When saying nothing means everything: reframing silence as an ethical gift in organizations

In organizational research, silence is commonly viewed as a signal of dysfunction. It is portrayed as the absence of voice, often associated with fear, disengagement or powerlessness (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Pinder and Harlos, 2001; Dyne et al., 2003). Foundational studies introduced distinctions between quiescent and acquiescent silence (Pinder and Harlos, 2001), and between defensive, prosocial and strategic silence (Knoll and van Dick, 2013), shaping a literature dominated by a problem-solving orientation. Much of this work frames silence as something to be repaired or overcome, a barrier to ethical leadership, psychological safety and organizational learning (Edmondson, 1999; Sherf et al., 2021). Even efforts to bridge employee voice and silence have reinforced the normative status of speaking up, treating silence as a deviant or passive counterpart (Nechanska et al., 2020; Chou and Chang, 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2020).

Yet silence is not always a failure to speak. In ethical, philosophical and spiritual traditions, silence has long been recognized as a mode of presence, a gesture of ethical restraint and even a radical form of attention (Bird, 2002; Bigo, 2018; Tannen, 1985; Lampe, 2002). Recent scholarship has begun to show how silence can serve as a moral act, a strategy of survival or an assertion of dignity in contexts where speaking is risky, futile,or counterproductive (An and Bramble, 2018; Benozzo et al., 2019; Donohue, 2024). For marginalized groups, silence may function less as disempowerment than as an embodied response to exclusion, tokenism or structural injustice (Ahmed, 2012; Alexandra Beauregard et al., 2018; Felix et al., 2018; Adisa et al., 2024). At the same time, silence does not exhaust the repertoire of ethical or political responses available to marginalized actors. Histories of collective resistance, mobilization and defiant voice underscore that speaking out and organizing remain vital pathways for challenging oppression and achieving social change. Recognizing silence as ethically meaningful in certain contexts does not negate the importance of voice, but rather highlights that silence and resistance coexist as situationally contingent responses shaped by risk, power and possibility. Despite these insights, silence remains under-theorized as a positive, intentional and relational phenomenon in organizational life. At stake in this reconceptualization is not only the behavior of individuals but the ethical fabric of organizational and institutional systems. Silence raises broader questions about how organizations embody responsibility, legitimacy and care in contexts where speech is often treated as the only visible marker of engagement. By approaching silence as an ethical practice, the discussion extends beyond communication dynamics to consider the moral orientation of systems themselves − how they recognize, enable or misinterpret subtle forms of presence and responsibility.

This paper addresses that gap by offering a new conceptual lens: silence as a gift. This ethical reframing builds on prior scholarship on organizational silence but extends it by introducing gift-theoretic dimensions − particularly non-reciprocity and responsibility to the other − that illuminate overlooked relational and moral potentials beyond dominant deficit-based and voice-centric interpretations. Drawing on Levinas’s ethics (Levinas, 1972), Mauss’s theory of gift exchange (1925 / 2002) and Derrida’s deconstruction of the “pure” gift (1992), we argue that silence can be understood as an ethically grounded, non-material offering. Unlike transactional models of communication or strategic silence aimed at personal gain, a gift of silence involves intentional withholding in service of the other. It may take the form of attentiveness, non-interruption, emotional presence or the creation of space for others to speak or reflect. Such silence resists instrumental logics and expresses care not through content but through relational posture.

The reframing has both theoretical and practical implications. It expands dominant notions of leadership, which often prioritize persuasive speech and assertiveness, to include practices of ethical listening, restraint and presence (Creed, 2003; Meyerson, 2003; Brown and Treviño, 2006). It also provides an alternative vocabulary for understanding employee behavior beyond the voice–silence binary, especially in contexts of vulnerability, pluralism or moral complexity (Milliken et al., 2003; McFadden and Crowley-Henry, 2018). In doing so, it aligns with broader currents in organizational ethics that seek to account for ambiguity, affect and relational responsibility (Braddock, 2018; Xu, 2022; Buber, 1923; Weil, 1951).

Our aim is not to romanticize silence but to recognize its ethical potential. By situating silence within gift theory and relational ethics, this paper develops a conceptual model that highlights forms of silence characterized by intentionality, care and the absence of expected return. Crucially, this framing does not position silence as universally desirable or inherently emancipatory, but as one ethical possibility among others, whose value depends on context, power relations and the availability of alternative forms of action. In an era of performative leadership and compulsive communication, we suggest that to lead well is sometimes to speak less − and to offer, instead, the radical generosity of silence.

The existing literature on organizational silence predominantly frames silence as a problematic or dysfunctional phenomenon, often associated with fear, disengagement or a breakdown in communication systems. One of the earliest and most influential conceptualizations is offered by Morrison and Milliken (2000), who argued that silence in organizations is not merely individual reticence but a systemic and collective phenomenon rooted in managerial practices and power asymmetries. In their view, silence functions as a barrier to organizational learning and change, maintained by leaders who implicitly discourage dissenting views and employees who, in turn, withhold concerns out of fear of negative consequences. Building on this foundation, Milliken et al. (2003) demonstrated that employees frequently choose silence even when they recognize ethical or operational risks, primarily because they perceive speaking up as either futile or personally risky. Importantly, such perceptions of risk are not evenly distributed across employees but are shaped by differences in perceived competence, skill and employability. Workers who view themselves as less replaceable − due to specialized skills, credentials or stronger labor market mobility − may experience a greater capacity to speak, whereas those who perceive themselves as more vulnerable or easily substitutable may be more inclined toward silence as a form of self-protection. A broad synthesis by Greenberg and Edwards (2009) affirms that much of the foundational literature approached silence through a managerialist lens, concerned primarily with communication breakdowns and voice suppression. Verhezen (2010) extended this critique by showing how cultures of compliance can institutionalize silence, arguing that organizational environments often discourage authentic moral voice and thereby reinforce conformity over ethical integrity.

