Silence on injustices speaks volumes: When and how silence impacts perceptions of managers.

Abstract

Speaking up on social injustices may help create more just and inclusive organizations. Yet, many people choose to remain silent. In this article, we test how managerial silence on injustices can shape impressions of a manager's lack of support for an outgroup. In Study 1, we surveyed employees and found that many noticed their managers' silence and recounted that such silence influenced how they perceived their managers. We then conducted nine experimental studies (Studies 2-6, Supplemental Studies 1-4) to test how observers' perceptions of managers who engage in silence on an outgroup injustice depend on whether managers have spoken up or remained silent in the past. We demonstrate that when a manager engages in selective silence by previously speaking up on an ingroup injustice but remains silent on an outgroup injustice, observers perceive the manager as harboring greater bias and as less supportive of the outgroup than if they remained totally silent on both issues. In contrast, when a manager engages in selective silence by previously speaking up on an outgroup injustice but then remains silent on a second outgroup injustice, observers perceive the manager as generally supportive of social justice and as more supportive of the second outgroup than if they remained totally silent on both issues. We discuss implications for speaking up and remaining silent on injustices in the workplace. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).