In the age of social media, managing corporate communication during crises has become increasingly complex. The instantaneous speed of communication makes it difficult for organisations to control the narrative. Throw in having to deal with fake news – disinformation and misinformation – into the mix and you have a ripe recipe for a bumpy ride.  

In crisis management and communication, the focus is mostly on what is said and done. However, what is not said is equally important to what is said. Silence can be a powerful tool employed by an organisation strategically in an ongoing crisis. 

In this article, Augustine Pang, Professor of Communication Management (Practice), shares how silence, when used strategically in an ongoing predicament, can be a powerful tool in crisis management. More often than not, the power of silence in crisis communication and crisis management has been overlooked. 

The type of silence matters, he says. “Silence certainly has a role to play, this is what we call delaying silence. In a study I conducted with my co-authors, organisations can use this to signal work-in-progress, and to let stakeholders know that once the investigation is over, information will be provided accordingly.” Prof Pang explains. 

He adds that the way silence is broken, either by force or by design as part of a planned communication strategy, matters to the public and affects the organisation’s crisis responses.

When silence is broken by force, through mainstream media outlets, social media platforms or a whistle-blower, the organisation is not in control of the narrative. Forced silence-breaking negatively affects an organisation’s relationship with its stakeholders and its reputation.

When silence is intentionally broken as part of a strategic plan, the organisation is in a better position to control the narrative and frame the issue as a starting point for public discourse. This is how delaying silence is employed as an intentional move to control the narrative.

Trust is tested during crises when organisations do not respond promptly, he observes. The strategic breaking of silence helps to build trust with the public, he writes in his research article. “One way to do so is to thank stakeholders for being patient while the organisation takes time to release information,” he writes in the study. “Given that information has been released, the organisation is now ready to speak, engage, and listen to take the issue forward”

How do the two types of silence-breaking differ?

Prof Pang provides two examples of the two types of silence breaking. The first is when an organisation is forced to break its silence and the second is when it plans when and how to break its silence.

An example of forced silence breaking, according to Prof Pang, is the recent incident involving the US Secretary of State Lloyd Austin. While hospitalised he did not inform President Biden or the public until a media outlet reported it. The information space was inundated with questions and Secretary Austin had to address the issue, admitting that he could have been more communicative.

On the other hand, take the example of the recent JAL crash at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport in early January 2024, which was headline news in Singapore. There was a lot of interest as Japan is a very popular holiday destination among Singaporeans. The media and the public were concerned with how the crash happened, why it happened and the potential impact on the passengers still stuck at the airport. In this case, authorities communicated that they would only be able to give a full accounting only after investigating the transcripts and the contents of the black box. In the meantime, they would refrain from speculating. When the time came, they did release information after establishing essential facts. This is an example of planned broken silence.

When silence makes no difference

Additionally, Prof Pang’s research found a correlation between risk perception and information sharing. Essentially, the higher the risk perception, the more people would share information. More interestingly, in such situations, the way silence was broken did not directly affect the public's risk perception. 

For example, during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a lot of information shared on how to keep safe, where to get medication, health products and so on. During this period of high-risk perception, the amount of information sharing was high. This information sharing meant that safety protocols could be understood and followed. At the same time, it reassured the public that the authorities and healthcare professionals were working on keeping them safe.

“Organisations need to understand what works for stakeholders and relate to them in a manner that they understand.” says Prof Pang, “They need to work alongside stakeholders, and work them into their decision-making framework and process. If silence is used, explain why and when it will be broken as a matter of practice to stakeholders.”

How to use silence strategically 

With that said, the power of silence in crisis communication and crisis management has often been overlooked. That is because crisis management and communication focus mostly on actions, while organisations tend to centre only on what is to be done. 

When delayed silence is executed well, the ‘strategic silence’ can positively influence organisational reputation, societal risk perception, and public information sharing.

In conclusion, Prof Pang says that leaders who need to manage crisis communication should consider using delayed silence. “Communicate and share as much information as possible,” he says, “Acknowledge the issue as best as you can; try not to avoid the issue or pretend it does not exist and try not to hide information from relevant stakeholders. Communicate when the information will be available if it is not immediately available. Don’t take stakeholders for granted. Silence speaks volumes. Knowing when to speak is as important as knowing what is to be said.”