upload here
What did she study? One concept/idea
Elaine Lin Hering studied the role of silence in organizations—how cultural, structural, and interpersonal dynamics discourage employees from speaking up, and how this reduces team performance, leadership, and organizational learning. The central concept is “unlearning silence”: helping individuals and companies recognize and dissolve the habits that suppress voice.
Why interesting for a company?
Because silence prevents innovation, problem-solving, and trust. For companies, encouraging employees to speak up leads to better decision-making (more perspectives shared). Early identification of risks or errors. Increased employee engagement and retention. A stronger culture of psychological safety. In competitive environments, voice becomes a strategic advantage.
What did she identify? What is her main result?
Elaine identified that silence is not neutral—it is costly. It undercuts collaboration and productivity. Her main result is that leaders must intentionally remove barriers to speaking up (hierarchy, fear of retaliation, bias, lack of inclusivity) and foster a culture where people feel safe and empowered to contribute.
Managerial implication
Managers should create structures for open dialogue (e.g., meetings designed for input, anonymous feedback channels). Normalize mistakes as learning opportunities. Model vulnerability by speaking up themselves. Actively ask for and reward employee contributions. Shift from “culture of silence” to “culture of voice”
Boundary condition:
Elaine acknowledges that voice is not about speaking all the time, not eliminate silence. The boundary condition is choice: people should feel free to speak or not based on context, safety, and strategy. Managers must therefore adapt strategies to cultural context, organizational size, and team composition
Elaine Lin Hering studied the role of silence in organizations—how cultural, structural, and interpersonal dynamics discourage employees from speaking up, and how this reduces team performance, leadership, and organizational learning. The central concept is “unlearning silence”: helping individuals and companies recognize and dissolve the habits that suppress voice.
Why interesting for a company?
Because silence prevents innovation, problem-solving, and trust. For companies, encouraging employees to speak up leads to better decision-making (more perspectives shared). Early identification of risks or errors. Increased employee engagement and retention. A stronger culture of psychological safety. In competitive environments, voice becomes a strategic advantage.
What did she identify? What is her main result?
Elaine identified that silence is not neutral—it is costly. It undercuts collaboration and productivity. Her main result is that leaders must intentionally remove barriers to speaking up (hierarchy, fear of retaliation, bias, lack of inclusivity) and foster a culture where people feel safe and empowered to contribute.
Managerial implication
Managers should create structures for open dialogue (e.g., meetings designed for input, anonymous feedback channels). Normalize mistakes as learning opportunities. Model vulnerability by speaking up themselves. Actively ask for and reward employee contributions. Shift from “culture of silence” to “culture of voice”
Boundary condition:
Elaine acknowledges that voice is not about speaking all the time, not eliminate silence. The boundary condition is choice: people should feel free to speak or not based on context, safety, and strategy. Managers must therefore adapt strategies to cultural context, organizational size, and team composition
What did he she study? One concept/idea
She studied how the silence of employees should be broken or as she calls it “organizational silence”. She views silence as an impediment in the communication between employers and employees and thinks that bosses should create a more welcoming environment for their subordinates to express themselves freely. She provides leaders with tips and tricks on how they should achieve such a welcoming space for self-expression which will lead to a better organizational culture among employees.
Why is it interesting for a company?
By speaking up employees encourage better collaboration between themselves, innovation and decision-making. On the contrary, by staying silent people mask critical insights that can lead to the development of the previous stated processes.
Moreover, it provides psychological benefits for the employees themselves and consequently boosts their overall performance.
What did he/she identify? What is his/her main result?
Voice depends on speaking up, being heard and supportive policies. That includes awareness, interrogation, experimentation and support.
Managerial implication?
She identified using actively design communication practices to include the employee’s voice. Moreover, setting up environment that incentivizes and rewards speaking as well as building psychological safety and recognizing that not all silence is harmful is beneficial.
Boundary condition?
In some cases, such as in agencies silence is appraised therefore such concept cannot be applied in instances when the silence is desired by the employees and not provoked by the environment. Such cases are provoked out of fear, as a lack of invitation or systematic bias.
