and pro-social silence. Acquiescent silence is characterized by passive acceptance of the current organizational conditions and is often interpreted as a sign of indifference or disengagement (Van Dyne et al., 2003). Individuals exhibiting this type of silence tend to have low motivational capacity and demonstrate limited awareness or willingness regarding their silence (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Defensive silence, on the other hand, refers to the deliberate withholding of ideas, knowledge, or concerns as a self-protective strategy. This type of silence is often rooted in strong negative emotions such as anger, fear, or cynicism (Blenkinsopp & Edwards, 2008; Van Dyne et al., 2003). Employees who engage in defensive silence may possess critical information about organizational issues but choose to remain silent due to uncertainty about how their supervisors will react (Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Pro-social silence is defined as the intentional withholding of information, thoughts, or opinions for the benefit of the organization or its members (Brinsfield, 2009). The primary motivation behind this form of silence is to protect sensitive or confidential information, ensuring that internal matters are not disclosed and that others’ personal data are not inappropriately shared (Van Dyne et al., 2003).

Work Alienation

The concept of alienation has been associated with a state of disconnection or cognitive detachment experienced by individuals in relation to a specific aspect of their environment (Kanungo, 1979). In the context of work life, alienation is understood as a psychological condition wherein individuals become cognitively distant from their work and its related contexts. It encompasses feelings of frustration due to obstacles encountered in achieving work-related goals, as well as the accompanying negative emotions and a prevailing sense of apathy (Saari, 2015). Work alienation reflects a lack of interest, commitment, and responsibility toward one’s job, and it is typically characterized by feelings of helplessness, isolation, self-estrangement, meaninglessness, and powerlessness (Sookoo, 2014). In this regard, Seeman (1959) conceptualized alienation through five key dimensions: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, and self-estrangement. Powerlessness refers to an individual’s perceived lack of control over events and outcomes, while meaninglessness involves a loss of purpose or inability to find significance in personal or societal matters. Normlessness indicates a decline in adherence to shared social norms, isolation reflects a sense of disconnection from one’s organization or community, and self-estrangement describes participation in activities that are not intrinsically satisfying or aligned with self-actualization (Seeman, 1959).

When evaluated in terms of professional attitudes and commitment, work alienation emerges as a significant phenomenon for teachers as well. Research suggests that intensive curricula, bureaucratic school structures, unilateral decision-making processes, undemocratic school leadership, and excessive workloads are among the primary factors triggering teacher alienation (Hascher & Hadjar, 2018; Sidorkin, 2004). A notable contributor to this experience is the increasing workload, which often focuses more on administrative tasks than on instructional activities, leading teachers to feel powerless and perceive their work as meaningless (Dworkin et al., 2003; Hargreaves, 2003). Prolonged feelings of powerlessness and meaninglessness gradually weaken teachers’ sense of professional commitment (Choi & Tang, 2009). Over time, this may lead to emotional and social disconnection from colleagues and the school community, reinforcing feelings of isolation (Dworkin et al., 2003). In addition, accountability-driven teaching and learning processes have been shown to increase teachers’ levels of stress and anxiety (Valli & Buese, 2007). As a result, teachers may begin to distance themselves from their professional responsibilities, view teaching as a meaningless activity, and perceive instructional work as monotonous and uninspiring (Sidorkin, 2004). Importantly, work alienation not only produces negative individual-level outcomes but also affects schools at the organizational level by weakening collaboration among teachers and reducing participation in school-based activities (Kulka et al., 1982).

Turnover Intention

The extent to which turnover intention predicts actual turnover behavior remains a subject of ongoing debate, and empirical research on this relationship within the public administration literature is still relatively limited. Jung (2010) argues that turnover intention may not always directly correspond with employees’ actual decisions to leave their organizations. Particularly in the context of teachers, most studies tend to use turnover intention as a dependent variable rather than actual turnover data. This trend is largely grounded in research based on attitudinal theory, which suggests that intention is a strong predictor of behavior (Cho & Lewis, 2012; Mobley et al., 1978). In this regard, turnover intention is defined as a cognitive antecedent that predicts employees’ decisions to voluntarily leave their jobs (Steel & Ovalle, 1984). Reflecting employees’ awareness of and thoughts about quitting their current positions, turnover intention is widely regarded as one of the most robust indicators of voluntary turnover (Akgunduz & Eryilmaz, 2018; Steel & Ovalle, 1984).

Research across various disciplines has identified a range of factors influencing turnover intention and actual employee turnover. Work-related stressors, such as excessive workload and job stress, have been shown to be directly associated with employees’ intentions to leave their jobs. Employees experiencing high levels of burnout are more likely to consider leaving their positions (J. Kim, 2015). In addition to these stress factors, variables such as job satisfaction, leader-member exchange (LMX), social support, and perceived supervisor support have also been identified as significant predictors of turnover intention (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003; Eisenberger et al., 2001; Harrison et al., 2006; X. S. Liu, 2007). In the context of teaching, job satisfaction has consistently emerged as one of the most critical determinants of teachers’ turnover intention, which in turn has been found to indirectly increase actual turnover rates among teachers (Harrison et al., 2006; X. S. Liu, 2007). However, job satisfaction alone is not a sufficient explanatory variable, as the process of turnover among teachers is shaped by a complex interplay of individual, organizational, and contextual factors. These may include personal characteristics, student demographic profiles, school-level contextual factors (e.g., leadership practices and staff relationships), and the extent to which teachers’ career expectations are met (Chan et al., 2008; Houkes et al., 2003; Loeb et al., 2005).

The Current Study

In today’s professional landscape- characterized by continuous competition, transformation, and innovation- the ability of organizations to remain flexible, efficient, responsive to environmental changes, and adaptive to innovation has become increasingly vital. Employees’ perspectives and opinions about their work play a critical role in fostering organizational efficiency, innovation, and productivity (Park & Nawakitphaitoon, 2018). In this context, encouraging employees to voice their concerns and enhancing their voice behavior contributes to the emergence of innovative ideas that drive organizational growth and transformation (T. H. Kim et al., 2019). However, employees may choose to remain silent due to a variety of negative workplace experiences, such as social exclusion (Jahanzeb & Fatima, 2018), abusive supervision (Lam & Xu, 2019), workplace bullying (X. Liu et al., 2020), and perceived lack of organizational justice (Whiteside & Barclay, 2013). From an institutional perspective, teachers often struggle to engage in school governance and decision-making, leading to silence even on issues tied to their expertise and interests. This indicates the presence of organizational silence among teachers within educational settings.

