In the modern workplace, transparency is frequently championed as a core value. Employees are encouraged to bring their authentic selves to the office, share their unfiltered thoughts, and communicate openly with peers and leadership. However, saying precisely what is on your mind is not always the most effective career move, and navigating the delicate balance between professional candor and strategic silence can be remarkably complex.
Social psychologist Vanessa Bohns recently addressed this workplace dilemma in an interview with NPR, noting that determining when to speak up and when to keep quiet is often far more challenging than figuring out how to phrase your thoughts. While honesty remains an essential pillar of communication in many contexts, Bohns points out that unvarnished truth without a clear purpose can often do more harm than good.
"There are times when honesty is the best policy," Bohns observed during her interview. "On the other hand, honesty is not the best policy if whatever we say is going to be honest without any instrumental value."
This nuanced view of communication forms the foundation of her latest book, Should I Say Something? The Science of What to Share—and What to Keep to Yourself, which was published in October. Drawing extensively on psychological research, Bohns explores the complex dynamics behind human communication, examining which thoughts and feelings are genuinely worth voicing and which are far better left unsaid. Her guidance addresses a wide spectrum of professional and interpersonal scenarios, ranging from offering constructive criticism and celebrating a colleague’s professional win to issuing a sincere apology or opening up about personal challenges.
Despite the cultural push toward radical candor, many people still find it remarkably difficult to deliver criticism, even when those comments are intended to be helpful. This hesitation is not merely a sign of poor communication skills; it is rooted deep within human psychology.
"It pains us to embarrass or hurt other people," Bohns explained.
Researchers in the field refer to this behavioral pattern as the MUM effect, an acronym representing the tendency to minimize unpleasant messages. The MUM effect is a well-documented psychological marker of a broader human tendency to hold back bad news far more frequently than good news. Because people naturally dread being the bearer of negative information, they often default to silence, even when speaking up might ultimately benefit the recipient or the broader team.
To help professionals navigate this internal tug-of-war between speaking their minds and remaining silent, Bohns advises workers to pause and ask themselves three fundamental questions before sharing an honest opinion or offering feedback. Specifically, professionals should evaluate whether the information is genuinely helpful, whether they themselves would want to receive such feedback under similar circumstances, and whether the other person has actually asked for their input.
First, is your feedback actionable?
When an employee chooses to speak up in a professional environment, that action sends a clear signal to the other person. According to Bohns, it communicates that the speaker noticed something significant and felt it mattered enough to bring to light.
However, the primary question should not simply be whether an opinion is honest. Instead, professionals must evaluate whether the sentiment serves a constructive purpose for the person hearing it. Will the shared thought actually help them improve their performance, or will it offer them valuable insight into their own behavior?
If an opinion is unkind, or if it centers on a matter that the recipient has no power to change, Bohns suggests that the better route is almost always to keep the thought to yourself. Unsolicited and unchangeable criticisms rarely serve a productive purpose; instead, they often serve only to deflate morale or create unnecessary friction among colleagues.
Second, is this something I would want to know about?
Deciding whether to speak up often requires putting oneself in the other person’s shoes. Consider a common workplace scenario: a newly hired colleague repeatedly mispronounces the chief executive officer’s name during team meetings. Gently and privately correcting the new employee now could spare them significant embarrassment down the road.
While pointing out a mispronunciation or a minor social error can feel uncomfortable in the immediate moment, doing so can ultimately help the colleague make a strong, polished impression on senior management. The discomfort of the conversation is outweighed by the long-term benefit to the recipient.
Before holding back an honest observation or feedback out of a desire to avoid an awkward interaction, professionals should critically examine their own motivations. As Bohns writes in her book, "Are you being kind, or are you avoiding your own discomfort?" This distinction is crucial for distinguishing between genuine tact and simple conflict avoidance.
Finally, are they asking for feedback?
Even when an individual’s intentions are entirely positive, offering unsolicited advice can easily backfire. Bohns strongly advises against providing guidance or commentary to someone who has not explicitly asked for it. In many cases, an eager colleague may end up explaining a concept or process that the recipient already understands far better than they do.
Furthermore, even with the best intentions, the act of deciding what another person needs to hear—or attempting to gauge how much honesty they can personally handle—can easily come across as condescending or paternalistic.
Rather than making that judgment call on behalf of a coworker or subordinate, Bohns recommends a more respectful, autonomous approach. Professionals should simply ask the other person if they would welcome feedback before offering any.
"Give them the autonomy, then respect their decision, whatever it might be," Bohns concluded.
