Summary: Employee silence, the withholding of work‐related ideas, questions, or concerns from someone who could effect change, has been proposed to hamper individual and collective learning as well as the detection of errors and unethical behaviors in many areas of the world. To facilitate cross‐cultural research, we validated an instrument measuring four employee silence motives (i.e., silence based on fear, resignation, prosocial, and selfish motives) in 21 languages. Across 33 countries (N = 8,222) representing diverse cultural clusters, the instrument shows good psychometric properties (i.e., internal reliabilities, factor structure, and measurement invariance). Results further revealed similarities and differences in the prevalence of silence motives between countries, but did not necessarily support cultural stereotypes. To explore the role of culture for silence, we examined relationships of silence motives with the societal practices cultural dimensions from the GLOBE Program. We found relationships between silence motives and power distance, institutional collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance. Overall, the findings suggest that relationships between silence and cultural dimensions are more complex than commonly assumed. We discuss the explanatory power of nations as (cultural) units of analysis, our social scientific approach, the predictive value of cultural dimensions, and opportunities to extend silence research geographically, methodologically, and conceptually.

Innovation is considered essential for today's organizations to survive and thrive. Researchers have also stressed the importance of leadership as a driver of followers' innovative work behavior (FIB). Yet, despite a large amount of research, three areas remain understudied: (a) The relative importance of different forms of leadership for FIB; (b) the mechanisms through which leadership impacts FIB; and (c) the degree to which relationships between leadership and FIB are generalizable across cultures. To address these lacunae, we propose an integrated model connecting four types of positive leadership behaviors, two types of identification (as mediating variables), and FIB. We tested our model in a global data set comprising responses of N = 7,225 participants from 23 countries, grouped into nine cultural clusters. Our results indicate that perceived LMX quality was the strongest relative predictor of FIB. Furthermore, the relationships between both perceived LMX quality and identity leadership with FIB were mediated by social identification. The indirect effect of LMX on FIB via social identification was stable across clusters, whereas the indirect effects of the other forms of leadership on FIB via social identification were stronger in countries high versus low on collectivism. Power distance did not influence the relations.

The need for more longitudinal studies (i.e. daily diary and experience sampling studies) focused on counterproductive work behaviours such as bullying requires shorter scales that at the same time do not compromise their content validity. Our main objective is to develop and validate a reduced version of the Workplace Bullying Scale (Escala de Abuso Psicológico Aplicado en el Lugar de Trabajo): the EAPA-T-R. Two studies (Study 1: 1506 and Study 2: 932 employees, respectively) were conducted to evaluate its psychometric properties and to ensure the external validity of the EAPA-T-R. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to reduce the current 12-item scale to a more parsimonious 4-item scale. Moreover, the psychometric properties of potential models were compared. Subsequently, the new scale was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Likewise, statistically significant relationships were found between the EAPA-T-R and other dimensions evaluated, such as job characteristics, transformational leadership, engagement, job satisfaction, and subjective performance. Moreover, bullying mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and burnout. To sum up, the EAPA-T-R showed good reliability and validity across studies, supporting its use in future research. The benefits of this short scale for daily diary and experience sampling studies and when using large surveys are discussed.