How Silence Can Undermine Leadership

Silence at work can look like tact: a leader avoids an uncomfortable question out of respect for privacy, or holds back feedback because the timing seems wrong. But Christina Wing argues that avoidance can become an abdication of leadership when it serves the comfort of the person in charge rather than the interests of others.

Consider Maya, a high-performing consultant who seemed likely to be promoted after a senior position opened. She had recently returned from parental leave and had a colicky baby at home. Her manager noticed she often seemed tired and decided the promotion was probably not right for her. The manager never asked whether Maya wanted it. Someone else got the job, and Maya was stunned.

Maya might have declined the promotion, Wing notes, but that choice belonged to Maya. By staying silent, the manager made the decision on her behalf. As Wing puts it, “her manager chose her own comfort over the conversation Maya deserved.”

The example reveals how consideration can quietly take away another person’s agency. Leaders may tell themselves they are respecting boundaries, but a boundary Maya never stated cannot justify withholding an opportunity. A useful question is who the silence serves: the person who needs information, or the leader avoiding discomfort? Clarity gives people the chance to respond and make their own choices.

Leaders Must Go First to Build Psychological Safety

Psychological safety cannot depend only on employees volunteering difficult information. As Christina Wing puts it, a leader who hears about a concern only when someone is brave enough to raise it may be learning who is willing to take the risk—not what is actually happening. An open-door policy gives people permission to speak; leadership sometimes means walking through the door first.

Wing says leaders should name uncomfortable subjects, acknowledge mistakes and ask questions others may hesitate to raise. When the senior person makes a taboo subject discussable, they signal that it is legitimate to address. And when leaders own errors quickly and publicly, they help make it safer for others to admit mistakes. Deflecting or going silent sets a different example.

A disciplined culture is not one where nobody challenges the boss. Wing’s test is whether junior people can disagree with senior people and nobody flinches. If the room changes when someone pushes back, or colleagues look to the leader to see whether dissent is allowed, quiet may be a sign of fear, not trust. Psychological safety does not mean freedom from disagreement; it means people can speak without expecting embarrassment or punishment. As Wing says, a team where everyone is comfortable and no one disagrees “isn’t safe. It’s just quiet.”

Use Curiosity to Find the Concern Beneath Disagreement

Starting a difficult conversation does not mean deciding in advance how it should end. Christina Wing distinguishes curiosity from conversion: persuasion aims to make someone accept your view, while curiosity asks what you might be missing.

She describes an MBA student struggling with his parents’ pressure to join their family business. He had repeatedly tried to convince them he should follow a different path. During a visit home, he changed his approach and asked why it mattered so much to them that he join the company.

Their answer revealed a concern beneath the disagreement. His parents feared that if he pursued another career, he would move far away and they would lose proximity to their son. The conflict was not simply about whether he would work in the business; it was also about preserving the family relationship.

Once that concern was out in the open, the choices were no longer all or nothing. The student negotiated a role on the board, attending in-person meetings every other month and often staying through the weekend.

The solution came when he stopped trying to win the argument and started asking what was driving it. In organizations, too, a disagreement on the surface may conceal a different concern underneath. Curiosity can bring that concern into view—and make a workable response possible.

Prepare Principles Before a Crisis

Politically or socially charged issues can put leaders under pressure to speak. But Wing’s advice is not to treat speaking as automatically courageous or silence as automatically evasive. First, assess whether the issue genuinely touches the business, its employees or its customers. Then consider whether the organization has something specific and authentic to say, rather than a statement that is merely “safe and hollow.”

Just as important, establish principles before controversy makes a decision personal. A policy formed in the heat of the moment can look opportunistic, even when it is defensible. Principles set in advance are more likely to be understood as principles, and they give leaders a basis for responding thoughtfully when pressure rises.

This preparation is part of a broader leadership responsibility: do not mistake a calm workplace for a healthy one. When people stay quiet, apparent harmony may conceal concerns that have not been raised. Leaders do not need perfect words before beginning a difficult conversation. Wing argues that the perfect words matter far less than being willing to say, “Can we talk?”—and then actually doing so. Talking early can create room to address a concern before it grows into a larger problem.