You (the sender) would like someone (the responder) to do you a favor, support some decision you propose or give you some resource you value. You email the responder, asking him for help. There is no reply. Maybe he has an overactive Junk Mail filter or missed the email. You email the responder again. No reply. The first time round, you can tell yourself that maybe the responder just missed your request. The second time, you realize the responder will not help you. Saying Nothing is the same as saying “No”.
Why not just say No to begin with? Initially, the responder hopes you do not send the second email. Then, when the responder reverses roles and asks you for help, you will not hold an explicit No against him. By the time the second email is sent and received, it is too late – at this point whether you respond or not, there is a “No” on the table and your relationship has taken a hit. The sender will eventually learn that often no response means “No”. Sending a second email, while clearing up the possibility the first non-response was an error, may lead to a worsening of the relationship between the two players. So, the sender will weigh the consequences of the second email carefully and perhaps self-censor and never send it.
Then, Saying Nothing will certainly be better than Saying No for the responder and a communication norm is born.
Cheap Talk 
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 15, 2010 at 3:24 pm
John Doe
Makes no sense. If we assume that a silence is equivalent to saying no than the sender will hold an ‘implicit’ no against the receiver. If one encodes silence with any probability as no the impact is the expected same value.
The explanation is much simpler. The first silence requires less work (time, emotion etc) than answering.
June 15, 2010 at 3:48 pm
azmyth
I hold it against people far worse who ignore me. If someone says “no”, I drop the issue. If they ignore me, I will probably call them out in person and demand an answer. I realize that people can’t help you out all the time, but the silence norm really bugs me so I take steps to counter it.
June 17, 2010 at 8:28 pm
twicker
I’m with azmyth. Saying Nothing = Ignoring Me, and that damages the relationship much more than, “Hey, wish I could help, but I’m waaaay too busy,” or “I understand your position, but, from my position, the world looks like Y instead of X.” Yes, it takes a bit more time, but it at least acknowledges that I have some importance. The Saying Nothing tack only really comes close to working if you’re blowing off someone who wants a second date; even then, I find it’s generally considered to be rude.
Using the Saying Nothing strategy violates more (U.S.) social norms than any face it saves. Now, I could see that in some cultures, where you almost *don’t* say a direct “no” (no matter how politely couched), then Saying Nothing might work well. The U.S. just doesn’t happen to be one of those cultures.
June 18, 2010 at 8:47 am
sandeep
Hi Twicker and azmyth: I’m talking about email not face-to-face talk necessarily. Having “No” come via email is worse that having nothing come by email. If people are sensitive as you suggest, then you haver to go around personally and talk and say “No” gently. This is quite hard but good managers can do it.
June 29, 2010 at 12:49 am
Pat
I am with twicker/azmyth – I will send the email the second time because email does get labeled as spam/buried in the inbox/etc. I will not/cannot hold a silence against the person the first time. The second time, I know I am being ignored. I also know that the person wants to take the easy way out.
I absolutely will put the person on the unreliable shit list. Meaning: 1) no referrals 2) no other requests for any assistance 3) polite “no”s for any requests for help from them.
If they could not be bothered to respond to me – I will not respond to them. There is no pay off.
An explicit “no” is a social necessity.
VCs like to think that the “non-response” is a politer “no”. Its just the opposite. Being ignored means the sender is not important to the recipient.