Ten reasons why many employees choose to remain silent.

The chances are that your employees are withholding valuable information from you. Perhaps they’re not sharing their thoughts on why a critical project is faltering. Or, they’re not expressing their actual views on the likely success of a product launch. Understanding the potential causes of employee silence can be one of the first steps towards encouraging employees to share their views and opinions more freely.

O1. The MUM Effect
The MUM Effect occurs when individuals withhold bad news or distort it to make it seem better – minimising unpleasant messages. It arises for two reasons. First, employees tend to avoid communicating negative information when it evokes unpleasant emotions in leaders. Second, employees know leaders tend to blame the messenger, regardless of whether they are responsible for the problem. Rosen and Tesser (1970).

02. The Spiral of Silence
This theory posits that to avoid negative consequences, people holding minority views either alter their ideas to conform to the majority’s opinion or remain silent. This conforming action increases the perception that the majority’s perspective is accurate. In this way, a firm’s culture can hinder the effective use of employee voice. Noelle‐Neumann (1974).

03. The Bystander Effect
Also known as Diffusion of Responsibility, this socio-psychological phenomenon describes how an individual is less likely to take responsibility for action when others are present. For example, the more employees who are aware of a key piece of knowledge, the less likely any particular employee will feel personally responsible for sharing that information with their leader. Latane and Darley (1968).

04. Impression Management
The theory of Impression Management asserts that individuals may remain silent to maintain a positive image and avoid negative evaluation or consequences. For example, an employee may choose to stay quiet about an issue or mistake to avoid being perceived as a troublemaker or incompetent. Goffman (1959).

05. Defensive Silence
The theory of Defensive Silence explains the phenomenon of individuals remaining silent in situations where they feel threatened or uncomfortable. Under such circumstances, employees respond by withholding their opinions, thoughts, or feelings in order to protect themselves from potential harm. Van Dyne et al. (2003).

06. Pro-social Silence
Van Dyne et al. (2003) define Pro-social Silence as withholding work-related ideas, information, or opinions to benefit others. There are manifold reasons for engaging in pro-social silence; an employee’s altruistic personality, a high motive for affiliation, or an interest in maintaining social capital. Van Dyne et al. (2003).

07. Acquiescent Silence
Employees often do not speak up because they believe their opinion is neither wanted nor valued by top management. Pinder and Harlos coined the term Acquiescent Silence to describe this passive withholding of views and opinions. This type of silence represents disengaged behaviour. Pinder and Harlos (2001).

08. Quiescent Silence
In Quiescent Silence, employees disagree with specific actions and are aware of alternatives but believe withholding their views is in their best interest. Since they are still engaged in their work and with their organisation, employees in this state are described as 'suffering in silence’. Pinder and Harlos (2001).

09. Opportunistic Silence
Opportunistic Silence involves the hiding or omission of knowledge with malevolent intent. Examples of this type of silence are pretending to be unaware of information or giving a misleading promise to deliver the information in the future. This behaviour can result from employees wanting to retain power, harm one of their colleagues, or avoid additional workload. Connelly et al. (2011).

10. Ambient Stimuli
Leaders, often unwittingly, convey their power through subtle signals that cause employees to clam up. Mainly exhibited in face-to-face interactions, these Ambient Stimuli, such as power dressing, power poses, and large offices, can make people feel uneasy about speaking truth to power. Hackman (1992).

Conclusion
In a 30-minute conversation, we can show you how our unique approach to employee listening can break through the omertà of the workplace. Using case studies, we will give you real-life examples of how we help executives to pick up on early signs of danger, head off crises, and identify emerging opportunities.

Employee listening for leaders™