Intermediate Role of Presenteeism in Relationship Between Organizational Stress and Organizational Silence: A Research on Forest Industry Employees

• The purpose of this study is to investigate the mediating role of presenteeism in the relationship between organizational stress and organizational silence of 305 forest products employees in İstanbul and Ko-caeli, Turkey. According to our literature review, although some important studies about presenteeism, stress


INTRODUCTION 1. UVOD
Employees are the most important element that companies have in order to keep them in business. The productivity of employees, which is important for companies, directly affects the performance of the organization. Therefore, ensuring employee productivity is one of the organizational goals. Employee performance can vary due to many factors. Stress is also accepted as a concept that affects the productivity of the individual (Şahin, 2020).
All jobs might be a potential source of stress because every job has its own working conditions. Workrelated social psychological stress might be considered as organizational stress. Organizational stress is defined as "an ongoing transaction between an individual and the environmental demands associated primarily and directly with the organization within which he or she is operating". Organizational stress factors include role ambiguity and conflict, cultural and political environment, coaching and/or management style, lack of participation in the decision-making process, inadequate communication channels, lack of participation in the decision-making process, etc. (Fletcher et al., 2006;Rumbold and Didymus, 2021).
There are many factors that cause silence. Such reasons include stress, lack of experience, structural and cultural hierarchy, lack of support, fears and suspicions, fear of being labeled or stigmatized or viewed negatively, fear of losing contact, feelings of emptiness and fear of punishment (Saeidipour et al., 2021). Silence occurs when employees in the organization do not express their thoughts and it is an undesirable phenomenon in an organization. Due to organizational silence, employees withhold their useful ideas, and this can have negative effects on their motivation and attitude. In addition, at the individual level, silence can create a feeling of emptiness, lack of control and anomalies (such as mobbing) in the organization (Managheb et al., 2018;Saeidipour et al., 2021;Mousa et al., 2021).
Silence behavior might be exhibited intentionally, purposefully, actively and consciously. This situation leads to the formation of different forms of organizational silence (Yalçınsoy, 2017). Knoll and van Dick (2013) discussed organizational silence in a four-dimensional structure: quiescent silence, opportunistic silence, acquiescent silence and prosocial silence. Quiescent silence is briefly defined as "suffering in silence". Acquiescent silence is withholding work-related ideas, information, or opinions, due to resignation. Prosocial silence is withholding work-related ideas, information, or opinions, based on altruistic or cooperative motives. Opportunistic silence is defined as strategically withholding work-related ideas, information or opinions in order to gain an advantage for oneself (Knoll and van Dick, 2013).
One of the factors affecting the productivity of employees is presenteeism. Presenteeism is the loss of productivity of employees due to health problems or other events that negatively affect employees, even though they are physically at the workplace (Yang et al., 2017). Maestas et al. (2021) reported that presenteeism causes an average productivity loss of 20 % and workers with high absence rates and presenteeism have more than 80 % probability of leaving the job in 3 years. In studies conducted in different countries, it has been reported that presenteeism causes 30 % -90 % loss of productivity (Lohaus and Habermann, 2019;Knani, 2022). In addition, at the organizational level, presenteeism increases direct and indirect costs and reduces global performance; at the individual level, it negatively impacts employees' physical and mental health (Knani, 2022).
The purpose of this study is to determine the mediating role of presenteeism in the relationship between organizational stress and organizational silence. In addition, the effect of organizational stress on organizational silence and presenteeism and the effect of presenteeism on organizational silence were investigated.