In situations where managerial support is perceived as insufficient, individuals often choose to remain silent, primarily due to fears of exclusion or alienation (Mansor & Shafie, 2017). Silence is also viewed as an indicator of devaluation and alienation (Fontein, 2006), and in this context, work alienation refers to the psychological and cognitive disconnection that arises when an individual perceives that their job lacks the potential to fulfill personal needs and expectations (H. Yu et al., 2021). This disconnection typically stems from a mismatch between the employee’s values, desires, demands, and expectations, and the nature of the job itself (Mottaz, 1981). In environments characterized by organizational silence, teachers who are unable to express their thoughts may gradually become desensitized to educational processes, assuming a passive role limited to fulfilling only mandatory duties. This dynamic not only undermines teachers’ professional satisfaction, but also weakens the overall effectiveness of educational institutions, eventually contributing to a decline in educational quality over time. In this regard, several studies support the existence of a positive relationship between organizational silence and work alienation (Cetinkaya & Karayel, 2019; Deniz & Çimen, 2024; Mahmoud Mohamed et al., 2024; Üstün & Çamlıca, 2017). Based on this framework, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Organizational silence predicts teachers’ work alienation.

Employee commitment to their work is considered a critical factor for organizational effectiveness and sustainability. However, work alienation, which emerges when employees become psychologically and cognitively detached from their work, can lead to a range of negative outcomes at both individual and organizational levels. Alienated individuals often experience psychological distress and a high degree of dissatisfaction (Iliffe & Manthorpe, 2019). In other words, an alienated employee tends to lose positive feelings toward organizational goals and commitment, exhibits decreased motivation, and undergoes emotional exhaustion. This process often begins with psychological disengagement (Guo et al., 2022; Sulu et al., 2010) and eventually leads the individual to seek ways to withdraw from work (Conway et al., 2020). From this perspective, teacher alienation is not only associated with psychological and emotional exhaustion at the individual level but also has broader implications for the efficiency of educational organizations and ultimately for student achievement (Tummers & Den Dulk, 2013).

Teachers with declining levels of professional commitment often lose interest in their instructional duties, fulfill their responsibilities at a minimal level, and may eventually experience job dissatisfaction and burnout. This process can lead to decreased motivation, a lack of interest in pedagogical innovation, and a diminished willingness to engage in ongoing professional development. As a result, alienated teachers are more likely to lose their organizational commitment and develop a stronger intention to leave (Goulet & Singh, 2002). Several studies across various fields have demonstrated a relationship between work alienation and turnover intention (Çiftci, 2021; Durrah & Chaudhary, 2020), and similar patterns have been observed in the field of education. It is assumed that negative workplace experiences and dissatisfaction with professional conditions contribute to increased work alienation, which in turn strengthens teachers’ intentions to leave their profession.

H2: Work alienation predicts teachers’ turnover intention.

Organizational silence refers to the phenomenon in which individuals refrain from expressing their thoughts, emotions, or concerns, creating a significant communication barrier within organizations. According to Pinder and Harlos (2001), organizational silence occurs when employees lack either the motivation to initiate change or the willingness to communicate their ideas to those in positions of power. The literature identifies several causes of organizational silence, including individual fears, low self-confidence, negative expectations, weak ethical responsibility, lack of political skill, and closed or authoritarian leadership styles (Brinsfield, 2009; Song et al., 2017). In educational institutions, teachers’ silence is closely related not only to organizational factors such as leadership style, administrative practices, organizational climate, and interpersonal relationships, but also to individual characteristics (Arifin, 2015; Xu & Zhang, 2009). When teachers feel that their opinions are not valued or when trust within the organization is weak, their sense of psychological safety diminishes, leading them to withhold information and avoid sharing their perspectives (Ma et al., 2012). According to Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), individuals who feel supported and trusted are more likely to contribute to the organization in accordance with the principle of reciprocity. However, teachers who feel unheard may lose their organizational commitment. In this context, silence hinders the expression of organizational problems and negatively affects problem-solving and decision-making processes (Milliken & Morrison, 2003).

Organizational silence creates a foundation for increasing levels of employee dissatisfaction, which over time may lead to communication breakdowns, the emergence of negative behavioral patterns, and ultimately a disruption in the overall functioning of the organization (Bagheri et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2005). In educational institutions, when teachers feel that they are unable to freely express their thoughts or that there is no psychologically safe environment to voice their concerns, they may begin to feel undervalued and excluded. Such feelings contribute to a weakening sense of institutional belonging and may increase teachers’ inclination to explore alternative career opportunities. Teachers who believe their contributions are not recognized and who are unable to express their opinions openly tend to experience lower levels of job satisfaction (Okeke & Mtyuda, 2017) and higher levels of burnout (Gavish & Friedman, 2010), which in turn become significant factors driving their turnover intentions. Indeed, several studies in the literature have identified a positive relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention (Chung et al., 2010; Elçi et al., 2014; Saeidipour et al., 2021). Based on this framework, the third hypothesis of the study is proposed as follows:

H3: Organizational silence predicts teachers’ turnover intention.

In educational institutions, organizational silence experienced by teachers is not merely a communication barrier that inhibits the expression of ideas, but also a significant antecedent of professional and psychological strain. When teachers feel excluded from school governance or perceive the absence of a psychologically safe environment to voice their concerns, they are more likely to remain silent on matters directly related to their professional domain (Su, 2017). This silence is often driven by fear of exclusion or devaluation, weakening teachers’ motivation to participate in decision-making processes and diminishing their willingness to contribute professionally (Brinsfield, 2009). A lack of meaningful social interaction and psychological support within the organization can negatively affect teachers’ sense of psychological safety, leading to work alienation. In this context, organizational silence fosters feelings of disinterest, meaninglessness, and powerlessness, which are core components of work alienation (Sookoo, 2014). Work alienation is defined as a psychological state in which individuals lose their sense of meaning, belonging, and control over their work. Among teachers, this condition may result in diminished job satisfaction, loss of motivation, and weakened organizational commitment (Guo et al., 2022). Teachers who feel that their contributions are not valued and who no longer perceive their work as meaningful may begin to experience emotional exhaustion and psychological disengagement, eventually increasing their intention to leave (Conway et al., 2020; Demir et al., 2018). Both McGregor’s (1960/1996) Human Relations Theory and Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) Job Characteristics Model suggest that individuals’ perceptions of lacking control over job outcomes and of their work being meaningless can significantly heighten their propensity to quit. Based on this theoretical framework, the present study assumes that organizational silence leads to teacher alienation, which in turn increases their turnover intention.

H4: Work alienation mediates the effect of organizational silence on teachers’ turnover intention.

Method

Research Design

A correlational cross-sectional survey design was employed in the study to examine the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention through the mediating effect of work alienation.

