When saying nothing is a choice, and when it is a consequence of fear
I have written about the danger of silence in the workplace before, but a recent family situation made me realise silence has two faces.
When saying nothing is a choice, and when it is a consequence of fear.
The family situation that was being discussed was a child verbally abusing their mother whilst the father listened on and said nothing.
When the mother was asked why he didn't speak up, she said he wants to avoid conflict. He doesn't believe the behaviour is acceptable, but he stays silent.
He believes his intentions are good. Maybe the situation will dissipate on its own. His intervening could just make things worse. He is better off staying out of it.
But his intent is not the same as his impact. His silence doesn't make him responsible for the abuse, but it makes him complicit in allowing that behaviour to go unchallenged.
Consider the impact of his silence.
What does it convey to his wife who is being verbally abused?
What does it convey to his child whose behaviour goes unchallenged?
His avoidance of conflict does not create peace, but it also carries serious implications.
I've been thinking about this because silence plays a significant role in our workplaces too, and I believe leaders need to understand two very different kinds of silence.
When silence is a choice
We have all been in situations like that father. Something is said or done that makes us feel uncomfortable. It could be someone being belittled in a meeting or a colleague making an inappropriate remark. It could be someone being constantly talked over or their contributions being dismissed.
We know what we are hearing and seeing isn't right, but we say nothing.
This is not silence driven by fear. We're not afraid of the consequences, but we know that speaking up will be uncomfortable.
We don’t want to create tension or discomfort. We don’t want to have the difficult conversation. We don’t want to get involved. We convince ourselves that staying silent is the sensible choice.
We justify our silence, thinking someone else will speak up; perhaps it isn't our place; it's not worth making a fuss.
The moment passes, but our silence isn't neutral.
When we have the ability and responsibility to challenge unacceptable behaviour, choosing not to do so lets that behaviour continue, and our silence can be interpreted as acceptance.
This always matters, but especially when we are leaders. Leadership is not just about making decisions, setting direction, and delivering results. It is also about what we are prepared to challenge, what we are willing to confront, and what we allow to go unaddressed.
Leadership sometimes means being uncomfortable, so others don't have to keep enduring unacceptable behaviour.
Breaking silence is not always a public confrontation. It could be a private conversation or another intervention, as appropriate.
The bottom line is that doing nothing simply because speaking up feels uncomfortable is a choice.
That choice has consequences.
When silence is driven by fear
Silence driven by fear is the other face of silence. It shows up when an employee knows a decision by senior management is seriously flawed. They can see the risks, have information that could prevent a costly mistake, and want to raise their concerns.
They hesitate because the last person who challenged a decision was labelled negative. They found themselves excluded from important conversations. Someone else who challenged was dismissed, embarrassed, or told to stay in their lane. So, the silence prevails.
In these instances, the silence isn't because they agree with the behaviour, don't care, or just can't be bothered to speak up. They stay silent because they believe speaking up could bring consequences they cannot afford.
This silence is not a question of moral courage or willingness to have an uncomfortable conversation. This is a question of psychological safety.
When we have created an environment where silence feels safer than honesty, we have a fundamental problem. When fear determines who speaks and who stays silent, organisations lose access to information they desperately need.
Risks will go unreported, poor decisions go unchallenged, and problems remain hidden until they become crises.
Leaders may find themselves genuinely surprised when something goes wrong, and they may even ask why nobody said anything. They should be asking why no one felt safe enough to say anything.
Two silences and two different leadership responsibilities
It is easy to say people should always speak up when they see something wrong, but that assumes everyone has the same freedom to do so.
There is a big difference between someone who has the authority and opportunity to intervene but chooses not to because they dislike confrontation, and someone who fears that speaking up will jeopardise their position, relationships and livelihood.
One situation is avoiding discomfort, while the other is avoiding potential harm. They are not the same.
For leaders, these two forms of silence create two distinct responsibilities.
Responsibility to act
This means challenging behaviours that fall short of acceptable standards. It means addressing issues rather than hoping they will go away and recognising that avoiding a difficult conversation can be far more damaging than having one.
Responsibility to create safety
Leaders must build an environment where people can question, challenge, disagree and raise concerns without fearing the consequences.
This is more than telling people that your door is always open. This requires examining what happens when someone walks through it. Do you listen and take their concerns seriously? Are they treated with respect, even when their views challenge yours or those of someone more senior?
