The price of silence: The true cost of the information withholding in the workplace

In today’s business world, we frequently encounter a common situation: withholding information.

People in interconnected positions often fail to receive timely information about changes affecting work processes and how tasks are performed; operational changes are not communicated to them when they should be.

From a managerial perspective, this is sometimes done with seemingly good intentions such as preventing unnecessary panic, and sometimes to remind the other party of who is in control.

However, this silence, which seems reassuring in the short term, dulls the corporate structure’s reflexes and erodes trust in the medium and long term, and even increases operational costs.

Silence as an attempt to “keep business under control”

Not making a statement because things aren’t clear yet, avoiding unnecessarily alarming everyone, overemphasizing one’s own position within the organizational chart…

These are among the most common reasons for silence from a managerial perspective.

At first glance, it seems logical, because sharing information usually requires further explanation, time, and even defensiveness. Avoiding information sharing and remaining silent provides a sense of control in the short term, that’s true; but in the long term, it creates a kind of fragility and triggers insecurity.

Within corporate structures, the concentration of information in a single person disrupts business decisions in that person’s absence, causes delays, and even opens the door to the creation of false assumptions.

From the employees’ side: Keeping out of the info

Among the most obvious consequences of a disruption in information flow are operational errors. A procedural change not communicated in a timely manner can cause a project to be deemed invalid from the start, requiring it to be redone or completely canceled.

From an employee perspective, the most significant impact is a loss of motivation.

Employees question their role in the process and cease taking more initiative, leading to an erosion of trust. The perception of a lack of information undermines trust in the corporate structure and management.

I said something similar in my publication titled Why every company should have a corporate story; if you don’t say what needs to be said, someone else comes along and say it for you.

Here, I’m talking about anxiety stemming from an information gap. In an environment, if someone doesn’t come forward and provide the necessary information, someone else will fill the void with rumors and gossip. This makes the decision-making process more difficult and complex.

If information is held by only one person or group, what is being upheld in that institution is not the system but the individuals.

A couple of examples from the field

To help you understand better, I’d like to give a few examples.

We were preparing to deliver a website that we’d been working on for about a year, in the final weeks of 2025. In the second week of December, a mass email arrived, sent to all freelancers working in different parts of the world. A decision had been made to completely change the website’s architecture, cancel some sections, add new parts including an e-commerce infrastructure, and change the tone from informal to more formal.

Up to this point, there’s nothing wrong with the process; however, this decision was made at a meeting with headquarters in America in September and was communicated to the development team just two weeks before the product was due to be delivered.

Whether one of us was in Johannesburg, another in India, or another in Korea, we felt the same thing, and we expressed it in our group: our work was being devalued, and some of my teammates had temporarily left the project by logging into the system. Our work was being irresponsibly wasted because the necessary information flow wasn’t provided.

Another one…

I am currently responsible for the website content and the implementation of monthly campaign designs for a solution partner I work with. The company also has field staff, and we need to synchronize the web campaigns with the field campaigns.

This example coincided with the previous one. For the year-end campaign, we designed a discount and free shipping campaign covering various categories on the website, but the field staff only found out about it two weeks later. Therefore, field performance didn’t keep up with online performance, we experienced some delivery delays, and received several complaints. The field staff complained to headquarters, and headquarters implied that the field staff wasn’t agile enough.

The overlooked cost

While managers often view keeping information to themselves as a cost-cutting measure, they often overlook the indirect costs.

Increased employee rework rates, rotation requests, and the cost of retaining talent are details that most companies disregard.

These may not be noticeable in the short term, but their impact on the company’s culture and financial structure will inevitably become apparent in the long run.

Strengthening communication in simply way

As a society, our biggest problem is that we don’t communicate accurately and openly enough.

Especially when it comes to work, everyone, regardless of their position, has certain duties and responsibilities.

A manager doesn’t have to share every detail with everyone, but he/she should inform everyone in the work environment about the reasons and whys they need to know.

Instead of vague and ambiguous statements like it’s not clear yet they should clearly explain how the process works and when he/she can provide the information.

Decisions made should be regularly recorded in a shared document, and everyone involved should be able to get answers to their questions about who, when, and why.

Teams such as sales, field, operations, design, and management should meet regularly and the information everyone possesses should be synchronized.

It should be determined who within each team needs which information, and employees should be informed and given feedback accordingly.

The solution to all these problems lies in developing and spreading a culture of feedback within the company.

…

Keeping information to oneself and not sharing it with colleagues may give managers a sense of control but it’s important to remember that this feeling doesn’t represent real power. True power lies in everyone knowing their role and making quick and accurate decisions.

On the other hand, the job of management is not to hide information, he/she must deliver the information to the right person at the right time.

Organizations that have managed to incorporate transparency into their culture cope better with uncertainties, employee initiative increases, and their structures become more resilient.

Read more at:

Similar posts