Sample

This study was conducted with 707 teachers working in public schools across nine provinces in different regions of Türkiye. To account for variations in socio-economic levels and cultural characteristics among regions, provinces from diverse geographical areas were included. The convenience sampling method was employed in selecting the participants. Of the sample, 53.5% were female and 46.5% were male. In terms of age, 41% of the teachers were aged 35 or below, another 41% were aged 36 to 45, and 18% were aged 46 and above. Regarding educational qualifications, 1.3% held an associate degree, 83% held a bachelor’s degree, 14.7% held a master’s degree, and 1% held a doctoral degree. In terms of teaching roles, 33.3% of the participants were classroom teachers, while 66.7% were subject teachers. Regarding years of professional experience, 15.6% had 5 years or less, 27.6% had 6 to 10 years, 21% had 11 to 15 years, 13.8% had 16 to 20 years, and 22% had 21 years or more of teaching experience. With respect to school levels, 7.5% of the teachers worked in preschools, 27.2% in primary schools, 41% in middle schools, and 24.3% in high schools.

Variables and Scales

Organizational Silence (OS) Scale

The Organizational Silence Scale developed by Kahveci and Demirtaş (2013) was employed as the independent variable in this study. The scale consists of 18 items and includes five subdimensions: School Environment (SE) (4 items), Emotion (E) (3 items), Source of Silence (SoS) (5 items), Administrator (A) (3 items), and Isolation (I) (3 items). The scale does not contain any reverse-coded items and is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted by Kahveci and Demirtaş (2013) demonstrated good model fit indices: χ²/df = 3.07, GFI = 0.91, AGFI = 0.87, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90, NFI = 0.89, and RMSEA = 0.07. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) reported in the original scale development study was .89. In the present study, the internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was also calculated as .89, indicating high reliability. Furthermore, the construct reliability analysis indicated adequate composite reliability (CR = 0.928) and satisfactory convergent validity, as evidenced by an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.527 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Work Alienation (WA) Scale

The Work Alienation Scale, used as the mediating variable in this study, was developed by Kurtulmuş and Karabıyık (2016). The scale consists of 14 items and is unidimensional. It is scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale and does not include any reverse-coded items. According to the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) conducted by the scale developers, the scale accounts for 50% of the total variance. Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated acceptable fit indices (χ²/df = 2.99; CFI = .95; GFI = .91; AGFI = .87; RMSEA = .08). Reliability analyses from the original study reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .92, a Spearman-Brown coefficient of .91, and a Guttman Split-Half coefficient of .91. In the current study, the internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) for the WA scale was found to be .95, indicating excellent reliability. In addition, the construct reliability analysis demonstrated adequate composite reliability (CR = 0.956) and satisfactory convergent validity, as evidenced by an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.614 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Turnover Intention (TI) Scale

The Turnover Intention Scale, developed by Vekeman et al. (2017), was used as the dependent variable in this study. The Turkish adaptation of the scale was conducted by Coşkun et al. (2021). The scale is unidimensional and consists of 3 items, all rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with no negatively worded items. Validity studies conducted by Coşkun et al. (2021) revealed that the factor loadings of the items ranged between .88 and .92, while the item-total correlations ranged from r = .74 to r = .81. The internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was reported as .89. The measurement model developed to confirm the unidimensional structure of the three-item scale was identified as a saturated model with zero degrees of freedom. In the current study, reliability analysis showed that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was .93, indicating a high level of internal consistency. In addition, the construct reliability analysis revealed adequate composite reliability (CR = 0.959) and satisfactory convergent validity, as evidenced by an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.888 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Data Collection

An online survey form was created to collect data on the Organizational Silence (OS), Work Alienation (WA), and Turnover Intention (TI) scales, as well as demographic information related to teachers’ personal characteristics (e.g., gender, age, education level, and years of professional experience). Within the scope of the convenience sampling method, the researchers contacted school principals and teachers known to them and requested that they distribute the online form to potential participants via email and digital platforms. The study was conducted in accordance with the principle of voluntary participation. Although the target sample size was approximately 800 teachers, a total of 707 teachers completed the online form. The data collection process began in March 2025 and was completed in April 2025, lasting approximately 2 months. The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its following updates.

To minimize potential risks to participants, the study employed a non-invasive, self-report survey consisting of non-sensitive items related to organizational silence, work alienation, and turnover intention. Participation was entirely voluntary, and respondents were free to withdraw from the study at any time without any adverse consequences. No personally identifying information was collected, and all responses were recorded anonymously to ensure confidentiality. The research protocol was conducted in accordance with ethical standards and received approval from the relevant institutional ethics committee. The potential benefits of the study—to both society and participants—were considered to outweigh any minimal risks involved. Specifically, the findings provide valuable evidence for education policymakers and school administrators seeking to improve teacher retention, organizational climate, and sustainable workforce development. The risks associated with participation were limited primarily to time commitment and minimal psychological discomfort. Informed consent was obtained electronically prior to data collection. Participants were presented with an introductory information sheet explaining the purpose of the study, procedures, confidentiality, and their rights as participants. Consent was indicated by selecting an agreement option before accessing the online questionnaire.

Analytical Strategy

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to test the mediating role of work alienation in the relationship between organizational silence and teachers’ turnover intention. Prior to conducting SEM, common method bias and composite reliability analyses were performed, and descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were conducted for all variables. After confirming that the data were normally distributed, the significant relationships among variables were examined, and a two-step SEM approach was applied. In the first step, the measurement model was tested, followed by the structural model in the second step, which was based on the hypothesized relationships. As recommended for mediation analysis in SEM, both the full mediation model and the partial mediation model were tested to fully explore the pattern of relationships among variables. Gender was included as a control variable in the mediation analyses. To assess model fit, several goodness-of-fit indices were used, including χ²/df, CFI, NFI, TLI, SRMR, and RMSEA. The following cutoff criteria were adopted based on the recommendations of MacCallum et al. (1996) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2001): χ²/df ≤ 5, CFI, NFI, and TLI ≥ .90, and SRMR and RMSEA ≤ .08. For comparing the full and partial mediation models, the chi-square difference test was utilized. Given that all constructs were unidimensional, the item parceling method was applied. This method involves creating composite indicators (parcels) to reduce the number of observed variables, increase reliability, and promote normal distribution (Nasser-Abu Alhija & Wisenbaker, 2006). In this study, the Work Alienation Scale was modeled as a unidimensional construct and parceled into two indicators using an item-to-construct balancing approach. Specifically, odd-numbered items (e.g., I feel disengaged from my work) were assigned to the first parcel, whereas even-numbered items (e.g., I believe that my job lacks meaning) were assigned to the second parcel. This procedure is in line with parceling methods recommended in the literature, including odd-even splitting and the balancing of item discrimination and difficulty across parcels (Little et al., 2002). Furthermore, to test the mediating effect of work alienation in the relationship between organizational silence and teachers’ turnover intention, SEM was supplemented with a bootstrapping procedure. The bootstrapping method, based on 5,000 resamples (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), was used to estimate standardized coefficients and confidence intervals. Mediation was considered significant when the resulting confidence intervals did not include zero.

