Strategic Silence WILLIAM FORREST HARLOW University of Texas of the Permian Basin, USA Silence, when used in a scholarly or professional context, can take a variety of mean- ings. It might refer to groups or individuals who have involuntarily lost their ability to speak or to have their voices heard. However, some actors elect to remain silent to gain strategic advantage. Tis study is focused on those instances in which an intentional choice is made to remain silent. Strategic silence is the choice of an empowered actor who remains silent in an attempt to advance a strategic interest. Tis silence need not be complete—it can involve the actor saying less than he or she might have said, saying it through surrogates, or otherwise delivering a message in a lower-profle context than he or she might have. Strategic silence can be employed regardless of feld. Billings and Cedergren (2015) discussed the possibility of a company using strategic silence to enhance the timing of earnings reports. Udeze, Ekwe, and Chukwuma (2013) also noted that strategic silence is frequently employed as a tool of interpersonal communication. However, much of the existing work in this area—the study of silence as a strategic choice rather than a silence which is enforced on an individual or group—comes in the area of political communi- cation. Brummett (1980, p. 289) defned “political strategic silence” as “the refusal of a public fgure to communicate verbally when that refusal (1) violates expectations, (2) draws public attributions of fairly predictable meanings, and (3) seems intentional and directed at an audience.” While Brummett was writing specifcally about the political context, there is no reason that his defnition must be limited to that feld. Actors in virtually any feld can use a strategic silence when otherwise empowered to speak. A silence becomes strategic because something else was expected. Understanding the notion of something else being expected calls for examples of what silences would and would not be strategic. For example, a corporation which does not disclose a new product when anticipated might well be employing a strategic silence. Corporate leaders might judge it in their interests to say nothing, or to say very little, in order to build anticipation about the new product, or to withhold information from competitors, or to prioritize a diferent product, or for a whole host of other reasons. On the other hand, a corporation which does not issue a press release with the lunch menu in their cafeteria would be practicing a much more ordinary silence. Very few outside the company would have an interest in the matter, and very few would expect the information to be released. Similarly, if the organization was under a legal order for some reason their silence would not be strategic—it would be externally imposed. An actor must be empowered and expected to speak before his or her silence becomes strategic. Te International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication. Robert L. Heath and Winni Johansen (Editors-in-Chief), Jesper Falkheimer, Kirk Hallahan, Juliana J. C. Raupp, and Benita Steyn (Associate Editors). © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0180