Subsequent empirical work has sought to distinguish between various types of silence, yet these typologies tend to reinforce the notion that silence is primarily reactive or negative. Dyne et al. (2003), for example, identified three key forms: acquiescent silence, which stems from resignation or helplessness; defensive silence, motivated by fear or self-protection; and prosocial silence, enacted to protect others or the organization. Even in the case of prosocial silence, however, the act is often construed as withholding rather than contributing − an absence rather than a presence. Similarly, Pinder and Harlos (2001) differentiated between quiescent silence, which arises from a sense of hopelessness, and acquiescent silence, rooted in acceptance, further emphasizing silence as a passive and ultimately undesirable state. Knoll and van Dick (2013) advanced a multidimensional measurement model that includes protective and opportunistic forms of silence, but these too are evaluated in relation to organizational risk or dysfunction. Likewise, Chou and Chang (2020) proposed a theoretical classification of silence antecedents that largely centers on fear, withdrawal or strategic avoidance.

More recent contributions continue to demonstrate the structural and cultural embeddedness of silence in organizations. Kassandrinou et al. (2023) showed that certain types of employee silence − such as acquiescent or defensive silence − are linked to higher levels of burnout and lower engagement. Similarly, Weiss and Zacher (2025) found that remaining silent about important workplace issues can lead to burnout and reduced job satisfaction, especially in climates where speaking up is not safe or valued. Sherf et al. (2021) further distinguished silence from voice by exploring their unique relationships to perceived impact, psychological safety and emotional exhaustion − again reinforcing silence’s psychological cost. Donohue (2024) offered a nuanced dialogic account, framing silence as both complicity and potential ethical action depending on relational dynamics, yet even this view underscores its ambiguous status. In their integrative review, Wilkinson et al. (2020) argued that voice-centered research has long overshadowed the complexity of silence, while Nechanska et al. (2020) called for greater attention to silence as a phenomenon in its own right. Still, the field largely treats silence as a behavior to be managed, mitigated or overcome, rather than as something potentially generative or ethically meaningful.

At the same time, this framing has shaped wider organizational ethics and leadership debates, where silence is typically seen as a failure of moral presence. Ethical leadership research, for instance, tends to emphasize articulation of values and vocal role modeling (Brown and Treviño, 2006), while relational leadership theory highlights dialogue as the foundation of mutual recognition (Uhl-Bien, 2006). In HRM, silence has often been viewed as a threat to engagement and psychological safety, with scholars equating openness with healthier employee relations (Kahn, 1990; Detert and Burris, 2007). This creates a powerful bias toward voice, leaving little room to imagine silence as a relational or ethical practice.

Taken together, this body of work presents organizational silence as a signal of dysfunction or deficit − rarely as a positive or intentional act. The prevailing assumption is that silence inhibits communication, collaboration and change. This dominant framing creates a conceptual blind spot, leaving little theoretical space for interpretations of silence that are deliberate, relational or even ethical. It is precisely this gap that the present paper seeks to address, by advancing an alternative view of silence not as a withdrawal, but as a non-verbal mode of ethical giving grounded in relational responsibility.

Within management literature, gift-giving has traditionally been approached through two dominant logics: that of exchange and that of duty. Both paradigms frame gift-giving primarily as instrumental or normative rather than relational or ethical. The exchange logic, grounded in utilitarian and economic rationality, understands gifts as a form of calculated reciprocity − strategically offered to obtain future returns or social capital (Dodlova and Yudkevich, 2009; Givi et al., 2023). Even in cases where gifts appear altruistic, such as in corporate philanthropy or organizational generosity, scholars have noted a frequent underlying instrumentalism; the gift becomes a vehicle for reputation-building, brand loyalty or internal motivation (Frémeaux and Moneyron, 2024; Kanungo and Conger, 1993). This interpretation aligns with the broader critique that contemporary management often reduces relationships to transactions, valuing human interaction primarily for its utility (Klein and Laczniak, 2013). Green et al. (2016) further supported this view in their study of socially responsible gift-giving, illustrating how even well-intentioned corporate gifts can become entangled in branding strategies and stakeholder perceptions, blurring the line between ethical intent and marketing performance.

The second dominant perspective, the duty-based logic, views gift-giving as the fulfillment of internalized moral or social obligations. Influenced by Kantian ethics, this perspective frames giving as a response to a sense of duty or norm compliance − individuals give because they feel they ought to, not necessarily because they are seeking to build or maintain relationships (Baviera et al., 2016; Faldetta, 2011). In organizational contexts, this logic surfaces in the discussion of solidarity and prosocial behavior, where generosity or support is normatively expected within teams or corporate cultures. However, even this moral framing often lacks a substantive account of the interpersonal or affective dimensions of gift-giving; it remains primarily rule-bound and deontological.

Both the exchange and duty paradigms have been critiqued for failing to fully account for the relational and generative dimensions of gift-giving in organizations. As Faldetta (2011) argued, these frameworks often overlook the possibility that giving might arise from a desire to create meaning or foster connection rather than to fulfill rules or secure future gains. The logic of the gift, as proposed by Mauss (1925 / 2002), introduces a radically different framework − one in which giving is embedded in a triadic relational structure of give–receive–reciprocate, motivated not by individual advantage or moral command but by the creation of social bonds. This Maussian conception, though applied in some critical management literature (Dolfsma et al., 2009; Frémeaux and Michelson, 2011; Grassl, 2011), remains underexplored in mainstream organizational theory − particularly in relation to intangible or immaterial forms of giving such as attention, silence or ethical presence. Within organizational settings, this relational logic highlights how non-material gestures − such as attentiveness, restraint or silence − may function as meaningful forms of ethical contribution that sustain trust, recognition and relational cohesion.