Findings

This section presents the findings of the correlation analysis and descriptive statistics, followed by the results of the measurement model, structural model, and bootstrapping procedure.

Correlation and Descriptive Statistics

To assess the potential presence of common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was performed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), in which all observed variables were loaded onto a single unrotated factor. The analysis revealed that the first factor explained 30.82% of the total variance, which is below the commonly accepted threshold of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In general, these findings suggest that the likelihood of common method bias posing a significant problem is low.

The descriptive statistics and correlation analyses of the study’s main variables—organizational silence, work alienation, and turnover intention—as well as their subdimensions, were examined. According to the descriptive results, the mean scores ranged between 1.91 and 4.06. Teachers’ responses to the Organizational Silence Scale were at a moderate level (M = 3.65, SD = .64), while their scores on Work Alienation (M = 2.31, SD = 1.02) and Turnover Intention (M = 1.91, SD = 1.18) were found to be at a low level. To assess the normality of the variables, skewness and kurtosis values were examined. Skewness values ranged from −0.71 to 1.23, and kurtosis values ranged from −0.52 to 0.44. Since these results meet the normality criteria proposed for skewness (±2) and kurtosis (±7) by Finney and DiStefano (2008), it was concluded that the variables exhibit a normal distribution (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Correlations Among Variables and Descriptive Statistics (N = 707).

Variables	OS	SE	E	SoS	A	I	WA	TI
OS	—
SE	.76**	—
E	.77**	.56**	—
SoS	.82**	.49**	.48**	—
A	.72**	.42**	.43**	.54**	—
I	.83**	.54**	.64**	.58**	.53**	—
WA	.24**	.24**	.21**	.17**	.13**	.20**	—
TI	.14**	.14**	.08*	.12**	.09*	.10**	.75**	—
Mean	3.65	3.46	3.93	3.37	4.06	3.71	2.31	1.91
SD	.64	.74	.79	.79	.82	.95	1.02	1.18
Skewness	−.27	−.02	−.50	−.24	−.71	−.53	.59	1.23
Kurtosis	−.17	−.52	−.39	−.13	−.17	−.23	−.48	.44

Note. OS = Organizational Silence, SE = School Environment, E = Emotion, SoS = Source of Silence, A = Administrator, I = Isolation, WA = Work Alienation, TI = Turnover Intention, SD = standard deviation.

p < .05, **p < .01.

According to the correlation results presented in Table 1, all main variables and their subdimensions were found to have statistically significant relationships with one another. The correlation between work alienation and turnover intention (r = .75, p < .01) was stronger than the correlations between organizational silence and work alienation (r = .24, p < .01), as well as between organizational silence and turnover intention (r = .14, p < .01).

Measurement Model

The measurement model consisted of three latent variables- organizational silence, work alienation, and turnover intention—represented by a total of 10 observed variables: five for organizational silence, two for work alienation, and three for turnover intention. The results indicated that the model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data (χ²/df = 3.13, p < .001; CFI = .98; NFI = .98; TLI = .98; SRMR = .026; RMSEA = .055, 90% CI [.043, .067]). These values confirmed that the measurement model was validated. Furthermore, the factor loadings ranged from .64 to .99, suggesting that the observed variables significantly represented their respective latent constructs. Following the confirmation of the measurement model, the analysis proceeded to test the structural models.

Structural Model

The first structural model tested examined the partial mediating role of work alienation in the relationship between organizational silence and teachers’ turnover intention. Initially, a full mediation model was tested to assess whether work alienation fully mediated the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention. The model fit indices for the full mediation model indicated an acceptable level of fit (χ²/df = 3.18, p < .001; CFI = .98; NFI = .97; TLI = .97; SRMR = .044; RMSEA = .056, 90% CI [.045, .066]; AIC = 203.65; ECVI = 0.29). Next, a partial mediation model was tested to evaluate whether organizational silence predicted turnover intention both directly and indirectly through work alienation. The fit indices for the partial mediation model also met acceptable thresholds (χ²/df = 3.14, p < .001; CFI = .98; NFI = .97; TLI = .97; SRMR = .040; RMSEA = .055, 90% CI [.045, .066]; AIC = 200.85; ECVI = 0.28). To determine which model was more appropriate, a chi-square difference test was conducted. The results (Δχ² = 4.8, df = 1, p < .05) showed that adding a direct path from organizational silence to turnover intention significantly improved model fit. Furthermore, the AIC and ECVI values of the partial mediation model were lower than those of the full mediation model. Based on these findings, the partial mediation model was determined to be preferable, indicating that work alienation partially mediates the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention. Figure 1 presents the path coefficients of the structural model illustrating the partial mediation of work alienation in the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention.

Figure 1.

Partial mediating role of work alienation between organizational silence and turnover intention.

Bootstrapping Procedure

The indirect effect of teachers’ organizational silence on turnover intention through work alienation was tested for statistical significance using the bootstrapping method. Accordingly, the coefficients for both direct and indirect paths, along with their corresponding confidence intervals, are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Bootstrapping Process for Partial Mediator Model.

Model pathways	Estimate	95% CI
Model pathways	Estimate	Lower	Upper
Direct Link
OS → TI	.06	.00	.12
OS → WA	.28	.19	.34
WA → TI	.80	.75	.83
Indirect Link
OS → WA → TI	.22	.15	.28

Note. CI = confidence interval; OS = Organizational Silence; WA = Work Alienation; TI = Turnover Intention.

An examination of the bootstrapped path coefficients and their confidence intervals presented in Table 2 indicates that all direct path coefficients are statistically significant. Furthermore, the indirect effect of organizational silence on turnover intention through work alienation was also found to be significant (bootstrap coefficient = .22, 95% CI = [.15, .28]). These findings suggest that work alienation partially mediates the relationship between organizational silence and teachers’ turnover intention.

