The Sound of (Strategic) Silence
Nature abhors a vacuum… and so do communications professionals, scholars, and theorists. When it comes to crisis response and management, it’s not just politicians that feel compelled to speak. In fact, the crisis leadership handbook discourages leaders from staying silent for fear that speculation and gossip will fill the information vacuum. However, not all silence is created equal. Research has identified three types of silence that relate to the intentions of leaders responding to a crisis or challenge. Leaders may seek to delay their response, avoid a response, or hide facts or details related to the crisis. The facts of a crisis can only be hidden or avoided for a limited time. Leaders will typically be forced to respond, and details will come to light forcefully and without regard for the preferred timing of the leader. That forced revelation generally does damage to both individual and organizational reputations while forcing leaders into defensive communications strategies.
While it is relatively easy to see how silence that avoids issues or hides important details in crisis situations leads to adverse outcomes, positive outcomes associated with delaying, or strategic, silence are more complex. Strategic silence has been shown to preserve the reputation of leaders and organizational image with primary stakeholders in crisis situations. However, for these outcomes to materialize it is critical to understand both the practical and theoretical elements that differentiate strategic silence from the kind of silence that does reputational damage.
Strategic silence builds or reestablishes leadership credibility by setting and then meeting stakeholder expectations in response to crises. It is used “to signal work-in-progress and buy time for a primary response” (Le, et al., 2019. P. 13). By successfully sustaining and breaking silence as planned, leaders increase or restore confidence in their ability to address the needs of their organization. There are five primary benefits to strategic silence that leaders may hope to gain:
Reduce crisis intensification and increase stakeholder patience by signaling work-in-progress
Provide situational clarity as events unfold, allow mental salience to develop for impacted stakeholders, and allow new resources to become available to address the situation
Restore the perception of organizational control by putting leaders in control of the plan to break silence at a time of their choosing
Buy time for leaders to investigate, understand, and evaluate potential options before committing to a response
Restore the reputation or image of the organization that may have been damaged
With its features and benefits clearly understood, how can leaders use strategic silence to benefit their organizations? That depends on the situation. While every crisis or leadership challenge is unique, the steps below will help you get started:
Develop your plan before you need it
Strategic silence is a tool for strengthening or rebuilding leadership credibility. As we’ve previously discussed, credibility influences everything from how quickly a leader is believed and followed, to how employees respond to high or low performance expectations. It is among the most valuable forms of leadership capital in a crisis and is much easier to draw on when a strong foundation has been laid in advance.
Strategic silence is most often used to buy time for the organization to investigate, find clarity, fix known issues, and define the problem to be solved before communicating a response. Situations only require leaders to buy time when it is in short supply. Having a well-crafted plan is critical to maximizing that time.
Utilize a defined process or framework to inform how you will make use of the silence to deliver on stakeholder expectations.
Determine the crisis domain and decide whether a first-response statement is needed
Strategic silence works differently depending on whether a crisis occurs in the public or private sphere
Private crises are not immediately known to stakeholders but will not stay that way forever. The window of secrecy may be long or short but the defining characteristic of crises in the private sphere is that leaders have at least some ability to determine how and when details become known.
Crises in the public sphere are known immediately to stakeholders. While the details and scope are generally reserved for a select few, the existence of a public crisis is broadly known.
Decide whether a first-response statement is needed
A first-response will demand a timely follow up. Consider the organization’s ability to obtain the information necessary to satisfy stakeholder expectations it may set.
Consider how you will inform stakeholders about when silence will be kept and when silence will be broken according to plan. Silence may by broken by status updates, outcomes, or plans to address the crisis moving forward.
Private sphere
Private sphere strategic silence without a first-response statement
Keep the silence as short as possible and communicate the organizational response when the crisis is brought to light. For example, announcing that a data-breach occurred 2 to 3 days after the incident occurred along with the steps the organization has already taken to address the vulnerability as well as the steps the firm will take to address the consequences of the incident going forward.
First-response statements automatically transition private challenges into the public sphere
Public sphere
Set expectations for strategic silence with a first-response statement
Carefully crafted first-response statements are critical to determining how strategic silence will be received. They are used to set communication expectations without committing to a defined course of action.
A good first-response will proactively address potential criticism related to transparency, the assumption of guilt or culpability, and empathy for those affected.
Lastly, the first-response statement may be instrumental in reducing external distractions, preventing premature action, and allowing the organization to gather accurate information to guide their response.
Sustaining silence
Execute the predetermined plan to make use of the silence. Investigate and fix issues, document the process, and detail decision-making factors.
Monitor the situation carefully for crisis intensification, new developments, execution challenges, breaches to the silence, and changes in stakeholder sentiment.
Develop “appropriate contingency responses planned in case there is a need to prematurely break the silence” (Le, et al., 2019. P. 15).
Breaking silence
Breaking strategic silence is a much art as it is science. “The right time to break delaying silence is when the organization has gathered enough information or is sufficiently prepared for the intended crisis response strategy” (Le, et al., 2019. P. 13-14).
Breaking the strategic silence as planned (with a well thought out and well executed strategy) will maintain or regain stakeholder confidence in the organization and its leaders.
Knowing how and when to use strategic silence to your advantage is not easy. Advance preparation is critical and knowledgeable guidance can help. Preparing your business to weather the next crisis that comes your way will take time and effort. But sooner or later, you’ll find yourself drawing on that preparation and you’ll be ready to rise to the occasion.
Let’s get to work!