This theoretical gap is particularly salient given emerging research on workplace relationality and ethical action that defies traditional utilitarian frames. For instance, Bigo (2018) called for an understanding of silence as creative and ethical rather than inert. Similarly, Bird (2002) positioned moral silence as a conscientious practice, one that may resist performative expectations in corporate settings. These perspectives resonate with Maussian and Levinasian ethics, both of which frame giving not as a transactional act but as an ethically charged relational gesture. However, the application of this lens to non-verbal or non-material dimensions of workplace behavior − particularly silence − remains absent.

From the perspective of organizational ethics and HRM, this absence is notable. Studies on organizational citizenship behaviors and prosociality have highlighted the role of discretionary contributions in sustaining collaboration (Organ, 1997; Bolino et al., 2013), yet they typically treat such acts within performance or reciprocity frameworks rather than as non-instrumental gestures of giving. Likewise, in leadership studies, concepts such as servant leadership and authentic leadership emphasize humility and care (Eva et al., 2019; Avolio and Gardner, 2005), but rarely explore silence or non-verbal presence as legitimate forms of ethical contribution. While scholars have explored generosity, solidarity and prosociality in workplace contexts (Brieger, Terjesen, Hechavarría, and Welzel, 2019; Frémeaux et al., 2025), these studies often remain tethered to frameworks of performance, compliance or reciprocity. Little attention has been paid to the possibility that giving − especially in its non-material expressions such as silence − might arise from a logic of relational attunement or ethical attention. This absence forms the foundation for the current paper’s intervention: to reconceptualize silence as a gift that embodies the relational, intentional and non-instrumental dimensions outlined in Maussian and Levinasian thought.

Despite decades of research on organizational silence and a growing scholarly interest in relational and affective dimensions of work, silence continues to be conceptualized primarily as a problem to be solved rather than a practice to be understood. Dominant frameworks portray silence as symptomatic of fear, powerlessness or disengagement (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Dyne et al., 2003; Knoll and van Dick, 2013), even when offered for prosocial or strategic purposes. Whether cast as quiescent, acquiescent or defensive (Pinder and Harlos, 2001; Chou and Chang, 2020), silence remains embedded in a paradigm of absence, weakness or obstruction. Even integrative efforts that attempt to bridge voice and silence (Nechanska et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2020) tend to uphold a normative bias toward speech, action and visibility. As Donohue (2024) suggested, silence is often framed through binaries − action vs inaction, presence vs absence − rather than examined on its own ethical and relational terms.

At the same time, while the literature on gift-giving in organizations has expanded to include generosity, reciprocity and prosocial behavior (Frémeaux and Michelson, 2011; Brieger et al., 2019), it largely remains grounded in exchange logic or moral obligation (Faldetta, 2011; Givi et al., 2023). Even where the Maussian triad of give–receive–reciprocate has been mobilized to challenge narrow transactional views (Mauss, 1925 / 2002; Dolfsma et al., 2009), the focus typically remains on material or performative acts of giving. Non-material, ambiguous or silent forms of contribution − those that may not be immediately legible as “gifts” − are still largely absent from this conversation. This is particularly striking given the increasing attention to relational attunement, psychological safety and ethical leadership in contemporary organizational life (Edmondson, 1999; Brown and Treviño, 2006). Research on organizational citizenship behavior has similarly highlighted discretionary contributions beyond formal role expectations (Podsakoff et al., 2009), yet it rarely considers silence or non-verbal presence as legitimate forms of prosociality.

Moreover, while the ethical traditions of Levinas (1972), Mauss (1925 / 2002) and Derrida (1992) offer rich conceptual resources for understanding presence, responsibility and the paradox of the gift, their insights remain underutilized in organizational studies − especially in relation to silence. Levinas’s insistence on asymmetrical ethical responsibility, Mauss’s relational ontology of the gift and Derrida’s caution about the cooptation of generosity within logics of recognition all point toward an alternative framing of silence as a meaningful ethical act. Yet, these frameworks have rarely been brought into direct dialogue with management literature on silence, leadership or organizational communication. As such, mainstream scholarship on leadership, HRM and organizational ethics continues to privilege articulation, visibility and measurable behaviors (Maak and Pless, 2006; Dutton et al., 2006) while neglecting the possibility that ethical presence may sometimes be enacted through restraint rather than expression.

This absence represents not just a gap in the literature but a missed opportunity to reconceive silence as a form of ethical presence − a gesture that does not fill the space with noise, but offers space itself. As shown in Table 1, previous scholarship has explored silence as moral restraint (Bird, 2002), as creative and ethical potential (Bigo, 2018) and as resistant refusal (Benozzo et al., 2019). These contributions, while important, remain partial and fragmented.

While these earlier accounts demonstrate that silence can be ethically significant, they do not offer a comprehensive model that explains how silence functions as a relational and intentional act of giving. The contribution of this paper is to integrate these fragmented perspectives into a systematic theorization of silence-as-gift. Defined by intentionality, relational orientation and the absence of expected return, this framework moves beyond silence as avoidance, ambiguity or resistance, and instead positions it as an affirmative ethical presence with practical implications for leadership, HR and team dynamics.

To reframe silence as a form of ethical giving within organizational life, this paper draws upon three major philosophical foundations: Mauss’s relational theory of the gift (Mauss, 1925 / 2002), Levinas’s (1972) ethics of responsibility to the other and Derrida’s paradox of the “pure” gift. Together, these thinkers provide a lens through which silence can be understood not as absence or withdrawal but as a meaningful and ethically potent presence. This triangulation is enriched by dialogical and spiritual traditions − Simone Weil, Martin Buber and Thich Nhat Hanh − who foreground attention and presence as moral acts. Importantly, these traditions do not presume ideal social or organizational conditions; rather, they grapple with ethical action in contexts marked by asymmetry, constraint and moral tension. Accordingly, the framework developed here does not assume harmonious or supportive organizational environments but seeks to illuminate how ethical practices may emerge under non-ideal and often compromised conditions.