Discussion

Teacher attrition is one of the key issues that directly affects both the stability of educational institutions and student achievement. Therefore, understanding teachers’ turnover intentions and the factors influencing them is of great importance. Given that teaching is a multidimensional and demanding profession, classrooms are not merely spaces for the transmission of knowledge; rather, they are social environments shaped significantly by teachers’ psychological characteristics. This reality necessitates a closer examination of teacher psychology and the dynamics of classroom environments. Within this context, investigating the impact of organizational silence on teachers’ turnover intention and the mediating role of work alienation is critical not only for enhancing teacher well-being but also for ensuring the sustainability of educational environments. The first hypothesis of the study proposed that organizational silence would predict teachers’ work alienation. The findings supported this hypothesis and aligned with previous studies that identified a significant relationship between organizational silence and work alienation (Cetinkaya & Karayel, 2019; Deniz & Çimen, 2024; Mahmoud Mohamed et al., 2024). The results indicate that when teachers are unable to freely express their thoughts, concerns, or problems within the organization, they gradually experience a decline in professional commitment and an increase in feelings of alienation (Çetinkaya & Koçyiğit, 2021; Kayaalp & Özdemir, 2020). In such silencing environments, teachers may lose their sense of belonging to the organization and experience a diminished perception of meaning in their professional roles. This finding highlights the critical link between teacher psychology and institutional dynamics, underscoring the importance of cultivating an open communication culture in educational institutions to enhance teacher commitment and prevent alienation. Teachers who lose their sense of commitment and become alienated from their work tend to suffer from low motivation and reduced engagement with students, thereby weakening the classroom learning environment and, in the long term, threatening the stability of the education system.

The second hypothesis of the study proposed that work alienation would predict teachers’ turnover intention, and this hypothesis was supported by the analysis results. This finding is consistent with previous research in the literature, which has demonstrated a positive relationship between work alienation and turnover intention (Bothma & Roodt, 2013; Golden et al., 2008; Taboli, 2015; Ünsar & Karahan, 2011). Employees who experience alienation gradually lose their positive feelings toward their work and organizational goals, which leads to reduced motivation and psychological disengagement (Kanungo, 1979; Sulu et al., 2010). Work alienation also tends to weaken social interactions, further distancing individuals from their work environments. This, in turn, undermines their willingness to establish stable relationships with colleagues and diminishes their motivation to contribute to the organization (Dong et al., 2023). As a result, a decline in organizational commitment may lead individuals to begin seeking alternative employment opportunities that they perceive as more suitable. In the context of teaching—a profession that demands high levels of emotional labor and social engagement—work alienation can erode a teacher’s sense of commitment to their professional role, school culture, and students. This may lead to reduced classroom motivation and a decline in pedagogical quality. From this perspective, teacher alienation should not be viewed merely as an individual experience of burnout, but rather as a structural issue that weakens institutional functioning and negatively impacts student achievement.

The third hypothesis of the study, which proposed that organizational silence predicts teachers’ turnover intention, was supported by the analysis results. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have identified a significant relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention (Elçi et al., 2014; Saeidipour et al., 2021). Within a school organization, teachers’ silence is closely related to both organizational factors such as leadership decision-making styles, organizational climate, administrative approaches, and interpersonal relationships and individual-level variables. These elements are considered critical antecedents that directly influence teachers’ job performance (Ma et al., 2012; Sun, 2016). Organizational silence, therefore, is not merely an individual disposition but also constitutes a serious barrier to institutional development. It leads to a decline in employee morale and motivation (Van Dyne et al., 2003), which in turn weakens organizational commitment. This decline is particularly evident among employees who engage in silence behavior, manifesting in increased tardiness, absenteeism, and ultimately turnover (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). In this context, when teachers are unable to express themselves within the organization or feel that their ideas are excluded from decision-making processes, this often results in growing professional dissatisfaction. Over time, this dissatisfaction emerges as a significant factor that intensifies their intention to leave the profession.

The final hypothesis of the study proposed that work alienation mediates the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention among teachers. The findings supported this hypothesis, revealing that work alienation plays a partial mediating role in the link between organizational silence and teachers’ intention to leave the profession. This result is in line with existing literature. Specifically, reluctance to share information, provide feedback, or speak up negatively impacts employees’ self-confidence and motivation, posing a serious barrier to organizational development and innovation (W. Liu et al., 2010). In educational settings, this reluctance fosters a culture of silence, where teachers avoid expressing themselves and adopt a passive stance. Over time, such a culture can cause teachers to perceive their work as meaningless, feel powerless, and become psychologically detached from their institutions. Work alienation stems from factors such as loss of control over one’s labor, diminished influence over the work process, and inability to express oneself- leading individuals to become alienated not only from their job but also from their colleagues (Suarez-Mendoza & Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, 2007). This process is especially evident among teachers facing heavy workloads, and it contributes to increased stress, burnout, and a weakened connection to the organization, all of which intensify turnover intention (Brooks et al., 2008). As Jia and Yan (2022) argue, work alienation represents a fundamental escape route for individuals seeking to distance themselves from the organization. In this context, the findings of the present study demonstrate that when teachers experience organizational silence, their levels of work alienation increase, which in turn significantly influences their intention to leave the profession.

Conclusion and Implications

The findings of this study revealed that organizational silence and work alienation significantly predict teachers’ turnover intention. Work alienation was found to play a mediating role in the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention. In school environments where teachers refrain from expressing their thoughts, feelings, and concerns, emotional bonds are weakened, professional meaning is lost, and the tendency to disengage from the institution becomes stronger. This condition not only undermines teachers’ professional satisfaction and commitment at the individual level, but also negatively affects classroom interaction, student achievement, and the overall functioning of the school. For policymakers, these results highlight that school climates which suppress teacher voice or devalue their contributions represent a significant risk factor for increased teacher attrition. Accordingly, educational policy should prioritize the development of supportive school climates through initiatives such as guidance programs, participatory leadership models, organizational justice practices, and structured mechanisms for professional development. It is especially important to establish systems that make teachers’ contributions visible, facilitate feedback processes, and reward meaningful input where appropriate. From an educational perspective, these findings underscore the necessity of democratic and supportive school environments where teachers can express their opinions, feel that their voices are valued, and participate actively in decision-making processes. When teachers can speak openly, their motivation and job satisfaction are likely to increase, thereby reducing their intention to leave the profession. School leaders should therefore encourage voice behavior, explicitly demonstrate its organizational value, and ensure that teachers’ ideas are not only heard but integrated into concrete decision-making processes. Ultimately, a school environment where teachers feel heard, involved, and valued will promote both individual teacher satisfaction and institutional sustainability, contributing to a reduction in turnover intentions.

Limitations

The findings of this study should be interpreted within the scope of certain limitations. First, the use of self-report instruments during the data collection process constitutes the primary limitation. Since the data were obtained through participants’ self-reported responses, the findings are limited to the scope of these instruments and may be influenced by social desirability bias. Although procedural precautions were taken (e.g., ensuring anonymity and emphasizing that there were no right or wrong answers), self-report data may still lead participants to provide socially desirable responses, particularly in a context where discussing silence or turnover intentions may be perceived as sensitive. Future studies may benefit from incorporating methodological triangulation, combining self-report tools with qualitative approaches such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, or observational techniques. Such mixed-method designs would allow researchers not only to measure the magnitude of relationships but also to explore the underlying “why” and “how” mechanisms that shape the link between organizational silence, work alienation, and turnover intention.