MATERIJALI I METODE
The research focuses on employees in the forest products sector (furniture, timber, particleboard, coating, wooden packaging) operating in the provinces of Istanbul and Kocaeli in Turkey. The reason for the selection of employees in the forest products sector in Istanbul and Kocaeli is as follows: Based on TOBB Industry Database, the number of enterprises operating in forest products in Istanbul and Kocaeli is 9596, which accounts for approximately 41 % of all enterprises operating in this sector in Turkey (TOBB, 2021).
The total number of employees in the forest products sector in Turkey was taken as the research universe. Based on TOBB data, the number of employees in the forest products sector in Turkey is 350346 (TOBB, 2021). The following sample determination formula was used to determine the total number of participants to whom the surveys would be applied (Dorman et al., 1990): Where n is sample size, N is universe size (350346 employees in the forest products sector), p is probability of the occurrence of the characteristic to be measured in the universe (this ratio was taken as 50 % because this study was multi-purpose), q is 1-q (improbability of the occurrence of the characteristic to be measured in the universe), Z is confidence coefficient (Z-score at 95% confidence interval was taken as 1.96), and d is accepted sampling error (6 % taken).
As a result, the sample size was determined to be 267 employees. In order to increase the validity and reliability of the study, the sample number was kept high. For this purpose, the survey study was conducted with 335 employees, but 305 surveys were assessed. The research was carried out between June 2021 and October 2021.
The research was planned as a field study and the survey technique was used to obtain the data. Survey forms were submitted to the employees directly. The survey form used in the research consists of 4 parts. The first part contains statements related to the demographic characteristics of the participants. The second part contains statements about organizational stress. The "Organizational Stress scale" was created using the job stress scale developed by Balcı (1993) and the studies conducted by Akova and Işık (2008), Soysal (2009) and Çökük (2018) and it consists of 14 statements. The third part uses the "Organizational Silence scale" developed by Knoll and van Dick (2013) and consists of 20 statements. The scale was translated into Turkish by Çavuşoğlu and Köse (2019) and validity and reliability analyses were performed. The fourth part uses the "Standford Presenteeism scale" developed by Koopman et al. (2002) and it contains 6 statements. The scale was translated into Turkish by Coşkun (2012) and validity and reliability analyses were performed. The statements in the scales were designed according to a 5-point Likert scale (5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree).
According to the purpose of the research, 4 main hypotheses and 4 sub-hypotheses were formed. The hypotheses of the research are as follows; H 1 : Organizational stress has a positive effect on organizational silence.
H 1a : Organizational (internal) stress has a negative effect on organizational silence.
H 1b : Organizational (external) stress has a positive effect on organizational silence.
H 2 : Organizational stress has a positive effect on presenteeism.
H 2a : Organizational (internal) stress has a positive effect on presenteeism.
H 2b : Organizational (external) stress has a negative effect on presenteeism.
H 3 : Presenteeism has a negative effect on organizational silence.
H 4 : Presenteeism has a mediating role in the relationship between organizational stress and organizational silence.
The IBM SPSS Statistics 15 packaged software and AMOS 22.0 packaged software were used in the analysis of the data. Explanatory Factor Analysis was used to determine how many dimensions, used in the scale expressions in the study, were separated, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to determine the accuracy of the dimensions. The percentage and frequency distribution of the demographic characteristics of the participants and the arithmetic mean of the participants' opinions on the statements about organizational stress factors, presenteeism and organizational silence were calculated. Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship between "organizational stress scale and dimensions" and "organizational silence and presenteeism scales and dimensions". Path Analysis was used to determine organizational stress and the effect of its dimensions on organizational silence and presenteeism. Path Analysis was also used to determine the mediating role of presenteeism in the relationship between organizational stress and organizational silence. I remained silent at work fearing negative consequences. Na poslu sam šutio zbog straha od negativnih posljedica.

Q2
The conflict with senior managers leads to stress. Sukob s voditeljima dovodi do stresa.
Despite my health problems, I was able to focus on achieving my professional goals. Unatoč zdravstvenim problemima, mogao sam se usredotočiti na ostvarenje svojih profesionalnih ciljeva.
I remained silent at work fearing the disadvantages of speaking. Na poslu sam šutio zbog straha od pogrešaka u istupu.

Q3
The conflict with subordinates leads to stress. Sukob s podređenima dovodi do stresa.
Despite my health problems, I have enough energy to complete all my tasks.
I remained silent at work so as not to be vulnerable to my colleagues or superiors. Na poslu sam šutio kako se ne bih pokazao ranjivim pred kolegama ili nadređenima.

Q4
Incompatibility with colleagues leads to stress. Nekompatibilnost s kolegama dovodi do stresa.
Because of my health problems, it was much more difficult to deal with work-related stresses.
I remained silent to avoid conflicts Šutio sam kako bih izbjegao sukobe.

Q5
The inadequacy of the physical working environment and tools leads to stress. Neadekvatnost fizičkoga radnog okruženja i alata dovodi do stresa.
Because of my health problems, I could not enjoy my job.
I remained silent at work because I did not want to be seen as a troublemaker. Na poslu sam šutio jer nisam želio da me radna okolina doživljava problematičnim.

Q6
The lack of senior management support in decisions leads to stress. Nedostatak potpore voditelja pri donošenju odluka dovodi do stresa.
I remained silent at work because other people at work said nothing. Na poslu sam šutio jer ni ostali nisu ništa govorili.

Q7
Inadequate and lack of direct participation in the decision-making process lead to stress. Neadekvatno sudjelovanje i isključivanje iz procesa donošenja odluka dovodi do stresa.
I remained silent at work because I do not want to embarrass others. Na poslu sam šutio jer ne želim osramotiti druge.

Q8
Inadequate staff in terms of quality and quantity leads to stress. I remained silent at work because of the concern that others could take an advantage of my ideas.