Levinas (1972) offers a foundational ethical perspective in which silence becomes a mode of responsibility rather than passivity. For him, ethical subjectivity begins with the self summoned by the face of the other. Silence is thus an active restraint: a refusal to dominate, interpret or consume. Leaders who remain silent in moments of vulnerability enact this attentiveness, creating space for dignity and alterity to be affirmed. This perspective resonates with Bird (2002) and Braddock (2018), who also describe silence as moral awareness, and with relational leadership approaches (Maak and Pless, 2006; Uhl-Bien, 2006), which emphasize humility and the creation of space for others. Crucially, Levinasian ethics does not offer guarantees of positive outcomes; responsibility precedes success, recognition or progress. Silence, in this sense, is ethically meaningful not because it reliably produces desirable results, but because it reflects a stance of responsibility in situations where action is morally fraught or constrained.

Mauss’s (1925, 2002) theory of the gift disrupts utilitarian views by presenting giving as a triadic structure of give–receive–reciprocate that forges social bonds. Importantly, giving is not always material; what matters is relational orientation. Applied to organizations, silence can function as an offering that affirms another’s autonomy − granting space, patience or presence without demand for return. This idea echoes organizational studies on non-transactional giving (Dolfsma et al., 2009; Frémeaux and Michelson, 2011; André et al., 2017), where meaning is co-created beyond self-interest. Silence-as-gift thus extends Mauss’s insight into contemporary organizational life: the act of withholding words can itself sustain trust and relational cohesion. However, such gifting is inherently fragile and context-dependent. In organizational settings shaped by hierarchy, surveillance and instrumental logics, silence may fail to be received as a gift or may be misread altogether, underscoring that ethical giving does not presuppose favorable or stable conditions.

Derrida (1992) complicated the concept by arguing that a “pure” gift is impossible once acknowledged − it enters the logic of reciprocity. Applied to silence, this paradox is acute: can silence truly be a gift if it is expected, noticed or instrumentalized? Derrida’s warning highlights the risk that silence, like other prosocial practices, may be co-opted into performance metrics or managerial logics (Bolino et al., 2013). Authentic gifting thus lies in ephemeral or unnoticed silences that resist recognition or exchange. This insight is particularly important in non-ideal organizational contexts, where ethical practices are vulnerable to appropriation and where silence may be rendered ineffective or even harmful if subsumed into normative expectations.

Other traditions reinforce this framing. Weil (1951) described attention − often enacted through silence − as the purest generosity. Buber’s (1923)I–Thou emphasizes silence as a sacred relational space where presence itself enables dialogue. From a Buddhist perspective, Hanh (1998) framed silence as mindful compassion and attentive presence. Across these perspectives, silence is treated not as managerial tactic but as ethical relation. These traditions do not portray silence as a utopian solution, but as a disciplined and often demanding practice that may unfold under conditions of suffering, conflict or constraint rather than harmony or consensus.

Mainstream organizational ethics has been shaped largely by deontology and utilitarianism. Kantian approaches equate ethical action with explicit duty; utilitarian perspectives evaluate silence by its measurable outcomes (Bowie, 1999; Hosmer, 1995). Both reduce ethics to rule-following or consequence calculation, marginalizing subtle, affective and relational practices. In such frameworks, silence becomes either omission or strategic withholding. By contrast, a relational ethics foregrounds presence, restraint and attentiveness as morally meaningful in themselves. Taken together, these philosophical foundations provide a scaffolding for understanding silence as a relational and necessarily unstable form of giving. Rather than offering silence as a universally effective or outcome-oriented strategy, this framework emphasizes its ethical significance as contingent, precarious and always vulnerable to misrecognition or failure within real organizational conditions. Rather than a retreat from engagement, silence becomes a presence defined by responsibility, attentiveness and the refusal to subsume the other within one’s categories of meaning.

Conceptualizing silence as a gift requires moving beyond dominant organizational assumptions that equate silence with passivity, avoidance or dysfunction. Rather than viewing silence as a lack − of voice, engagement or agency − this model reframes certain forms of silence as ethical offerings: non-material, non-verbal acts of care, presence and restraint. Drawing from philosophical traditions of relational ethics and gift-giving, this reframing considers silence not as a withholding of value, but as a contribution made precisely by not occupying space, controlling discourse or demanding response. Silence as a gift is neither strategic nor self-serving; it is grounded in ethical intentionality, directed toward the other, and offered without expectation of return. In the following section, three key dimensions are introduced to define this ethical orientation of silence, followed by an articulation of the distinct forms in which it may manifest within organizational life.

The conceptual model of silence-as-gift rests on three defining dimensions that distinguish it from silence rooted in fear, disengagement or avoidance: intentionality, relational orientation and the absence of expected return. These dimensions frame silence not as a communication failure but as an ethical practice, providing the theoretical scaffolding for how silence may operate as a form of giving within organizational life.

A critical feature that differentiates silence-as-gift from disengagement is intentionality. Contrary to dominant assumptions that silence signifies passivity or withdrawal (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Pinder and Harlos, 2001), ethical silence is actively chosen and purposefully directed. It arises from a deliberate decision to hold space, to listen without intrusion or to resist speech that might diminish the other. In this sense, silence is performative in its restraint: it enacts care by refusing to fill space with unnecessary words. Simone Weil (1951) described such restraint as moral attention − an inner posture that suspends action to honor another’s presence. Likewise, Tannen (1985) observed that silence, when contextually attuned, communicates “anything but” passivity. Rather than signaling withdrawal, such silence functions as a meaningful communicative act whose significance lies in its timing, relational sensitivity and ethical orientation. This reframes silence as an ethical practice of discernment, challenging managerial norms that equate engagement solely with visibility and speech.

