The power of silence (2)
The use of silence as a tactic
Communication, or rather lack thereof, is part of a power game. Whether we like it or not, calculations connected to power and status seem to lurk behind much of human interactions, as well as policy making (not just politics, as some might think). Not responding is a way of not cooperating, or a signal or non-cooperation. By not responding, one side essentially raises its status at the expense of the other side, at least temporarily. At a minimum, it leaves one side in a state of uncertainty as to what the silence signifies. It is a potent way of saying “I need you less than you need me.”
Silence when there normally should be an answer leaves the other party guessing, speculating as to the reason why. It can even lead to a fundamental change in the relationship, including its termination. To not answer is to break the golden rule of reciprocity. Some might do so intentionally, others unintentionally, but the effect can be similar.
The use of the non-response frequently plays out in the policy and diplomacy arenas. Silence becomes a strategy. It is a way of creating an information barrier.
Not very long ago I was in a country receiving aid from a development bank (like almost all the countries I work in). Years earlier, I had conducted an evaluation of a sector program. Multi-year efforts had been underway to formulate and promote reforms in the sector. This involved convening sector stakeholders at regular meetings to discuss their proposals, concerns, interests, etc. within the framework of the problems that were identified needed to be addressed. However, the agency responsible for managing the sector – related to natural resources – had a reputation for being corrupt. It did not welcome the reform attempts, although it didn’t reject them outright, either. It simply did not respond to invitations to join the discussion forums. Representatives never showed up.
The agency, or at least its personnel, were indeed the stakeholders with the most to lose. Serious reforms would have reduced rent-seeking and corruption, the “excess remuneration” the agency staff were generating for themselves. In not cooperating, in not accepting the invitations to engage in dialogue, they were acting rationally, from their point of view, anyway.
Years later, the sector reforms still have not been implemented and, according to my sources, corruption at the agency continues to flourish. By not showing up, the agency was employing a power play that ultimately worked in their favor, although to the detriment of many other stakeholders who would have benefited (and still can) from reforms.
How to respond to the non-response?
When first confronted with silence in lieu of a response, it is best to consider the possibility that the reason is benign and not intended as an adversarial signal. Perhaps the other person did not receive the message, or received it and is still intending to respond, but is taking a long time. Or, they never got around to responding, and feel guilty about it. Your message may have gone to junk mail. They may have changed their email address. They may have had a death in the family or, God forbid, have passed on to the great beyond themselves. Those are all reasonably good excuses, ranging from the acceptable to the, shall we say, unassailable. They are forgivable sins.
Giving the non-responder a second chance, with a friendly follow-up reminder, is thus a good idea. If you have tried again, and still get no response, however, it may well be time to reciprocate, by “answering” silence with silence.
Have you found yourself in a situation where you asked someone a question, especially in a face-to-face situation, and they simply ignored you? It is not pleasant. On top of all that, there is also a gender angle here, as my astute editor, Kitty Thuermer points out: over the years, women have complained about being professionally ignored, not heard, or marginalized by the men they work with. It is a most aggravating position to be in, and a most effective way of driving the nail in a relationship. (Although maybe we need to make an exception for the long-married couple, for whom a pattern of ignoring the other might be a habit more than anything else.) But in most other circumstances, ignoring someone is a power play, a signal of disrespect. I have rarely seen it used blatantly, I must add, but it is a very strong signal, with often immediate consequences for the relationship.
Sometimes, however, exit from the relationship is not a valid option. Because of the nature of the professional or personal relationship, there may be a compelling reason to keep reaching out in the face of silence. For example, if the other party is in a position of authority in the organization or network to which you belong, or where in order to move forward, you absolutely must have a response. If you are in a dependent relationship, or dependent salary and benefits, you may lack the power to reciprocate.
Still, it is doubtful such a situation cannot persist for long without some sort resolution, as pressure build to move to a new equilibrium.
When not talking is justified
Sometimes, maintaining silence is about dignity. I recommend not responding when people make inappropriate and unacceptable remarks. If they are directing their words at someone else and they is unfair, demeaning, or prejudiced, then you should, of course, respond. Not doing so would signal acquiescence. This is not a tactic, it is simply the right thing to (not) do. But stony silence can be a force for good in these cases.
Thus, talking is not necessarily always a good idea even if one’s intentions are good. Your choice depends on the circumstances. You need to be discerning enough to know when to talk and when to zip it. For a lot of us, that can involve a lifetime of learning. And to re-apply the golden rule: Do not do unto others that which you do not want done unto you.