NGINA: True leadership in communication lies in recognising that values must be articulated, not assumed

For seasoned communications professionals, often with over a decade of experience, they can undoubtedly and evidently confirm that the most challenging moments in a crisis are seldom about choosing the right words. More often, they revolve around the far harder decision of whether to speak at all.

Some of the most intense conversations I have witnessed have centred on that hesitation. When public pressure mounts and crises unfold, many organisations retreat into silence or a “no comment”, hoping that time, rather than clarity, will diffuse the moment. Too often, it does not.

In the past, and for a long time, this tactic seemed to work. Organisations would bury their heads in the sand long enough, and the public would forget or move on to the next hot topic. Silence was seen as prudence; a way to avoid exacerbating situations, protect legal positions, or wait for “all the facts”.

Today, however, silence is believed to hold a totally different meaning. In an era that is characterised by rapid information flows, heightened public awareness and declining institutional trust, silence is rarely ever perceived as neutral. More often than not, it is interpreted as indifference, avoidance or a lack of values.

This shift in perception has immense implications for how organisations and brands alike communicate with their audiences, and how leadership itself is judged. We are living in a time of extreme social tensions fuelled by economic pressure, inequality, safety concerns and a growing scepticism toward institutions.

In these moments, stakeholders, such as customers, employees, regulators and the public, are not only listening to what organisations say. They are also paying close attention to what they choose not to say.

When brands and companies remain silent on issues that directly affect people’s lives or livelihoods, they leave an information vacuum. That vacuum is quickly filled by speculation, misinformation and assumptions that do more harm than good.

The longer the silence, the harder it becomes to reclaim the narrative, not through spin, but through credibility.

This, however, is not to suggest that every trending issue or erupting claim demands a corporate statement. Discernment is key. Silence can still be strategic when facts are unclear, investigations are ongoing or commentary would genuinely cause harm.

But silence becomes costly when the matter at hand touches on public safety, employee welfare, customer trust or broader societal impact, such as gender violence, corruption claims, etc.

In such instances, the absence of communication in itself communicates something nonetheless. The challenge, therefore, is not about speaking more; it is about exercising better judgment on how, what and when to communicate.

In our Kenyan context, this challenge is particularly critical. Trust in institutions, both public and private, is fragile and eroding at alarming rates. Citizens increasingly expect organisations, especially large corporations with influence and reach, to act swiftly, with a sense of social responsibility, and not just commercial interest.

Communication is no longer viewed as a peripheral function; it is seen as a reflection of values and leadership intent. This expectation places a new responsibility on corporate communications teams.

The role has evolved beyond crafting messages or managing media cycles. Senior communicators are now expected to advise leadership on reputation as a form of capital, one that is built slowly and lost so quickly. This requires the courage to challenge default positions of silence when they no longer serve the organisation or society.

Yet, despite these dynamics, many communication leaders still find themselves constrained by risk-averse cultures, where the fear of saying the wrong thing outweighs the cost of saying nothing. Legal caution often dominates reputational foresight. The result is delayed responses that feel transactional, reactive, or disconnected from public sentiment.

True leadership in communication lies in recognising that values must be articulated, not assumed. As Jack Humes once said, “the art of communication is the language of leadership.”

It involves acknowledging uncertainty without being evasive, and showing empathy without overpromising. Importantly, it requires leaders to understand that silence, too, is a message, and often a loud one.

As brands and organisations navigate the increasingly complex social landscape, the question they must ask is not simply, “Is it safe to speak?” but also, “What does our silence communicate about us?” In today’s environment, stakeholders are less forgiving of ambiguity.

They expect honesty, even when answers are incomplete. They value presence over perfection. And they remember who showed up, and who did not, when it mattered.

Silence is no longer a neutral act. It is a strategic choice with reputational consequences. For leaders and communicators alike, the task ahead is to consciously and continually develop the judgment to know when restraint is wise, and when responsibility demands a voice.

Strategic communications and public relations specialist, 2022 Obama Foundation Africa Leader and 2019 UN Global Compact, SDG Pioneer