Breaking the Sound of Silence: Explication in the Use of Strategic Silence in Crisis Communication

Abstract

Crises present organizations with the “rhetorical exigency” to enact control. Silence is not an option. This study, as the first empirical examination of Author A’s seminal study on silence in crisis communication, examines, first, if silence can be strategically used as a bona fide strategy; second, under what circumstances should silence be broken; and third, when silence is broken, how it affects (a) organizational reputation, (b) societal risk perception, and (c) the publics’ crisis information sharing intention. An online experiment was conducted using a nationally representative sample in the United States. Participants were recruited in 2019 via a Qualtrics panel. The stimuli used in this study consisted of two components: (1) an explanation about a fictitious company; and (2) two types of silence breaking (forced vs. planned) embedded in each stimulus accordingly after the same crisis incident. Four hypothesis were conceptualized. They were all supported. Collectively, they showed that the effect of silence-breaking type on crisis information sharing intention was mediated by societal risk perception, which is conditioned by participants’ level of perceived organizational reputation. Silence, or failure to fill the information vacuum, has not been an option to consider thus far as it suggests the organization is “not in control.” However, this study suggests the types of silence organizations can adopt and the modes the organizational silence can be broken. It provides a new lens for organizations to engage in business communication.

Business Communication Lessons in Agility: Introduction to the Special Issue on the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Transparency and clarity are indispensable to VUCA because ambiguity is a challenge, and gaining internal and external stakeholder trust via verbal and nonverbal empathy is critical to positive outcomes (Coombs, 2014; Dulek et al., 2003). Going further, these results should be empirically measured on a continuing basis (Fuller et al., 2022; Hesselberg, 2018) and include attitudes/behaviors such as trust in organizations and leaders, positive health practices, high employee engagement and motivation, successful organizational voice and silence strategies, and improved psychological well-being and stress management (Bashir et al., 2022; Batova, 2022; Charoensukmongkol & Phungsoonthorn, 2022; Men et al., 2022; Pang et al., 2022).…”

“…Referring back to the model, Batova (2022), Bashir et al (2022), and Pang et al (2022) investigate what constitutes communication resilience or its deficits on an organizational level of analysis with external stakeholders as the public. Batova in “To Mask or Not to Mask” employs qualitative analysis of CDC tweets about mask wearing.…”

“…Business communication to a broad and diverse public base is the setting for Pang and co-authors’ “Breaking the Sound of Silence” (Pang et al., 2022). This transformative experimental investigation emphasizes non-verbal communication, silence, and looks into how it can be strategically broken.…”

“…Looking more closely at empathy and inclusion, symmetrical communication (Men & Sung, in press) and listening strategically combined with respectful inquiry nurtures higher stakeholder trust, propensity to adapt, and promotes psychological well-being and resilience (Cardon et al., 2019; LaGree et al., 2021; Men et al., 2022; Van Quaquebeke & Felps, 2018). Specific guidance also arises from metrics, strategic planning for breaking silence, conveying a logic of order, group member communication training, and motivating language (Charoensukmongkol & Phungsoonthorn, 2022; Fuller et al., 2022; Men et al., 2022; Pang et al., 2022). Relatedly, a new study suggests that leader motivating language has a compelling relationship with enhanced follower psychological safety—security in being able to more fully express oneself at work (Edmondson, 2018; Mayfield & Mayfield, 2021).…”

Communication in service ecosystems through value propositions: dilemmas and future research avenues

“…In case of organizational crises, recent work also refers to the role of silence. More particularly, Pang et al (2022) empirically demonstrate that reputational damage is lower when an organization plans to break its silence than when an organization's silence is broken by force, such as informational demands by the media or societal pressure to disclose information to the public. Nevertheless, this empirical work also suggests that the public can still hold an organization that opts for planned silence breaking accountable for a crisis.…”