Silence Remains Golden

The Other Half of Communication 

A good communicator knows how to use silence at least as well as words.  Nondisclosure is truly an equal partner in communications, and when used well, remaining taciturn can communicate more than words.

Abraham Lincoln said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”  Unfortunately, Lincoln’s wisdom has been ignored by far too many.  Silence can be used for a number of strategic reasons, but the three most common tactical categories for being economical with words are contextual accuracy, legal proceedings and political priorities.  Whenever a person refuses comment, it’s frequently for one of those three purposes or a combination thereof.

Contextual Accuracy - All commentary creates a record that can and will come back to haunt the unwise.  It’s imperative to have a legitimate reason or information source when making any public statement, because if the assertion turns out to be incorrect, at least there will be a credible reason to believe it right at the time.  It’s not necessary to be correct at all times, but it’s vital to have substantial support.  Anytime such corroboration is not present, it’s better to say nothing at all or to acknowledge the fluid nature of the situation without taking a firm position. 

Legal Proceedings - It’s best to either refuse comment or to issue minimal written verbiage regarding issues or events that have potential legal consequences now or in the imminent future.  Public disclosure is admissible in court, and any statement that has even the slightest chance of being implicated in a legal action should be submitted for legal review to a qualified lawyer.  Written statements are best, because a single poorly chosen spoken word may have significant implications during a trial.  If a verbal statement is the only option, ensure the spokesperson is well trained and experienced.

The lawyer doing legal review must understand the business reasons for making a public comment.  Never allow the review to alter or thwart business objectives.  If the business purposes and the legal considerations conflict, then it’s best in most cases to not say anything.

Political Priorities - Political situations are always fluid, and statements made in this arena should always be well thought out.  While it’s never a good idea to completely denigrate another, it’s particularly dangerous in politics, because the object of ire could later exercise influence in a harmful way against his or her detractors.  Consider the best and worst cases for future political scenarios prior to making the commentary, and account for both in the content of the text so that later interpretation can be qualified as a question of emphasis.

President Obama was very careful when commenting upon the recent Iranian elections, and that was a very wise communication strategy.  It’s doubtful Obama supported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or believed the results of the election, but it would only hamper future relations with the Iranian government if his comments were unduly harsh.  Obama chose to remain quiet as long as possible, and when he did finally speak, he framed his words in the context of America’s well-established traditional values or his own personal feelings.  It’s difficult for even the most ardent foe to argue against values that are so well known or to deny a person their right to inner emotions and feelings.

Set Communications Criteria — It’s an excellent idea to develop a set of criteria for making public announcements.  This applies as much to public relations activity as it does to email, blog commenting or even personal conversations.  Establishing a standard for committing yourself to a position will minimize missteps and potential harm to others.

Benjamin Franklin is rumored to have weighed decisions by drawing a line vertically down a page and putting the reasons for an action on the left and reasons against an action on the right.  Whichever side of the page had the most entries at the conclusion of the exercise became the rational choice. 

Although the above decision-making application is a good start, its logical flaw is the assumption that all reasons are equally weighted, and that’s rarely the case in life.  Devising a weighting scale for each of the stated reasons is recommended to compensate for the shortcoming.

A simple criteria set is more practical for everyday speech and other casual communications.  Consider the following three questions when evaluating the need to communicate in any given situation:

• Is it true? Never make a comment that’s known to be untrue, because it will be known by others to be false too. Sooner or later, that statement will be discredited and the speaker along with it. As stated above, always have a logical and credible cause to reasonably believe a public account is true.
• Is it kind? This can be a very difficult criterion to assess, because sometimes a comment that seems harmful to some will be helpful to a greater majority. In most cases, it’s best to at least be neutral relative to the value of kindness. Unkindness never works and should be avoided at all costs.
• Is it necessary? This final value in the decision-making process will stop about half of all communication efforts at inception. An immediate reaction to an event or comment by another might instinctively evoke a retaliatory response, but these are rarely wise and even less frequently necessary. The necessity of a communication should also be the primary impetus for tone and phrasing.  

Following the basic guidelines above will enhance any communicator’s appreciation for the value of silence.  It’s difficult to make a misstep when observing discretion, but there are many pitfalls for the inexperienced using ill-considered motivations for sharing their thoughts.  Speech without strategy is potentially very dangerous for individuals and organizations alike.