The Culture of Silence in Institutions: When Speaking Up Becomes Dangerous

In our previous article, we discussed how institutions appear to favor sycophancy when leaders advance by appeasing those in positions of authority rather than standing with their peers. But sycophancy is only part of the story. The other half is silent.

Let’s continue the discussion.

If sycophancy is one aspect of our institutions, then silence is the other. Have you observed how people quickly come to believe that it’s safer to be silent than to express the truth in many settings, including universities, government organizations, and even huge corporations? They see coworkers fired, reassigned, or labeled as “troublemakers” for having the audacity to voice concerns. “Keep your head down if you want to survive here,” is the unspoken warning that spreads.

This my friends is what we refer to as the culture of silence. Although it isn’t stated in any policy, it is consistently upheld by intimidation, fear, and the covert penalty for being honest. People agree, grin, and nod during meetings. Whispers in hallways convey a distinct message. Although everyone is aware of the issues, few are prepared to take the chance of voicing them out loud. The outcome is catastrophic. Institutions that stifle truth end up stifling growth. When concepts are vetted more for safety than for merit, innovation dies. People feel ignored and unheard, which lowers morale. And because no one has the courage to question the status quo, mediocrity gradually replaces excellence.

This issue is not unique to the public sector or universities. The same culture seeps into private businesses as well.. Employees discover that promotions tend to go to the congenial rather than the talented. Team members limit their creativity to what the supervisor wants to hear. Businesses risk encouraging conformity over bravery, sacrificing long-term development in favor of immediate comfort.

Denying people the opportunity to ask questions turns them from active participants into passive objects. In institutions of silence, that is precisely what occurs—staff members stop being engaged and instead become obedient. Such organizations maintain power not only by using force but also by controlling the conversation and dictating what can and cannot be uttered.

But here comes the cruel irony. Universities and public institutions, particularly in Africa, were established with the promise of truth and reform. They should be the last places where silence reigns. Unfortunately, they frequently punish individuals who speak up, while praising those who remain silent or clap the loudest. The system forgets that dissent, however unpleasant, is the lifeblood of development.

However, not all leaders stifle criticism. Some actively foster discussion, promote argument, and even defend others who criticize them. However, these leaders are the exception rather than the rule. The prevailing trend is that silence is the safest language to be used in the halls of power.

So what is the next step?

First and foremost, leaders need to understand that disagreement does not equate to disloyalty. An employee who challenges a policy might genuinely be more dedicated to the institution’s survival than one who claps without  much thought. Second, organizations require mechanisms that safeguard dissenters and whistleblowers, emphasizing that expressing the truth is a contribution rather than a crime. Third, each of us—lecturers, managers, and employees—should assess whether we are involved in silence. Because every time we choose to keep silent in the face of wrongdoing, we reinforce the culture that weakens us all.

Silence is a perilous culture. It undermines integrity, erodes performance, and instills in the next generation the idea that telling the truth is not necessary. Silence creates walls of fear, just as sycophancy creates thrones of sand. Additionally, an institution cannot be sustained for very long by either fear or sand.

Employees should have the courage to speak, even if their voices are trembling. While silence may keep us safe today, it will rob our institutions of their future.

Conclusion and Parting Shot

On the surface, the culture of silence could appear innocuous, but it is actually one of the most harmful practices that any business can adopt. When people believe they must remain silent to survive,  trust erodes, creativity dries up, and the system starts to deteriorate from the inside out. History shows us that no structure built on fear and silence can last.

To leaders, here’s the parting shot. Don’t take applause for agreement or silence for loyalty. The voice with the loudest cheer isn’t always the most genuine. Make space for doubt, criticism, and hard realities if you want your organization to succeed. The goal of leadership is to create an atmosphere where even the smallest voice feels secure and heard, not about having people nod their heads.

Finally, organizations are protected by truth spoken with courage rather than silence.

We clap, nod, and remain silent—but at what cost? Have you noticed a culture of silence in your own workplace? Let us talk about it in the comments.