Organizational Silence: Why Employees Don’t Speak Up

8 min readMay 14, 2020

Employees play a major role in the success of their workplace, and their behaviors and perspectives can have critical effects on the fate of an organization. Organizational silence is a phenomenon that occurs in organizations when employees purposefully withhold information and opinions about the organization. Through the use of silence, organizational members are able to withhold information which could be critical to the growth and progress of the company. There are numerous effects that take place when organizational silence occurs, including effects on organizational success and on the employees themselves. In this article, the causes and effects of organizational silence will be discussed, as well as some models for viewing and understanding organizational silence.

What is Organizational Silence?

Information flow within an organization is one of the most critical factors to its success, but widespread withholding of information is a common occurrence. Employees, being the backbone of any organization, are likely to form their own ideas and gather information about the underlying workings of the organization; employees are often faced with a choice of whether to voice these ideas and observations or to keep silent and withhold this potentially valuable information (1). An employee’s voice can be defined any attempts to express ideas, concerns, information, or opinions to those within or outside of an organization; absence of voice is considered silence, although the motivation behind the silence is the most meaningful message to analyze when considering organizational silence (1, 3). Through the use of purposeful silence, employees collectively withhold information that could be detrimental to organizational growth and success (1). Organizational silence, therefore, can be considered an occasion in which one of more employees have seemingly valuable information, opinions, concerns, or ideas and choose to withhold this information.

Motivations for Employee Silence

Variations of organizational silence exist, categorized by the motivations of the employees for remaining silent. According to Van Dyne, Ang & Botero (2), there are three distinguishable employee motives for silence: acquiescent silence, defensive silence, and pro-social silence. Acquiescent silence can be thought of as silence motived by a lack of interest or a preference for passiveness; an employee engaging in acquiescent silence likely cares more about conforming to organizational norms or standards (1, 2). Defensive silence describes occurrences in which employees deliberately withhold information due to fear of the consequences of speaking up (Beheshtifar et al., 2012). Unlike acquiescent silence, defensive silence is more intentional and proactive because the employee understands and considers the alternative of silence and chooses to remain silent as a method of protecting themselves from potential negative outcomes (2). Finally, employees engage in pro-social silence with the intention of making a larger positive benefit for the lives or situations of others or the organization; pro-social silence encourages the well-being of the group and is motivated by concern for others, rather than concern for oneself only (2).

In a 2012 study by Chad Brinsfield, six different motivations for employee silence became evident: deviant, relational, defensive, diffident, ineffectual, and disengaged:

Deviant silence, as thought by Brinsfield, is the purposeful withholding of necessary information as a means of defying the organization or putting others at odds.
Relational silence occurs when an employee remains silent on the basis of not wanting to harm a relationship or have any negative relational consequences (3).
Defensive silence, as discussed earlier, occurs when the employee is fearful of the consequences of speaking up, or the employee perceives that they would be negatively impacted by speaking up (2, 3).
Diffident silence occurs when the employee has a lack of self-confidence or a lack of personal, internal means by which to voice their opinions or information (3).
Ineffectual silence states that the employee does not speak up because they assume that the information is not of enough importance, or that the information would be ineffective in bringing about change.
Disengaged silence is similar to Van Dyne and their coworkers (2), acquiescent silence, in which the employee has a lack of interest or is disengaged from the organizational values; however, disengaged silence differs from acquiescent silence in the way that disengaged silence is based on the employee’s perceived inability to make a change because of a lack of engagement with the organization, rather than a lack of interest.

Causes for Organizational Silence

The line between causes and motivations for organizational silence is quite thin, as there are many factors which would encourage the silence of employees in an organization. The first concept for discussion is Hewlin’s 2003 conceptualization of the facades of conformity; she defines facades of conformity as “false representations created by employees to appear as if they embrace organizational values,” a definition which very closely matches that of organizational silence. Facades of conformity are rooted in the organization itself — with consideration to the organizational structure, culture, and context — as well as the employee’s standing within the organization, and the characteristics of the individual (4).

Hewlin argues that organizations that engage in a reward system are more likely to receive facades of conformity, as this system encourages employees to suppress their differing personal values. Similarly, Hewlin points out that an employee’s power within an organization has much to do with their status in the organization, as well as their individual demographics which could affect their power of expression. For example, minorities may be less likely to voice their opinions and concerns due to a large difference in personal and organizational values, as well as a heightened perceived need to fit in and conform to organizational standards (4). An example of a minority maintaining a façade of conformity would be an example of defensive silence.

