At What Point Does Silence Become Complicity?

Over the past few years, I have found myself thinking about a question that is far more complicated than it first appears.

At what point does silence become complicity?

Most of us think of complicity as something active. We think of people who participate, conceal information or knowingly enable harmful behaviour. But I am not sure the line is always that clear.

In organizations, concerns rarely arrive fully formed with all the facts neatly assembled. More often, they arrive as information that raises questions... or certainly should.

Sometimes those questions are uncomfortable.

Sometimes they challenge our assumptions about someone we know, trust or respect.

Sometimes they create obligations we would rather not have.

And sometimes they force us to choose between curiosity and convenience.

Throughout my career, I have worked with organizations navigating crises, reputational challenges and difficult decisions. One thing I have learned is that serious problems are often preceded by smaller moments. A concern is raised. Information is shared. A question emerges that deserves a closer look... perhaps real investigation. What happens next matters.

The Institute of Business Ethics has written extensively about the importance of creating cultures where concerns are heard, investigated and acted upon. The reason is straightforward. Concerns that are ignored do not necessarily disappear. Sometimes they grow.

What interests me is why people who are otherwise thoughtful and ethical sometimes fail to ask the next question. I do not believe it is always because they do not care.

Sometimes loyalty gets in the way. Sometimes trust gets in the way.

Sometimes people genuinely cannot imagine that someone they know could have acted in a way that conflicts with their view of that person's character. Silence feels easier and they hope that the problem or concern will, in time, go away.

Sometimes the potential consequences of finding out more feel overwhelming or too consequential. So they stop looking and accept reassurance instead of inquiry. Or they convince themselves that someone else will deal with it. The ethical challenge is not always whether people knew enough to act. Sometimes it is whether they knew enough to ask. I am not suggesting that every concern is valid. Nor am I suggesting that every concern leads to a finding of wrongdoing. I am suggesting that information which raises legitimate questions deserves much more than assumptions.

It deserves curiosity. Because curiosity is what allows organizations, leaders and professionals to distinguish between what they believe, what they actually know, and what they should know.

For me, that is where this question becomes important. Not when the facts are clear. Not when the answers are obvious. But much earlier. At the moment when someone is presented with information, perhaps even facts or proof, that challenge what they would prefer to believe. That may be the point at which silence stops being neutrality.

And starts becoming a choice.

About the author: 

Catherine Cameron is a Toronto-based Senior Communications Leader and Strategic Advisor with more than 30 years of experience supporting healthcare and social service organizations. Her work focuses on trust, reputation, crisis communications, leadership communication, stakeholder engagement, and public confidence.