The sampling method and participant diversity represent the second limitation of the study. Although data were collected from nine provinces in Türkiye representing different socio-economic and cultural contexts, the generalizability of the results may be limited. Because the data were confined to specific provinces, the findings may not fully represent teachers across all regions of Türkiye, especially those from underserved, rural, or geographically remote areas. This issue can be mitigated in future research by including larger, stratified, and more diverse samples from a greater number of regions to enhance representativeness and external validity.

The third limitation concerns the cross-sectional design of the study, which prevents the establishment of definitive causal relationships. Although structural equation modeling and bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples were conducted to test mediation effects, caution should be exercised when interpreting the directionality of the paths in the model. Cross-sectional data restrict the ability to observe temporal changes in silence, alienation, and turnover intention; therefore, the findings should be viewed as correlational rather than causal. To overcome this limitation, longitudinal designs, which track teachers’ experiences over time, are recommended. Additionally, future mixed-methods longitudinal research may provide deeper insight into how silence and alienation evolve and how they cumulatively contribute to turnover intention across different stages of teachers’ careers.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Sevda Katıtaş

Ethical Considerations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were under the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by Ethics Committee on Social and Human Sciences Research at Yıldız Technical University (Approval No: 2025.03, dated March 3, 2025). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Contributions

Sevda Katıtaş: Writing-review & editing, Writing-original draft, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Data curation.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References

Adnot

Dee

Katz

Wyckoff

(2017). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 54–76. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716663646

Agarwal

P. K.

Roediger

H. L.

III . (2018). Lessons for learning: How cognitive psychology informs classroom practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(4), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718815666

Akgunduz

Eryilmaz

(2018). Does turnover intention mediate the effects of job insecurity and co-worker support on social loafing? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.010

Alshammari

(2022). The burnout among mathematics teachers in middle schools in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 5(6), 2089–2097. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i6-12

Arifin

H. M.

(2015). The influence of competence, motivation, and organisational culture to high school teacher job satisfaction and performance. International Education Studies, 8(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n1p38

Aselage

Eisenberger

(2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.211

Bagheri

Zarei

Aeen

M. N.

(2012). Organizational silence (basic concepts and its development factors). Ideal Type of Management, 1(1), 47–58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

Blenkinsopp

Edwards

M. S.

(2008). On not blowing the whistle: Quiescent silence as an emotion episode. In Zerbe

W. J.

Härtel

C. E.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(Eds.), Emotions, ethics and decision-making (pp. 181–206). Emerald Group Publishing.

10.

Borman

G. D.

Dowling

N. M.

(2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455

11.

Bothma

C. F. C.

Roodt

(2013). The validation of the turnover intention scale. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v11i1.507

12.

Bowen

Blackmon

(2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393–1417. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00385

13.

Brett

J. F.

Cron

W. L.

Slocum

J. W.

Jr. (1995). Economic dependency on work: A moderator of the relationship between organizational commitment and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/256735

14.

Brinsfield

C. T.

(2009). Employee silence: Investigation of dimensionality, development of measures and examination of related factors [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. The Ohio State University.

15.

Brooks

J. S.

Hughes

R. M.

Brooks

M. C.

(2008). Fear and trembling in the American high school: Educational reform and teacher alienation. Educational Policy, 22(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807311296

16.

Cetinkaya

A. S.

Karayel

(2019). The effects of organisational silence on work alienation in service enterprises. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 18(4), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEBR.2019.103099

17.

Chan

W. Y.

Lau

Nie

Lim

Hogan

(2008). Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 597–630. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208318259

18.

Cho

Y. J.

Lewis

G. B.

(2012). Turnover intention and turnover behavior: Implications for retaining federal employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X11408701

19.

Choi

P. L.

Tang

S. Y. F.

(2009). Teacher commitment trends: Cases of Hong Kong teachers from 1997 to 2007. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 767–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.01.005

20.

Chung

H. S.

H. K.

Park

D. G.

(2010). The influence of organizational silence on turnover intention: Mediated moderating effect of self-efficacy through organizational cynicism. The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.24230/ksiop.23.1.201003.89

21.

Collie

R. J.

(2025). Teachers’ perceived social-emotional competence: A personal resource linked with well-being and turnover intentions. Educational Psychology, 45(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2025.2466652

22.

Conway

Monks

Alfes

Bailey

(2020). Reimagining alienation within a relational framework: Evidence from the public sector in Ireland and the UK. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(21), 2673–2694. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1460859

23.

Coşkun

Toprak

Katıtaş

Sipahioğlu

(2021). Öğretmenlerin mesleği bırakma niyeti ve okul değiştirme niyeti ölçeklerinin Türkçeye uyarlanması, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları [The Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability studies of teachers’ intent to leave the profession and intent to move to another school scales]. Cappadocia Journal of History and Social Sciences, 17, 124–135. https://doi.org/10.29228/cahij.53848

24.

Çetinkaya

Koçyiğit

(2021). Öğretmenlerin psikolojik sermaye, örgütsel sessizlik ve örgütsel yabancılaşma düzeylerinin incelenmesi [Examination of teachers’ psychological capital, organizational silence, and organizational alienation levels]. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences (IJOESS), 12(46), 1011–1040. https://doi.org/10.35826/ijoess.3030

25.

Çiftci

D. Ö

. (2021). Emotional exhaustion as a mediator among workplace loneliness, work alienation and turnover intention. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 24(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-04-2020-0051

26.

Demir

Ayas

Yıldız

(2018). An investigation of the relationship between organizational cynicism and work alienation: A research on five star hotels’ employees. Journal of Administrative Sciences, 16(32), 231–254. http://ybd.dergi.comu.edu.tr

27.

Deniz

Çimen

(2024). The mediating role of work alienation in the effect of workplace ostracism on employee voice. Hospital Topics, 102(4), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00185868.2022.2116375

28.

Dong

(2023). Ageism and employee silence: The serial mediating roles of work alienation and organizational commitment. Ethics & Behavior, 33(8), 702–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2022.2126843

29.

Durrah

Chaudhary

(2020). Negative behaviors among employees: The impact on the intention to leave work. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-05-2020-0044

30.

Dworkin

A. G.

Saha

L. J.

Hill

A. N.

(2003). Teacher burnout and perceptions of a democratic school environment. International Education Journal, 4(2), 108–120. https://www.researchgate.net

31.

Eisenberger

Armeli

Rexwinkel

Lynch

P. D.

Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42

32.

Elçi

Karabay

M. E.

Alpkan

Şener

İ.

(2014). The mediating role of mobbing on the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 1298–1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.110

33.

Federičová

(2021). Teacher turnover: What can we learn from Europe? European Journal of Education, 56(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12429

34.

Finney

S. J.

DiStefano

(2008). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. D.

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Information Age Publishing.