Whereas Hewlin uncovers a larger, underlying trend in employee behavior, more recent literature has laid out specific functions within an organization that would encourage organizational silence in employees. In their highly-cited works, Morrison and Milliken lay out two causes at the management level for organizational silence: managers’ fear of negative feedback and managers’ implicit beliefs. Because people often fear negative feedback, they will often try to avoid hearing it altogether as it can elicit feelings of embarrassment, threat, vulnerability, or incompetence; ignoring, dismissing, or attacking negative feedback creates environments in which negative feedback and upward communication are discouraged (5).

Managers’ implicit beliefs about employees and about management are also a factor in the creation of organizational silence. More specifically, there is a belief commonly held by managers that employees are “self-interested and untrustworthy,” and this belief will lead to managers acting in ways which effectively discourage upward communication within organizations (5). These beliefs might not be conscious, but still reap negative outcomes in the communication culture within an organization.

Another implicit belief pointed out by Morrison and Milliken is that management is the most qualified to make decisions about the organization, which therefore discourages upward communication of ideas and concerns from employees of lower status. The idea that employees have no place to voice opinions or participate in managerial decision-making creates an environment that encourages organizational silence. Lastly, there is a belief that “unity, agreement, and consensus are signs of organizational health” and any contradictory opinions should be avoided (5). This idea creates an atmosphere in which only popular opinion or opinions of management are welcomed, therefore discouraging the voicing of opposing viewpoints, which is a known cause for the stunt of growth (5).

Effects of Organizational Silence

Two schools of thought protrude from the study of the effects of organizational silence: the effects on employees and the effects on the organization. Feelings of guilt, responsibility, lost potential, and other psychological aspects factor into the stress which an employee might feel while maintaining silence (1). Maintaining silence or being silenced can lead to employees not feeling as though they are valued within their organization; employees can also develop a perceived lack of control with their work situation, which can have much broader consequences such as withdrawal, dissatisfaction, low motivation, or even deviance. (5). Cognitive dissonance, or a feeling of disconnect between what one believes and how one behaves, can occur in employees who do not feel that they are upholding their own personal values in their work (5). Aside from low morale and negative feelings toward their work, the high stress of maintaining organizational silence can cause employees to develop mental health issues such as depression or other health issues, which can lead to substance abuse issues (1).

When analyzing the effects that organizational silence could have on an organization, one must consider that the effects which take place on the employees will, in turn, affect the organization as a whole. The most evident effect that will occur in an organization in the face of organizational silence among employees is the communication culture and patterns within the organization; organizational silence can work as both the problem and the consequence (1). Decreased efficiency of an organization’s communication systems can lead to monetary loss, decreased production, decreased quality of work, and poor functioning of the organization as a whole (1, 2). Organizational silence can foster feelings of “extreme” indifference in employees which will overall affect productivity and the communication system within an organization (1).

Morrison and Milliken offer different perspectives on the effects of organizational silence. Firstly, organizational decision making is harmed by organizational silence; it has been established that the quality decision making is best when a variety of ideas and perspectives are offered, and organizational silence hinders the potential of decision making (5). Secondly, organizational silence hinders an organization’s ability to be aware of and to correct mistakes within the organization (5). Without knowledge of errors, these errors can become worse and eventually cause major problems within the organization (5).

Conclusion

Organizational silence is a phenomenon which occurs when employees possess useful or valuable information about their organization but purposefully remain silent. This information could be their opinions, observations, concerns, or other information which could be useful for others within the organization to be aware of, specifically higher-ups. Many motives have been explored considering the motives behind employee silence, including acquiescent silence, defensive silence, and pro-social silence, among others. Organizational silence can occur as a product of employee motivations, managerial beliefs, or a larger organizational culture issue. The effects of organizational silence can include negative repercussions on the health and well-being of the employees, as well as larger issues for the organization such as lack of morale, decreased production, lower communication efficiency, and decreased decision-making abilities. Organizational silence can be very harmful to organizations and their employees and therefore should be avoided and dismantled whenever possible.

References

Bagheri, G., Zarei, R., & Aeen, M. N. (2012). Organizational silence (basic concepts and its development factors). Ideal Type of Management, 1(1), 47–58. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mojtaba_Nikaeen/publication/259383988_Organiza tional_Silence_Basic_Concepts_and_Its_Development_Factors/links/00463530707dcd18 4d000000.pdf
Beheshtifar, M., Borhani, H., & Nekoie.Moghadom, M. (2012). Destructive role of employee silence in organizational success. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(11), 257–281. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malikeh_Beheshtifar/publication/281175815_Destr uctive_Role_of_Employee_Silence_in_Organizational_Success/links/55d994e408aed6a1 99a8ab40.pdf
Brinsfield, C.T. (2013). Employees silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 671–697. doi: 10.1002/job.1829
Hewlin, P. F. (2003). And the award for best actor goes to…: Facades of conformity in organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 633–642. doi: 10.2307/30040752
Morrison, E. W. & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706- 725. doi: 10.2307/259200