It is also important to look at what happens to them afterwards. Are they thanked for their insights? Are they told what investigation or actions were taken? Are they encouraged to keep speaking up?
People learn whether it is safe to speak up through experience, not through statements about organisational values. Understanding these responsibilities is one thing, while demonstrating them through our everyday leadership behaviour is another.
What the silence does not tell us
The challenge we face is that these two forms of silence can often look the same from the outside.
When a person says nothing, we don’t know whether they are avoiding an uncomfortable situation or protecting themselves from potential repercussions.
We don't know whether they agree, disagree, feel intimidated, or simply believe there is no point in speaking up.
However, we often interpret silence as if we do know. A quiet meeting becomes a successful meeting, the absence of complaints becomes a healthy culture, and a decision nobody challenges becomes a decision everyone supports.
Silence tells us none of those things. Yet we keep concluding what people don't say, without questioning why they stay silent.
The absence of disagreement is not evidence of agreement, and the absence of complaints is not evidence that nothing is wrong.
We must look beyond what we hear and ask ourselves what we might not be hearing and why.
When silence is a choice, leaders need to act
When silence is a choice, leaders must recognise that avoiding an uncomfortable conversation is not the same as addressing a problem.
It can be tempting to look the other way, hope someone else will intervene, or convince ourselves the situation isn't serious enough to warrant a response.
However, when we repeatedly choose comfort over accountability, unacceptable behaviour goes unchallenged, standards become negotiable, and people learn what is tolerated, regardless of what the organisation claims to value.
Leadership doesn't require us to enjoy confrontation. It requires us to recognise when a conversation needs to happen and to have the courage to initiate it.
It might mean interrupting an inappropriate remark in a meeting, addressing disrespectful behaviour privately or challenging a colleague whose actions are affecting others.
It doesn't mean reacting aggressively or turning every disagreement into a confrontation. It means responding in a way that is respectful, proportionate and appropriate to the circumstances.
It also means following through, because a difficult conversation avoided today can become a much bigger problem tomorrow.
The question isn't whether speaking up will make us uncomfortable. It's whether our silence comes at someone else's expense.
When silence is driven by fear, leaders need to create safety
When silence is driven by fear, asking people to be more courageous is not the solution.
Leaders must examine the conditions that have made speaking up feel unsafe.
Leaders often say they welcome feedback, encourage constructive challenge and have an open-door policy.
But what happens when someone disagrees with them? Do they listen with an open mind and curiosity, or do they become defensive?
Do they thank people for raising concerns, or make them feel that they have created a problem? Do they welcome different perspectives, or gradually surround themselves with people who tell them what they want to hear?
Those responses matter because people notice who gets listened to, whose concerns are dismissed, what happens to colleagues who challenge the status quo, and they will adjust their behaviours accordingly.
Creating psychological safety isn't about ensuring everyone feels comfortable all the time, and it doesn’t mean accepting every opinion or agreeing with every challenge. It means people can raise concerns, ask questions, admit mistakes and respectfully disagree without fearing humiliation, punishment or retaliation. It also means taking action when that is not the case.
Leaders need to respond constructively, protect people who raise legitimate concerns and demonstrate through their actions that speaking up is genuinely valued, because telling people they have a voice means very little if experience has taught them that using it comes at a cost.
We cannot expect people to speak up if we haven't made it safe for them to do so.
The Questions We Should Be Asking
I keep coming back to that family situation.
A father who remains silent because he doesn't like conflict.
A mother who experiences verbal abuse without his support.
And behaviour that goes unchallenged.
It reminds me that silence is not always neutral, and that choosing not to act can have consequences for others.
But it also reminds me that not everyone who remains silent has made that choice freely.
Some people stay silent because speaking up feels too dangerous.
From the outside, both forms of silence may look the same.
The difference lies in what is driving them.
And understanding that difference matters.
We should not excuse inaction simply because someone finds confrontation uncomfortable. Equally, we should not blame people for remaining silent when they have good reason to fear the consequences of speaking up.
For leaders, I think this leaves us with two questions worth reflecting on.
When I witness something that should be challenged, do I have the courage to act?
And have I created an environment where others feel safe enough to do the same?
Because leadership is not just about finding our own voice.
It is also about knowing when to use it and making sure others can use theirs.