35.

Fontein

(2006). Silence, destruction and closure at Great Zimbabwe: Local narratives of desecration and alienation. Journal of Southern African Studies, 32(4), 771–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070600995723

36.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

37.

(2013). A study on the influence of employee silence organizational commitment of knowledge workers [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Shandong University.

38.

Gavish

Friedman

I. A.

(2010). Novice teachers’ experience of teaching: A dynamic aspect of burnout. Social Psychology of Education, 13(2), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9108-0

39.

Golden

T. D.

Veiga

J. F.

Dino

R. N.

(2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1412–1421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012722

40.

Goulet

L. R.

Singh

(2002). Career commitment: A reexamination and an extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1844

41.

Guo

Cheng

Luo

Zhao

(2022). Trapped in a loss spiral: How and when work alienation relates to knowledge hiding. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(20), 4004–4033. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1937672

42.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.

43.

Hargreaves

(2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Open University Press.

44.

Harrison

D. A.

Newman

D. A.

Roth

P. L.

(2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786077

45.

Hascher

Hadjar

(2018). School alienation- theoretical approaches and educational research. Educational Research, 60(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1443021

46.

Houkes

Janssen

Jonge

Bakker

(2003). Specific determinants of intrinsic work motivation, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: A multisample longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903322591578

47.

Huang

Van de Vliert

Van der Vegt

(2005). Breaking the silence culture: Stimulation of participation and employee opinion withholding cross-nationally. Management and Organization Review, 1(3), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00023.x

48.

Iliffe

Manthorpe

(2019). The unexpected return of alienation: Job dissatisfaction, ‘burnout’ and work estrangement in the NHS. Renewal: A Journal of Social Democracy, 27(4), 50–59. https://journals.lwbooks.co.uk

49.

Jahanzeb

Fatima

(2018). How workplace ostracism influences interpersonal deviance: The mediating role of defensive silence and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(6), 779–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9525-6

50.

Jia

Yan

(2022). Labor control in cognitive labor and data labeling: Taking N AI company as an example. Sociological Studies, 2022(5), 3–37. https://shxyj.ajcass.com

51.

Jung

C. S.

(2010). Predicting organizational actual turnover rates in the US federal government. International Public Management Journal, 13(3), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2010.504124

52.

Kahveci

Demirtaş

(2013). Öğretmenler için örgütsel sessizlik ölçeği geliştirme çalışması [Development study of organizational silence scale for teachers]. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(43), 167–182. https://dergipark.org.tr

53.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86(1), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.1.119

54.

Kayaalp

Özdemir

T. Y.

(2020). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel sessizlik, örgütsel yalnızlık ve örgütsel yabancılaşma algılarının örgütsel sinizm düzeyleriyle ilişkisi [Associating Teachers’ perceptions of organizational silence, organizational loneliness and organizational alienation with organizational cynicism levels]. Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.2021.157

55.

Kim

(2015). What increases public employees’ turnover intention? Public Personnel Management, 44(4), 496–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026015604447

56.

Kim

T. H.

Lee

S. S.

Lee

(2019). Too powerless to speak up: Effects of social rejection on sense of power and employee voice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(10), 655–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12625

57.

Kulka

R. A.

Kahle

L. R.

Klingel

D. M.

(1982). Aggression, deviance, and personality adaptation as antecedents and consequences of alienation and involvement in high school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11(3), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537471

58.

Kurtulmuş

Karabıyık

(2016). Algılanan örgütsel adaletin öğretmenlerin işe yabancılaşma düzeylerine etkisi [The effect of perceived organizational justice to work alienation level]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(2), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.v5i2.5000175962

59.

Lam

L. W.

A. J.

(2019). Power imbalance and employee silence: The role of abusive leadership, power distance orientation, and perceived organisational politics. Applied Psychology, 68(3), 513–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12170

60.

Lee

Y. H.

(2019). Emotional labor, teacher burnout, and turnover intention in high-school physical education teaching. European Physical Education Review, 25(1), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X17719559

61.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

62.

Liu

Zhu

Yang

(2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014

63.

Liu

Yang

Yao

(2020). Silent counterattack: The impact of workplace bullying on employee silence. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 572236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572236

64.

Liu

X. S.

(2007). The effect of teacher influence at school on first-year teacher attrition: A multilevel analysis of the Schools and Staffing Survey for 1999–2000. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610600797615

65.

Liu

Chen

G. L.

(2014). The impact of employee silenceon job perception and organizational decision-making in Chinese enterprises. Lanzhou Academic Journal, 7, 202–208. Retrieved from https://caod.oriprobe.com

66.

Loeb

Darling-Hammond

Luczak

(2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje8003_4

67.

H. W.

Chen

Yao

(2012). The relations of teachers’ trust in direct supervisors and knowledge sharing with job performance. Journal of Psychological Science, 35(2), 340–345. Retrieved from http://www.cnki.com.cn

68.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

69.

Mahmoud Mohamed

Mostafa Shazly

Fathy Saad

. (2024). Organizational silence and its influence on work alienation among staff nurses. Egyptian Journal of Health Care, 15(4), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhc.2024.386784

70.

Mansor

Shafie

D. I. B.

(2017). Organizational silence: What’s the matter?’ [Conference session] ICOPS2017 eProceedings, 104–112.

71.

McGregor

D. M.

(1960/1996). The human side of enterprise. In Shafritz

J. M.

Ott

J. S.

(Eds.), Classics of organization theory (4th ed., pp. 176–183). Harcourt Brace.

72.

McInerney

D. M.

Ganotice

F. A.

King

R. B.

Marsh

H. W.

Morin

A. J. S.

(2015). Exploring commitment and turnover intentions among teachers: What we can learn from Hong Kong teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.08.004

73.

Milliken

F. J.

Morrison

E. W.

(2003). Shades of silence: Emerging themes and future directions for research on silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1563–1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00391

74.

Mobley

W. H.

Horner

S. O.

Hollingsworth

A. T.

(1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 408–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.408

75.

Mor Barak

M. E.

Nissly

J. A.

Levin

. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Service Review, 75(4), 625–661. https://doi.org/10.1086/323166

76.

Morrison

E. W.

Milliken

F. J.

(2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.2307/259200

77.

Mottaz

C. J.

(1981). Some determinants of work alienation. Sociological Quarterly, 22(4), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1981.tb00678.x

78.

Nasser-Abu Alhija

Wisenbaker

. (2006). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_3

79.

Okeke

C. I.

Mtyuda

P. N.

(2017). Teacher job dissatisfaction: Implications for teacher sustainability and social transformation. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 19(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2017-0004

80.

Park

J. Y.

Nawakitphaitoon

(2018). The cross-cultural study of LMX and individual employee voice: The moderating role of conflict avoidance. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12158

81.