REZULTATI
Male employees made up the majority of the survey respondents. The vast majority of participants were younger than 41. Most participants were married. The vast majority of participants had a salary lower than 4000 Turkish liras. The graduation rate of the participants was poor. The majority of participants had less than 11 years' experience in the workforce. The majority of the participants worked in the furniture or wood-based board sector. The vast majority of participants were workers.
The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency test was used to test the reliability of the scales and their dimensions used in the research. As seen in Table 5, Cronbach's Alpha values of organizational stress, pres-enteeism and organizational silence scales were 0.927, 0.884 and 0.958, respectively. Cronbach's Alpha values of the dimensions of the scales vary between 0.833 and 0.936. Based on these values, it can be said that the scales used are reliable.
Before applying the exploratory factor analysis to the scales, it was first determined whether the data showed a normal distribution. Skewness and kurtosis values should be between -1.5 and + 1.5 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). When Table 5 was examined, it was seen that the skewness and kurtosis values of the scales were between -1.5 and + 1.5, meaning that the data were found to have a normal distribution.
After it was determined that the data showed normal distribution, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measurement and Bartlett's Sphericity Test were applied to analyze whether the scales were suitable for factor analysis, and the results are given in . When applying factor analysis, attention was paid to factors such as factor loads greater than 0.30, factor load difference between adjacent items equal to or greater than 0.10, and the use of Varimax rotation method (Karaman et al., 2017). As a result of the factor analysis, it was found that the organizational stress scale was collected from 2 factors and the results are given in Table 2. There are 9 statements in the first factor (Organizational (Internal) Stress), and 5 statements in the second factor (Organizational (External) Stress). These two factors explain 64.382 % of the total variance. The factor loads of the first factor vary between 0.611 and 0.787, whereas the factor loads of the second factor vary between 0.621 and 0.872.
Presenteeism scale was determined to consist of 2 factors (Table 3). There are 3 statements in the first factor (Completing Work) and 3 statements in the second factor (Avoiding Distraction). The scale of presenteeism is similar to the literature data. These two factors explain 81.178 % of the total variance. The factor loads vary between 0.838 and 0.920.
As a result of the factor analysis of the organizational silence scale, it was determined that the factor load difference between the adjacent items in the 7th statement was less than 0.10 (2nd factor: 0.531 and 3rd factor: 0.580) and this statement was removed. After the statement was removed, factor analysis was applied again, and the analysis results are given in Table 4. The original scale consists of 4 dimensions. In this study, the scale consisted of 3 dimensions and the dimensions of prosocial and acquiescent silence were gathered under a single dimension. This dimension has also been renamed as the prosocial and acquiescent silence. These three factors explain 69.888 % of the total variance. The factor loads of the first factor (Quiescent Silence) vary between 0.631 and 0.826, the factor loads of the second factor (Opportunistic Silence) vary between 0.694 and 0.806, and the factor loads of the third factor (Prosocial and Acquiescent Silence) vary between 0.643 and 0.768.
In order to determine the accuracy of the structure obtained as a result of the explanatory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the study scales. Some statements were modified to improve the results of the organizational stress and organizational silence scales covariance among residual values (for example, between 1 and 2 in the organizational stress scale and between 4 and 5 in the organizational silence scale). In other words, new covariances were created for statements with high covariance among residual values. Confirmatory factor analysis results of the scales are given in Figures 1.
When the fit indices of the models were examined, the fit index values of the organizational silence  The arithmetic mean values of the answers given to the scales by the employees participating in the research are given in Table 5. The following classification was used in the interpretation of the arithmetic    (Özdamar, 2003). As seen in Tables 5, organizational stress level of the participants is close to high. Presenteeism level of the participants is moderate. Organizational silence level of the participants is close to low. Organizational (external) stress has the highest arithmetic mean among organizational stress dimensions. Avoiding distraction has the highest arithmetic mean among the presenteeism dimensions. Opportunistic silence has the highest arithmetic mean among the organizational silence dimensions. However, both the organizational silence scale and the dimensions of organizational silence have a mean score close to low. It is seen that the mean scores of the dimensions of each scale are close to each other.
There is a positive relationship between "organizational stress" and "was silence is weak, whereas the relationship between organizational stress and presenteeism is moderate. There is also a negative relationship between presenteeism and organizational silence and this relationship is moderate. When the relations between the scales and the dimensions were examined, a positive relationship was determined between "organizational stress" and "avoiding distraction and prosocial and acquiescent silence". There is a negative relationship between presenteeism and dimensions of organizational silence, whereas there is a positive relationship between presenteeism and dimensions of organizational stress. There is a positive relationship be-tween organizational silence and organizational (external) stress, whereas there is a negative relationship between organizational silence and completing work (Table 6).
A structural equation model was created to determine the effects of organizational stress and its dimensions on presenteeism and organizational silence. The effect of presenteeism on organizational silence was also investigated. Structural equation modeling was used to determine the mediating role of presenteeism in the relationship between organizational stress and organizational silence. The models are given in Figure 2 and the analysis results are given in Table 7 and 8.
When the model designed to determine the effects of organizational stress and its dimensions on presenteeism and organizational silence and effect of presenteeism on organizational silence was examined, the fit index values of the models were at an acceptable level [Model 1: According to the fit indices of the model designed to determine whether presenteeism has a mediating effect between organizational stress and organizational silence, it might be said that this model is also acceptable [Model 6: x 2 /df = 2.963, GFI = 0.724, CFI = 0.843, RMSEA = 0.082]. Table 6 Correlation analysis of relationship between scales and their dimensions Tablica 6. Korelacijska analiza odnosa između razina i njihovih dimenzija  The standardized β coefficients, t-statistics, p values and hypothesis results of the models are given in Table 7. As shown in Table 7, the organizational stress and organizational (internal) stress dimension have no effect on the organizational silence. The organizational (external) stress dimension has an effect on the organizational silence. Organizational stress and its dimensions have an effect on presenteeism. Presenteeism also has an effect on organizational silence. Both the effect of organizational (external) stress on presenteeism and the effect of presenteeism on organizational silence were negative. Other effects were positive. For this reason, H 1b , H 2 , H 2a , H 2b and H 3 hypotheses were accepted. H 1 and H 1a hypotheses were rejected.
Based on Table 8, it was concluded that presenteeism has a mediating role in the relationship between organizational stress and organizational silence. In other words, the H 4 hypothesis was accepted.

