Let’s clear up one misconception. Strategic silence is not the same as being unaware of what is happening; it is a deliberate act. Such reluctance happens for a number of reasons: avoidance of responsibility, professional insufficiency, and the lack of effort to address matters within your responsibility or fear.

ALSO READ: The desirability of indifference

Few individuals have the courage to act on their convictions. Some cultures even discourage it.

Let’s consider the case when your correspondence on an important subject is ignored, in spite of polite reminders. When written communication is ignored, we often confuse this silence – a lack of response – with the false perception that the person who deserves a response will give up out of frustration; a technique that has been proven successful more often than not and has become a routine and well tested technique in the hands of the practitioner.

ALSO READ: Under the sheets of our corporate world

Such silence is employed in a number of situations. I have experienced this with a past employer.

The meeting appears to go perfectly well. Everyone nodded in agreement. The presentation was flawless. Nobody raised a single objection. But the presenter was the CEO of the company and there were numerous intentional misrepresentations that were evident to those in attendance – but there was silence. Some argue that a team that allows silence, even in a meeting, shows trust in its own process. Nothing can be further from reality.

When employees and others in the know choose to withhold their ideas, concerns, or warnings, they are practicing a behaviour known as strategic silence.

It creates a false sense of corporate health right up until a catastrophic failure arrives at your doorstep. Not surprisingly, the company finally collapsed and the CEO is now at home.

But the practice of strategic silence extends beyond the realm of employment. The recipients of questionable information condone misrepresentations when they remain silent.

Oversight institutions such as auditors and regulatory organs of the state that knowingly do not perform sufficient diligence as accorded by professional standards and also those demanded by law put at risk those who they are supposed to protect – usually the public – from omitted, falsified, incorrect or incomplete information.

Strategic silence may even be regarded as contributory negligence which can be a critical factor in the outcome of events. The law of negligence traditionally focuses on wrongful acts; however, an equally significant question arises regarding liability for omissions – situations where a person fails to act. In tort law, a branch of law that deals with civil wrongs where one person’s actions - or failure to act - cause harm to another person, and the injured party can seek compensation, silence or inaction becomes legally actionable negligence when there is a legal duty to act and the failure to do so causes harm.

Another type of negative silence is social-political. The issues are exacerbated by transnational digital surveillance and attendant punishment of dissent that have become increasingly pervasive globally.

Silence is often used as an instrument of power and even intimidation in personal relationships. When one party speaks, the other remains silent, attempting to control the situation through the weight of their unspoken words.

Across many major corporations and public institutions, silence has shrouded sexual harassment, often for years or even decades. Class-action lawsuits and internal investigations have revealed a consistent, troubling theme: many members of the organization knew about the misconduct, yet systems in place failed to surface or address it.

Be aware of silence. The Sound of Silence (1966), the quintessential folk-rock release, by singer-songwriter duo Simon & Garfunkel in the aftermath of the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, reminds us that "silence like, a cancer, grows”.

The writer is the CEO of Quantum Solutions Limited, an educator and musician.