Silence-as-gift is also defined by its relational orientation. Unlike silence driven by self-protection or fear (Milliken et al., 2003; Knoll and van Dick, 2013), relational silence is directed toward the other. Drawing on Levinas’s (1972) ethics of alterity, it arises from attentiveness to another’s needs or vulnerabilities, preserving their dignity without instrumentalizing communication. In this sense, silence is not withdrawal but a subtle form of engagement that makes room for recognition. Martin Buber’s (1923)I–Thou framework underscores this orientation, portraying silence as a dialogical space in which mutual presence displaces domination or utility. Organizationally, this may be seen in leadership restraint during emotionally charged situations or in practices that privilege listening over interruption. An and Bramble (2018) and Benozzo et al. (2019) similarly highlight silence’s political and ethical functions in contexts of oppression and emotional labor, showing that relational silence can be an active stance of solidarity.

Finally, silence-as-gift is distinguished by the absence of expected return. Whereas Mauss’s (1925 / 2002) gift cycle assumes reciprocity, ethical silence suspends this logic. It does not seek recognition, gratitude or reciprocation. Instead, it aligns with Derrida’s (1991) notion of the “pure gift” − a paradoxical offering that loses authenticity once instrumentalized. In organizational contexts, this may take the form of quietly accompanying a colleague in distress or withholding critique when words would cause unnecessary harm, without seeking moral credit for one’s restraint. As Lampe (2002) argued, silence can resist corporate “darkness” by refusing to reproduce instrumentalization. In this way, silence embodies a radical decentering of the self: an offering of presence for the sake of the other alone. Taken together, these three dimensions establish the conditions under which silence may be understood as an ethical gift. In the following section, we show how these dimensions materialize in practice through specific forms of silent gifting.

Building on the three key dimensions of silence-as-gift − intentionality, relational orientation and the absence of expected return − this section identifies concrete ways in which these dimensions are expressed in organizational life. Whereas the previous section outlined the abstract criteria that make silence ethically meaningful, the following forms illustrate how silence-as-gift takes shape in practice.

One of the most profound expressions of silence-as-gift is attentive silence − the act of listening with presence and without interruption. In many organizational settings, listening is framed instrumentally, as a means to extract information or prepare a response. Reframing listening as an ethical act grounded in relational presence, however, reveals the silent gift it can embody. Drawing on Simone Weil’s (1951) notion that attention is the purest form of generosity − “a form of prayer” − attentive silence constitutes a giving of the self without the expectation of return. In Levinas terms, this form of silence entails a suspension of the ego to ethically welcome the other (Levinas, 1972). Unlike performative listening, interrupted by the impulse to evaluate or control, attentive silence grants space for meaning to unfold on its own terms. In organizational contexts, this gift is particularly significant for marginalized voices, who often report being talked over or selectively heard (Alexandra Beauregard et al., 2018; Ahmed, 2012). Attentive silence thus becomes not merely the absence of speech, but the ethical fullness of presence − an offering of undivided attention that affirms the speaker’s dignity.

For example, a manager who intentionally refrains from interrupting during a difficult team discussion − allowing an employee to fully articulate concerns before responding − may enact attentive silence as a form of ethical listening that signals respect and recognition.

A second modality of silence-as-gift is space-giving silence − a deliberate withholding of speech to create room for others to think, reflect or speak without coercion. In contrast to the managerial impulse to fill conversational gaps or dominate dialogue, space-giving silence reflects an ethical restraint grounded in respect for autonomy. Drawing from Mauss’s (1925 / 2002) conception of the gift as a temporally extended act of giving and receiving, space-giving silence can be seen as the pause that enables the other party to enter the relationship freely. Such silence can be particularly powerful in team settings or leadership encounters where power asymmetries might otherwise inhibit openness. By resisting the urge to speak on behalf of others, space-giving silence honors autonomy and encourages emergent dialogue (Creed, 2003; Edmondson, 1999). From this perspective, silence is not a communicative void but a relational pause that deepens trust and mutual recognition.

For instance, during a strategic meeting, a leader who allows a prolonged pause after posing a question − rather than immediately offering their own view − may create space for quieter team members to reflect and contribute, thereby fostering more inclusive participation.

The third form of silent gifting is supportive silence − presence offered in moments of vulnerability or distress without imposing solutions or judgments. In organizational contexts, where efficiency and resolution are often prioritized, silence in the face of another’s difficulty may be misread as disengagement. Yet, reframed through a Levinas`s lens, supportive silence becomes an act of ethical witnessing that respects the singularity of the other’s experience (Levinas, 1972). It does not seek to master or interpret suffering but rather to accompany it − silently, attentively and without demand. This aligns with Simone Weil’s (1951) insight that the highest form of attention is a waiting without grasping − what she called an “unclenched” presence. In contexts such as grief, burnout or interpersonal conflict, supportive silence resists managerial tendencies toward closure or explanation and instead affirms the dignity of simply being-with.

For example, when a colleague shares a personal hardship or expresses emotional exhaustion, a supervisor who remains quietly present − offering attentive listening rather than immediate advice or evaluation − may provide supportive silence that communicates care and solidarity.

Taken together, attentive, space-giving and supportive silence illustrate how the abstract conditions outlined earlier in the conceptual model translate into lived organizational practices. These forms demonstrate that silence can be ethically generative − deliberate, relational and non-instrumental − challenging managerial logics that privilege speech, visibility and measurable outcomes. Importantly, silence-as-gift does not prescribe fixed rules for when silence is appropriate; rather, it emphasizes the ethical meaning silence may carry when enacted with intentionality, other-directedness and without expectation of return. In the next section, we explore how these insights inform leadership, team dynamics, human resources and the cultivation of psychological safety in organizations.