She studied how the silence of employees should be broken or as she calls it “organizational silence”. She views silence as an impediment in the communication between employers and employees and thinks that bosses should create a more welcoming environment for their subordinates to express themselves freely. She provides leaders with tips and tricks on how they should achieve such a welcoming space for self-expression which will lead to a better organizational culture among employees.
Why is it interesting for a company?
By speaking up employees encourage better collaboration between themselves, innovation and decision-making. On the contrary, by staying silent people mask critical insights that can lead to the development of the previous stated processes.
Moreover, it provides psychological benefits for the employees themselves and consequently boosts their overall performance.
What did he/she identify? What is his/her main result?
Voice depends on speaking up, being heard and supportive policies. That includes awareness, interrogation, experimentation and support.
Managerial implication?
She identified using actively design communication practices to include the employee’s voice. Moreover, setting up environment that incentivizes and rewards speaking as well as building psychological safety and recognizing that not all silence is harmful is beneficial.
Boundary condition?
In some cases, such as in agencies silence is appraised therefore such concept cannot be applied in instances when the silence is desired by the employees and not provoked by the environment. Such cases are provoked out of fear, as a lack of invitation or systematic bias.
Concept studied
Elaine Lin Hering studies the concept of silence and voice in the workplace. Her book Unlearning Silence focuses on why people stay silent, from where silence is learnt and how individuals and organizations can reclaim and encourage authentic voice.
Relevance for companies
Her work is beneficial to every company because silence is costly. For a long time, it has suppressed dissent, fosters conformity and undermines innovation and equity. On the other hand, raising a culture of voice would encourage employees to speak up and strengthen the decision-making process.
Findings and main results
Hering finds out that silence is often created due to upbring, culture and systemic inequities. Her central contribution is the articulation of three levers of voice:
Substance: the content or expertise an individual contributes
Relationship: the degree of trust, credibility, and social capital one holds
Process: the modes and timing of communication that shape how voice is received
Her finding highlights that voice is not simply an act but a dynamic interplay of these three factors.
Managerial implications
Managers must move beyond exhortations to “speak up” and instead design organizational environments that actively support voice. This includes creating trust-based relationships, repeatedly inviting diverse perspectives, legitimizing dissent, and rewarding contributions even when they challenge dominant views. Such practices contribute to cultures of psychological safety and reduce the organizational costs of silence.
Boundary conditions
Hering emphasizes that speaking up is not universally beneficial. Context matters: silence can be protective, strategic, or necessary in certain situations. The value of voice depends on cultural norms, power asymmetries, and the presence (or absence) of psychological safety. Thus, her framework underscores agency—the individual’s ability to intentionally choose between voice and silence, rather than being constrained by systemic or cultural pressures.
Elaine Lin Hering studies the concept of silence and voice in the workplace. Her book Unlearning Silence focuses on why people stay silent, from where silence is learnt and how individuals and organizations can reclaim and encourage authentic voice.
Relevance for companies
Her work is beneficial to every company because silence is costly. For a long time, it has suppressed dissent, fosters conformity and undermines innovation and equity. On the other hand, raising a culture of voice would encourage employees to speak up and strengthen the decision-making process.
Findings and main results
Hering finds out that silence is often created due to upbring, culture and systemic inequities. Her central contribution is the articulation of three levers of voice:
Substance: the content or expertise an individual contributes
Relationship: the degree of trust, credibility, and social capital one holds
Process: the modes and timing of communication that shape how voice is received
Her finding highlights that voice is not simply an act but a dynamic interplay of these three factors.
Managerial implications
Managers must move beyond exhortations to “speak up” and instead design organizational environments that actively support voice. This includes creating trust-based relationships, repeatedly inviting diverse perspectives, legitimizing dissent, and rewarding contributions even when they challenge dominant views. Such practices contribute to cultures of psychological safety and reduce the organizational costs of silence.
Boundary conditions
Hering emphasizes that speaking up is not universally beneficial. Context matters: silence can be protective, strategic, or necessary in certain situations. The value of voice depends on cultural norms, power asymmetries, and the presence (or absence) of psychological safety. Thus, her framework underscores agency—the individual’s ability to intentionally choose between voice and silence, rather than being constrained by systemic or cultural pressures.