Why the secret to crisis management may lie in keeping silent

There's no doubt that the way we communicate has changed drastically in recent years. And with these changes come new challenges and opportunities for crisis communication. To stay ahead of the curve, organisations need to be aware of the latest trends that are impacting crisis communication.

In today’s 24/7 news cycle, silence from an organisation amid a crisis could be deafening. There is a fear that by the time a company becomes aware of a crisis, it is often already too late to control the narrative. To protect their reputation and ensure that customers and stakeholders are kept informed, companies come under pressure from stakeholders who demand an immediate response.

As such, there has been a growing debate about the role of silence in times of crisis. Some argue that silence only magnifies the information vacuum and exacerbates the situation. Others, however, contend that silence can be an effective tool for mitigating the impact of adverse situations.

Through an analysis of eight international case studies, SMU Professor of Communication Management (Practice) Augustine Pang, together with his co-authors Ace Le, Teo Hui Xun, Li Yuling and Mia Goh, explored how silence is adopted, sustained, and broken, and the different types of silence that can be employed in times of crisis. Their paper “When is silence golden? The use of strategic silence in crisis communication” was published in Corporate Communications: An International Journal in 2019, a leading communication journal. This article has won two awards: Best theoretical paper at the CCI Conference on Corporate Communication in 2018 and the Outstanding Article on Business Communication in non-Association for Business Communication Journal in 2020 awarded by the Association for Business Communication (ABC). ABC, founded in 1936, is a US-based international organization that advances business communication, research and practice.

Le was the lead author, followed by Teo, Pang, Li and Goh.

Tackling the information vacuum
In the face of a crisis, it is natural to want to communicate. After all, information is power, and maintaining control over the flow of information can help to quell public fears and prevent widespread panic.

Traditionally, crisis management techniques such as “stealing thunder”, whereby an organisation releases information to the public before the media does, were advocated to control the narrative of the story and manage how the organisation is portrayed. It can also be employed to pre-emptively take control of the situation and limit potential damage.

However, as Professor Pang and his co-authors wrote, “it has been suggested that strategic silence can be viable, albeit circumstantially”.

In the field of public relations, there are four general types of silence organisations can use in response to threats or crises. The first is absolute silence, which is often considered the riskiest option as it leaves no room for correction or clarification. The second is defensive communication, which involves acknowledging the issue but deflecting responsibility. The third is cascading communication, which involves providing gradual releases of information to control the story. The fourth and final option is flagging worst-case scenarios in advance to mitigate potential damage.

While each option has its own risks and rewards, absolute silence is generally considered to be the riskiest as it requires a high degree of sound judgment to avoid an overreaction.

Prof Pang and the authors of the paper, however, “recognise the need for a more systematic approach that examines such intentions and the corresponding strategies.”

Keeping mum for various intentions
In organisational communication, silence may serve a number of functions. For one, it can help bond team members or, conversely, create a rift; it could also heal or cause hurt; and it can reveal or hide information from others. Silence can also be used to signal assent/favour or dissent/disfavour and even “signal deep thoughtfulness or mental inactivity”. When used skilfully, silence can be a powerful tool for enhancing communication.

Moreover, if an organisation has previously used silence to deal with similar crises, it might do so again. For instance, the authors found that an organisation that was surveyed had previously employed the same delaying silence approach when there were technical issues with a previous phone model. In that case, the organisation only spoke up after 22 days through a press conference to provide updates and corrective action for phone users. This pattern suggests that if an organisation has used silence as a strategy in the past, it is likely to do so again in future crises.

While strategic silence may be employed to gain an advantage, cultural context can also predispose its adoption. In some cultures, silence is seen as a sign of respect, and people may be more likely to withhold information to avoid conflict or disrespect. In others, silence may be seen as a sign of weakness, and people may be more likely to speak up to assert their strength.

Prof Pang and his co-authors cite the example of China, where the fear of criticism could be due to cultural reasons. This might explain why a Chinese organisation they studied tended to obfuscate or withhold vital negative news.

Speaking up is hard to do

Beyond simply remaining silent, the way in which an organisation decides to eventually speak up also has an impact on its communications strategy. The team also identified three primary types of silence employed by organisations and leaders: avoiding, hiding, and delaying.

When an organisation breaks its silence forcefully when they remain silent to hide or avoid, it can have a negative effect on stakeholders' perceptions of the organisation. This is especially true during an information vacuum when stakeholders are left in the dark about what is going on. However, delaying silence can be tolerated by certain stakeholders during the silent period itself.

“The right time to break delaying silence is when the organisation has gathered enough information or is sufficiently prepared for the intended crisis response strategy,” explains Prof Pang and his co-authors.

“If the organisation manages to break the delaying silence with an appropriate response strategy as planned, stakeholders are more likely to maintain/regain confidence in the organisation.”

Delaying silence, as the paper notes, could reduce the odds of a crisis escalating when employed to signal work-in-progress. The strategy also puts the organisation in the driver’s seat by controlling how and when the silence is broken; and provides additional time for investigation before a primary response is issued.

For example, a first-response statement — which can be pre-written as a template — can be issued to inform stakeholders about a work-in-progress to avoid being criticised for withholding information. Once sufficient information is gathered, the company could then adopt a stance and issue a primary response.

By identifying clearer definitions of strategic silence based on an organisation’s intentions and offering a practical guide on when and how it could help manage crisis, the paper fills the gap between crisis theory and its application in practice. Through his findings, as Prof Pang and the team notes, “under certain circumstances, silence can be golden, if employed strategically and implemented carefully”.