Silent listening as ethical presence in leadership contexts, silence is often misunderstood as passivity or indecisiveness. However, reframing silence as a gift foregrounds the ethical significance of silent listening. Ethical leaders do not merely absorb information; they offer presence through attentive, non-intrusive listening that honors the speaker’s subjectivity. This form of silence reflects what Levinas describes as responsibility to the other − a listening that refrains from consumption or dominance (Levinas, 1972). When leaders resist the impulse to speak, evaluate or redirect, they create space for others to fully express themselves. In doing so, they give the gift of recognition, patience and respect − qualities that foster psychological safety and trust (Edmondson, 1999; Brown and Treviño, 2006).

Moreover, such silent listening is particularly significant in contexts where employees from marginalized groups may feel overlooked or silenced. Research by Beauregard et al. (2018), Felix et al. (2018) and McFadden and Crowley-Henry (2018) illustrates that leadership silence, when grounded in ethical presence, can counteract dominant patterns of exclusion by creating a space in which difference is acknowledged without being reduced to stereotype or tokenism. As Creed (2003) noted, tempered radical leaders often use silence strategically − not to withhold, but to create reflective space and signal solidarity. Silent leadership, in this sense, becomes an ethical posture of humility rather than an absence of engagement, and it models a deeper form of relational attentiveness in organizational life.

This framing resonates with Buber’s (1923) concept of the I–Thou relationship, where presence is not conditional upon speech, but on openness and mutual recognition. Ethical silence, particularly when practiced by those in power, thus resists the instrumental logic of managerialism and reclaims leadership as a practice of ethical gift-giving − offering time, space and attention as acts of respect.

Within team dynamics, silence is frequently interpreted through a negative lens − as a sign of disengagement, conflict avoidance or lack of contribution. Yet, when understood as a relational gift, silence can serve a stabilizing and emotionally generative function. Silence, in this sense, becomes a form of holding − a concept drawn from psychoanalytic and relational traditions, where emotional containment is offered through presence rather than intervention. In high-stakes or emotionally charged moments, the capacity of team members to remain silently present with one another − without rushing to fix, speak or analyze − can create a shared space of safety and reflection. This holding silence is both intentional and ethical: it affirms the other’s emotional reality without judgment or interruption, and it resists the managerial pressure to convert discomfort into productivity (Weil, 1951; Creed, 2003). Particularly in diverse teams, where differences in communication norms and cultural expectations can generate tension, the gift of silence allows space for complexity and difference to be held rather than resolved. This resonates with Lampe’s (2002) work on corporate darkness, which uses darkness as a metaphor for organizational spaces where ambiguity, uncertainty and unresolved tensions are deliberately left unarticulated rather than prematurely resolved. In Lampe’s account, such “darkness” is not synonymous with dysfunction or concealment, but refers to the ethical necessity of allowing issues to remain unsettled so that reflection, moral sensemaking and responsibility can unfold without coercion. Unspoken tensions are not always failures but sometimes necessary spaces for ethical processing. By reframing silence as a form of collective care, teams can develop deeper relational resilience and psychological attunement.

In human resources practices − particularly in mediation, conflict resolution and performance reviews − silence is often managed as an uncomfortable gap to be filled or a signal of resistance to be overcome. However, approaching silence as an ethical gift reframes these moments as opportunities for deeper relational engagement. In mediation, for example, silent pauses can allow individuals to reflect, de-escalate emotional intensity and feel genuinely heard without immediate pressure to respond. Rather than interpreting such silences as awkward or obstructive, HR professionals can learn to hold space with intention, acknowledging that not all communication must be verbalized to be meaningful. Similarly, in performance reviews, silence can function as a gesture of care − granting employees time to process feedback, and demonstrating respect for their emotional and cognitive space (Jones and Durbridge, 2016). This aligns with Simone Weil’s (1951) emphasis on non-intrusive attentiveness as an ethical act. By resisting the compulsion to fill every moment with directives or evaluations, HR practitioners can enact a form of ethical presence that affirms the humanity of both parties. This use of silence departs from efficiency-driven logics and instead embraces a relational ethic that values timing, restraint and emotional attunement.

In organizational discourse, psychological safety is often measured by individuals’ willingness to speak up, share dissenting views or challenge norms. While these are important indicators, such frameworks can overlook the ethical and relational value of quietness. From the perspective of silence-as-gift, quietness is not necessarily a symptom of fear or disengagement, but may instead reflect intentional care, attunement or deference to others. Employees who choose silence in group settings may be offering respect, allowing space for others’ voices or avoiding performative speech in favor of deeper reflection (Sherf et al., 2021). This reframing is particularly important in culturally diverse workplaces, where silence may carry different meanings (Nakane, 2007; Adisa et al., 2024). When interpreted through relational ethics, quietness becomes a subtle strength − one that communicates presence without dominating, and care without noise. Reframing psychological safety to include such forms of quiet ethical participation challenges dominant organizational assumptions that equate voice with value. It invites leaders to broaden their understanding of engagement, recognizing that safety may manifest not just in speech, but in the freedom to remain silently present without fear of judgment or misinterpretation (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Nechanska et al., 2020).

A key implication of reframing silence as a gift lies in its potential to fundamentally expand prevailing conceptions of ethical leadership. Dominant leadership theories − particularly those rooted in transformational, charismatic or transactional models − privilege voice, assertiveness and visible action as primary mechanisms of moral influence (Brown and Treviño, 2006; Kanungo and Conger, 1993). Even scholarship on ethical or servant leadership often positions speaking up, articulating values and offering guidance as core ethical acts. This emphasis on verbal articulation has been mirrored in the employee voice literature, which frequently assumes that silence is a symptom of fear, disengagement or powerlessness − an obstacle to be overcome for organizations to function ethically and effectively (Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Dyne et al., 2003; Wilkinson et al., 2020).