Parlar Kılıç

Öndaş Aybar

Sevinç

. (2021). Effect of organizational silence on the job satisfaction and performance levels of nurses. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 57(4), 1888–1896. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12763

82.

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, 331–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20007-3

83.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

84.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

85.

Rahimi

Arnold

(2025). Understanding Australia’s teacher shortage: The importance of psychosocial working conditions to turnover intentions. The Australian Educational Researcher, 52(1), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00720-5

86.

Rajendran

Watt

H. M.

Richardson

P. W.

(2020). Teacher burnout and turnover intent. The Australian Educational Researcher, 47(3), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00371-x

87.

Räsänen

Pietarinen

Pyhältö

Soini

Väisänen

(2020). Why leave the teaching profession? A longitudinal approach to the prevalence and persistence of teacher turnover intentions. Social Psychology of Education, 23, 837–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09567-x

88.

Reyhanoglu

Akin

(2022). Impact of toxic leadership on the intention to leave: A research on permanent and contracted hospital employees. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 38(1), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEAS-05-2020-0076

89.

Robinson

R. N.

Kralj

Solnet

D. J.

Goh

Callan

(2014). Thinking job embeddedness not turnover: Towards a better understanding of frontline hotel worker retention. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.08.008

90.

Saari

(2015). Work alienation and engagement in organisations- Case study in an advertising agency [Unpublished bachelor’s thesis]. Turku University of Applied Sciences.

91.

Saeidipour

Akbari

Alizadeh

(2021). The role of organizational silence & organizational mobbing on the turnover intention. International Journal of Ethics and Society, 3(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.52547/ijethics.3.1.59

92.

Seeman

(1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088565

93.

Sidorkin

A. M.

(2004). In the event of learning: Alienation and participative thinking in education. Educational Theory, 54(3), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-2004.2004.00018.x

94.

Şimşek

Balay

Şimşek

A. S.

(2012). İlköğretim sınıf öğretmenlerinde mesleki yabancılaşma [Alienation from work of elementary school teachers]. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 53–72. https://dergipark.org.tr

95.

Song

Qian

Wang

Yang

Zhai

(2017). Are you hiding from your boss? Leader’s destructive personality and employee silence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(7), 1167–1174. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6421

96.

Sookoo

(2014). Perceptions of injustice and alienation dynamics within the workplace. Journal of the Department of Behavioural Sciences, 3(1), 81–99. https://journals.sta.uwi.edu

97.

Steel

R. P.

Ovalle

N. K.

(1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.673

98.

(2017). Teachers’ voice behavior: Displaying the sense of ownership of high-quality teachers- An empirical study of the relationship between subjective social economic status and teachers’ voice behavior. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 12, 91–96. https://caod.oriprobe.com

99.

Suarez-Mendoza

M. J.

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara

(2007). The impact of work alienation on organizational citizenship behavior in the Canary Island. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 15(1), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/19348830710860156

100.

Sulu

Ceylan

Kaynak

(2010). Work alienation as a mediator of the relationship between organizational injustice and organizational commitment: Implications for healthcare professionals. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(8), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n8p27

101.

Sun

W. X. Y.

(2016). Transformational leadership and teacher’ job performance: Workplace friendship and job engagement [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Hunan Normal University.

102.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

103.

Taboli

(2015). Burnout, work engagement, work alienation as predictors of turnover intentions among universities employees in Kerman. Life Science Journal, 12(9), 67–74. https://www.lifesciencesite.com/

104.

Tiplic

Brandmo

Elstad

(2015). Antecedents of Norwegian beginning teachers’ turnover intentions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(4), 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.987642

105.

Tsang

K. K.

Kwong

T. L.

(2017). Teachers’ emotions in the context of education reform: Labor process theory and social constructionism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(6), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1182007

106.

Tummers

L. G.

Den Dulk

(2013). The effects of work alienation on organisational commitment, work effort and work-to-family enrichment. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(6), 850–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12159

107.

Ünsar

A. S.

Karahan

(2011). Yabancılaşmanın işten ayrılma eğilimine etkisini belirlemeye yönelik bir alan araştırması [A field study on determining the effect of alienation on turnover intention]. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(21), 361–378. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr

108.

Üstün

Çamlıca

(2017). Örgütsel yabancılaşmanın örgütsel sessizlik üzerindeki ilişkide iş tatmininin aracılık etkisi: Nevşehir ili kamu çalışanlarıörneği [The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between organizational alienation and organizational silence: The case of public employees in Nevşehir province]. Journal of Recreation and Tourism Research, 4(3), 93–105. https://jrtr.org/index.php/jrtr/article/view/200

109.

Vakola

Bouradas

(2005). Antecedents and consequences of organizational silence: An empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27(5), 441–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450510611997

110.

Valli

Buese

(2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859

111.

Van Dyne

Ang

Botero

I. C

. (2003). Conceptualising employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384

112.

Van Eycken

Amitai

Van Houtte

. (2024). Be true to your school? Teachers’ turnover intentions: The role of socioeconomic composition, teachability perceptions, emotional exhaustion and teacher efficacy. Research Papers in Education, 39(1), 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2022.2089208

113.

Vekeman

Devos

Valcke

Rosseel

(2017). Do teachers leave the profession or move to another school when they don’t fit? Educational Review, 69(4), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1228610

114.

Whiteside

D. B.

Barclay

L. J.

(2013). Echoes of silence: Employee silence as a mediator between overall justice and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1467-3

115.

S. A.

Zhang

J. J.

(2009). A study on employee silence of teacher management in primary and middle schools. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 9, 78–82. https://caod.oriprobe.com

116.

Yin

(2023). Supervisor incivility and turnover intention of the employees in the hospitality industry of China. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(2), 682–700. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2021-1302

117.

Yang

Wang

Sun

(2021). How perceived overqualification relates to work alienation and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of LMX. Current Psychology, 40, 6067–6075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00538-w

118.

X. M.

(2019). The study on employee silence behavior and employee satisfaction: Evidence from domestic third-party testing industry [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. East China Normal University.

119.

Zhou

(2022). Organizational justice and teachers’ turnover intention in primary and secondary schools: The importance of sustainable salary management. Sustainability, 14(20), 13314. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013314

Unpacking the Effect of Organizational Silence on Teachers’ Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Work Alienation

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Conceptual Framework

Organizational Silence

Work Alienation

Turnover Intention

The Current Study

Method

Research Design

Sample

Variables and Scales

Organizational Silence (OS) Scale

Work Alienation (WA) Scale

Turnover Intention (TI) Scale

Data Collection

Analytical Strategy

Findings

Correlation and Descriptive Statistics

Measurement Model

Structural Model

Bootstrapping Procedure

Discussion

Conclusion and Implications

Limitations

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References