RASPRAVA
Stress, which has become a part of life, can negatively affect individual and organizational life when it is excessive and intense. It is thought that stress will increase the probability of employees leaving the organization and cause organizational silence. There are several studies on the relationship between the organizational stress and organizational silence in the litera-ture. Dileep Kumar et al. (2015) said that employee silence increases the stress level. Dedahanov et al. (2016) reported that individuals experience stress when they withhold information. Çakır Yıldız and Güneş (2017) stated that individuals under stress at workplaces prefer to remain silent about the events in the organization and are hesitant to express their opinions. A study on Iranian insurance staff found that job stress has no significant effect on organizational silence but the effect of job stress on organizational silence was confirmed (Norouzi and Aghbelaghi, 2020). Mantı (2020) stated that the things that can be done to reduce organizational stress can also affect organizational silence. There are also studies showing the relationship between organizational stress and presenteeism and supporting the findings of this study. In a study conducted in 2016, it was determined that the degree of presenteeism has a positive effect on the relationship between perceived job stress and happiness (Chia and Chu, 2016). El-Kurdy et al. (2022) reported that presenteeism has a negative non-significant correlation with stress. In some studies, stress has been identified as a critical factor in triggering presenteeism ( There are studies showing that presenteeism has an effect on organizational silence. For example, in the study of Yıldırım and Oruç (2019), a negative relationship was found between "presenteeism" and "acquies- cent and protective silence". In another study, it was determined that presenteeism significantly affected the dimensions of organizational silence (Karagöz ve Uzunbacak, 2020). There is no previous study on the mediating role of presenteeism in the relationship between organizational stress and organizational silence.

ZAKLJUČAK
It was discovered that people working in the forest products sector were under considerable stress. Although the stress level of the participants is high, the level of presenteeism of the participants is low. Individuals under stress prefer to remain silent about the events taking place in the organization. It was discovered that organizational stress factors caused presenteeism. While organizational (internal) stress factors affect the presenteeism level positively, organizational (external) stress factors negatively affect the presenteeism level. It was discovered that the participants did not remain silent as the level of presenteeism decreased. Presenteeism had a mediating effect on organizational silence. Organizational stress factors causing organizational silence might be identified. Active participation of employees in decision-making processes should be supported so that they do not remain silent about the issues in the organization. Companies might reorganize their organizational culture and working habits in order to eliminate presenteeism. The research findings were limited to individuals working in the forest products sector in Istanbul and Kocaeli provinces in Turkey. The lack of studies on the relationship between "organizational stress" and "organizational silence and presenteeism", and the mediating role of presenteeism in the relationship between organizational silence and organizational silence, limited the comparison of research findings with different or similar research results. To see the situation in different sectors, similar studies should be carried out with different samples. Although there are studies on presenteeism, organizational stress and organizational silence in different sectors, there is no study on the relationship between presenteeism, organizational stress and organizational silence for the forest products sector. Moreover, this study is the first to explore the mediating role of presenteeism on the relationship between organizational stress and organizational silence. This study is a significant contribution that can fill the gap in the existing literature.