This paper challenges such assumptions by drawing from Levinas’s ethics and Maussian relationality to argue that silence − when intentional, attuned and ethically oriented − can itself constitute an act of moral presence. Our model reframes ethical leadership not as mastery of voice but as the capacity to give space, to listen without dominating and to witness without appropriating. In doing so, we build on the work of Creed (2003) and Meyerson (2003), who described “tempered” forms of radicalism that resist dominant systems not through confrontation but through strategic restraint and subtle relational work. Similarly, Benozzo et al. (2019) emphasized how choosing not to speak can represent a form of ethical resistance − a refusal to comply with normative expectations that equate contribution with speech.

This reframing resonates with the critique by Ahmed (2012), who problematizes the performative nature of institutional diversity discourse. She argues that the demand to speak up can function as a disciplinary mechanism, silencing those who do not − or cannot − participate in dominant modes of expression. In this light, silence emerges not as absence but as presence − a pause that refuses complicity and creates space for alternative relationalities. Lampe’s (2002) metaphor of corporate darkness further reinforces how silence may be a way of holding ethical space in environments saturated by noise, speed and overcommunication. Moreover, the experiences of marginalized employees − whether transgender (Beauregard et al., 2018), gay (Felix et al., 2018) or women navigating cultural constraints (Adisa et al., 2024) − suggest that silence may be used as a protective and relational strategy rather than as disengagement. These forms of silence often involve conscious withholding, boundary-setting or relational attunement that reflect care for self and others within systems not always hospitable to voice. Reframed through this lens, silence becomes a form of agency, not deficiency.

Leaders who adopt this ethic of silent presence model a mode of engagement grounded in humility, receptivity and ethical restraint. They resist the urge to fill silence with directives and instead create space for others to unfold, speak or simply be. This relational stance aligns with Simone Weil’s (1951) assertion that the highest form of attention − often expressed through silence − is an offering of the self without appropriation. It also echoes Buber’s (1923) dialogical philosophy, wherein presence, not persuasion, anchors ethical interaction. In sum, silence-as-gift offers an alternative paradigm for leadership: one that centers not on action or visibility, but on presence, ethics and the capacity to hold space for others.

Beyond leadership, however, the implications extend to organizational ethics and systems more broadly. By reconceptualizing silence as an ethical gift, the framework expands understandings of responsibility and legitimacy in institutions, demonstrating how humanistic and philosophical traditions can generate alternative models for organizational life. It highlights restraint, attentiveness and non-verbal presence as practices of moral significance equal to speech or action, thereby bridging management and philosophy. In doing so, it offers a perspective on how organizational systems can embody responsibility and care without reducing ethics to performative voice or visibility, contributing to an ethics of organizations attuned to presence, humility and relational responsibility.

While this paper argues for a rethinking of silence as an ethical gift, it is also important to acknowledge the risks inherent in such a reframing. Silence is never neutral; its meaning is always shaped by context, power dynamics and histories of exclusion. One major concern is the possibility of confusing ethical silence with avoidant silence − situations in which individuals or leaders remain silent not out of care but to deflect responsibility or evade uncomfortable truths. Indeed, much of the foundational literature on organizational silence frames it as a defensive or acquiescent response to fear, mistrust or perceived futility (Pinder and Harlos, 2001; Morrison and Milliken, 2000; Milliken et al., 2003). In such instances, silence protects the self but undermines collective ethical responsibility.

Moreover, silence can be co-opted by dominant actors to maintain the status quo or suppress dissent, especially in hierarchical or high-power-distance cultures. In such conditions, silence-as-gift may inadvertently reproduce domination if it is interpreted through existing hierarchies rather than relational intent. When enacted within asymmetrical power structures, silence can legitimize avoidance, obscure accountability or reinforce institutional coercion. As critical perspectives on silence caution (Ahmed, 2012; Benozzo et al., 2019), ethical restraint must not be conflated with compliance or complicity. Silence can only function as a gift when it remains responsive to context and does not shield those in authority from responsibility.

Research by Knoll and van Dick (2013) and Chou and Chang (2020) shows how silence can be shaped by institutional norms that implicitly discourage voice, even when formally promoting openness. In these contexts, invoking silence as a “gift” without interrogating power may inadvertently legitimize complicity or harm. Lampe (2002) warned of the “darkness” that silence can create in corporate environments, where unspoken assumptions fester beneath the surface. Likewise, Benozzo et al. (2019) and Sherf et al. (2021) argued that the line between generative silence and dangerous quietism is delicate and often blurred.

Furthermore, silence is experienced differently depending on one’s positionality. Marginalized individuals may engage in silence as a survival strategy, not a choice (An and Bramble, 2018; Ahmed, 2012; Adisa et al., 2024). Tannen (1985) and Bird (2002) similarly demonstrate how moral silence and muted expression are conditioned by systemic inequality, not ethical restraint. To interpret such silences solely through a gift-giving lens risks romanticizing structural inequalities and disregarding the unequal burdens of silence. Your own model must therefore attend not only to the intention behind silence but also to its reception and contextual implications. When silence is misread, or worse, used to mask accountability, it ceases to be a gift and becomes a withdrawal of ethical presence.

Ultimately, this reframing of silence is not a universal prescription. Instead, it is a call for discernment − a recognition that the ethics of silence lie not in the act itself, but in its orientation toward the other. Silence becomes ethical only when it is relationally responsive, contextually aware and consciously chosen. In absence of these, silence may well reproduce the very harms it seeks to avoid.

