In many businesses, silence is interpreted as a sign of serenity. No apparent tensions, few disputes, meetings where everyone agrees, HR barometers that aren’t flashing red. In short, a climate that is described as “calm”.
But this apparent calm is not always a sign of a well-functioning organization and can just as easily reflect a breakdown in communication. When employees no longer say what they think, no longer report problems, no longer dare to suggest alternatives or simply ask questions, this is not engagement but a weak signal of the failure of a management culture.
In short:
- Apparent silence in an organization may mask a lack of speech due to fear, resignation, or a lack of trust, rather than a genuine engagement or harmony.
- “Organizational silence”, theorized by Morrison and Milliken, often stems from fear of consequences, a sense that speaking up is pointless, and a culture of normalized passivity.
- The absence of expression is often misinterpreted as a sign of agreement, when in fact it reflects a culture where conformity is valued over contribution.
- This climate of silence, fueled by repeated experiences of disinterest or rejection, undermines trust, slows innovation, hinders error correction, and pushes engaged employees to disengage or leave.
- Tools for gathering feedback are ineffective without a transformation of managerial practices: restoring communication as a normal part of work is essential to collective performance.
Organizational silence, a deep-rooted problem
The phenomenon is well known and is called organizational silence. It refers to a situation where employees, out of fear or resignation, choose not to speak up, even when they see problems, mistakes, or opportunities for improvement. They remain silent not because they have nothing to say, but because they see no point in speaking up, or are even afraid to do so.
The concept was theorized in the 2000s by Elizabeth Morrison and Frances Milliken, who identified three main reasons for this silence: fear (of consequences), perceived futility (it won’t change anything), and the normalization of passivity(everyone else is doing it).
When obedience masquerades as engagement
This silence is often misinterpreted as a sign of alignment or engagement. “They don’t say anything, so they agree.” This is a misreading.
An organization where everyone seems to be “on track” is not necessarily high-performing or healthy. It is sometimes an organization where speaking up has become pointless, even dangerous, where obedience is valued over contribution, and where involvement is confused with conformity.
This confusion is not without consequences. Engagement cannot be measured by the ability to remain silent, to apply rules without question, or to repeat talking points. On the contrary, it manifests itself in the willingness to participate, to make suggestions, to challenge at times, and to change the system from within. In other words: to take risks.
Silence is primarily a symptom of a lack of trust
People don’t remain silent without reason. Silence in an organization is rarely an individual choice. It is the manifestation of a collective climate where trust has disappeared.
- Trust in managers: fear of being punished, looked down upon, or marginalized.
- Trust in the organization: feeling that decisions have already been made, that raising concerns is pointless.
- Trust in colleagues: fear of disrupting the façade of harmony, of being the one who rocks the boat.
More often than not, this climate is not the result of an official policy of censorship but is the product of repeated micro-experiences: a remark that falls flat, an idea deemed “off topic”, critical feedback met with a cold response. Over time, suggestion boxes remain empty, engagement surveys reveal nothing new since everything is apparently fine… Eventually, we learn that silence protects.
The invisible consequences of silence
This widespread silence has a considerable organizational cost.
First, it prevents mistakes from being corrected: problems keep happening, things go unsaid, and bad decisions are never questioned.
Second, it kills innovation: there can be no new ideas without debate, no progress without questioning, and no creativity without friendly confrontation.
Finally, it weakens retention: the best people leave organizations where they can no longer express themselves. The others stay… but remain silent.
Beyond these effects, silence acts as a culture dissolver. It creates a dissonance between discourse (“we advocate listening, transparency, co-construction”) and lived experience. It transforms the employee experience into a journey of avoidance.
Businesses don’t know how to deal with silence
Faced with this, businesses often respond in ways that miss the point. They roll out measures such as anonymous surveys, listening barometers, and feedback platforms, produce indicators, and reassure themselves with scores.
But the problem isn’t the lack of channels, it’s the lack of trust that what is said will be acted upon.
If it is not taken into account and followed up, speech becomes a posture because it is deliberately emptied of its meaning and, in the end, the mechanisms themselves end up fueling cynicism.
Breaking this cycle requires more than a tool: it requires a profound overhaul of managerial practices, decision-making methods, and the relationship to risk. It also requires putting words back at the heart of work organization, not to give the collective a soul, but as a prerequisite for performance. From experience, if people don’t dare to speak up about what’s wrong, you’ll have a very hard time improving work organization (Improving a team’ s work: a story of continuous improvement) and therefore performance.
Bottom line
In a healthy organization, speaking up should not be an act of courage but a normal part of the job. Expressing an idea, raising an alert, voicing doubts or offering constructive criticism is a way of creating value and collectively improving the way things are done.
It also serves as a compass for leaders: where there is no longer any dissent, there is often no longer any momentum, and where there is no longer any momentum, there is no longer any engagement, just a machine running on empty.
Silence does not mean there are no problems, but that the conditions for addressing them have not been met.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Related articles:
Performance and Well being go together well at Pepsico (and without technology)
Are employees allowed to take ownership of their enterprise ?
Intrapreneurship: a device to be used in moderation
“Quiet quitting or conscious loyalty?
Socialization at Work: Towards a New Model?
Everybody Wants to Love Their Job