While silence can function as an ethical gift in some organizational contexts, it is not universally understood or valued in the same way. Cultural differences in communication styles, power distance and social norms significantly shape how silence is both enacted and interpreted. In many Western managerial paradigms, assertive verbal participation is associated with engagement, competence and leadership potential − often marginalizing those whose cultural backgrounds emphasize listening, restraint or non-confrontation (Nakane, 2007). In such environments, silence can be misread as disinterest or deficiency, undermining its potential as a relational or ethical gesture.

Research from cross-cultural HRM underscores that silence is not a monolithic phenomenon. For example, Adisa et al. (2024) showed that how gendered and cultural norms shape women’s silence in Nigerian workplaces, not simply as suppression, but as a complex response to organizational hierarchies. Similarly, An and Bramble (2018) described how Chinese migrant workers use silence strategically to navigate exploitative conditions − indicating that silence may serve both compliance and subtle resistance, depending on the context. Dai et al. (2022) further illustrated that in high power distance cultures, silence may reflect relational respect or role expectations − often mediated by fear of authority − rather than disengagement. These findings resonate with earlier work by Braddock (2018) on the spiritual and philosophical dimensions of silence, which are often culturally encoded and misunderstood in Western frameworks. In addition, Wiejak-Roy and Williams (2024) cautioned that even well-intentioned gestures − such as gifts or silences − may conflict with formal organizational policies or normative ethical standards, particularly when individual morality diverges from institutional expectations. This tension reinforces the need to critically assess how acts of giving, including silence, are received within specific structural and cultural settings.

These cultural and structural nuances caution against treating silence-as-gift as a universally valid model. Without contextual sensitivity, this reframing risks becoming prescriptive or idealized, ignoring the very power asymmetries it seeks to ethically address. In non-ideal organizational environments marked by surveillance, inequality or fear (Knoll and van Dick, 2013; Chou and Chang, 2020), silence may be structurally compelled rather than ethically chosen. In such contexts, framing silence as a gift risks normalizing unequal reception or masking structural constraints. The model therefore does not assume benign interpretation, but requires ongoing critical attention to how silence is received, by whom and under what conditions. In hierarchical contexts, especially where speaking up carries risk, silence should be interpreted cautiously and never presumed virtuous; ethical silence cannot exist where voice is structurally constrained. In particular, supportive silence must be distinguished from complicit silence in high-power contexts: while supportive silence accompanies another’s vulnerability without suppressing their voice, complicit silence occurs when individuals − especially those with authority − remain silent in ways that sustain injustice, avoidance or unchallenged harm. What may be received as a thoughtful silence in one context could be interpreted as indifference, resistance or incompetence in another − especially in multicultural or globalized organizations. For this reason, ethical silence requires ongoing discernment: when silence protects dignity and relational space it may function as a gift, but when it shields wrongdoing or reinforces power asymmetries it ceases to be ethically defensible. Therefore, for silence to function as a gift, it must be attuned not only to ethical intent but also to socio-cultural reception. Leaders and practitioners must develop cross-cultural literacy to recognize when silence is a sign of ethical presence, and when it may be a symptom of marginalization, fear or misunderstood communication norms.

Beyond cultural and structural dynamics, several further limitations warrant acknowledgment. First, the model risks being misused by managers or leaders to justify avoidance. Silence framed as a gift could in practice conceal evasion, negligence or complicity, particularly when enacted by those in positions of authority. Second, the distinction between silence-as-gift and silence-as-withdrawal is methodologically difficult to establish in empirical research. Silence is inherently ambiguous, and attempts to measure it may rely on self-report or interpretation, which do not always capture how silence is received by others. Finally, this paper is a conceptual intervention rather than an empirical validation. Its strength lies in offering an alternative lens, but it does not propose universal prescriptions for when silence should be practiced, nor does it deny the risks that silence may reproduce inequities.

This paper has sought to reframe silence in organizational life not as absence or dysfunction, but as an intentional and ethically meaningful form of presence. Drawing on the philosophical traditions of Mauss, Levinas, Derrida and others, we have proposed a conceptual model of silence-as-gift − a non-material, relational gesture grounded in care, attentiveness and the withholding of dominance. This model challenges the dominant voice-centric paradigms in leadership and organizational theory, which often equate engagement with speech and action. By contrast, we show that silence, when intentional and contextually attuned, can function as a form of ethical giving: it allows space for others to speak, to reflect or simply to be witnessed without intrusion.

The framework contributes to organizational scholarship by expanding understandings of leadership, communication and ethics beyond the primacy of voice alone. It positions silence as a relational act with implications for leadership development, team dynamics, HR practices and psychological safety. Practically, it invites leaders and practitioners to reconsider when silence might serve as presence rather than absence, and how this shift could foster deeper trust, attentiveness and care in organizational life. Of course, this reframing is not without its limitations. Silence can easily slip into avoidance, complicity or misinterpretation − especially across cultural and power-laden contexts. Our discussion has therefore emphasized the importance of intentionality, relational orientation and the absence of expected return as key conditions under which silence may be understood as a gift rather than a withdrawal. Ultimately, the ethical potential of silence lies not in the act itself, but in its orientation toward the other − its capacity to create space without demand, presence without noise. Silence should therefore not be interpreted as a gift by default; it warrants ethical evaluation against contextual conditions, power relations and relational intent, and may at times signify avoidance, coercion or complicity rather than care.

To lead well, then, is not always to speak wisely, but sometimes to know when to say nothing at all. Leadership is not only a matter of articulation, but of generosity, humility and ethical attention. In organizational environments increasingly saturated with performative speech and institutional noise, silence may represent one of the most radical gifts a leader can offer.

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

This paper does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.