Purpose When organizations find their strategic communication efforts unsuccessful, two options seem to dominate: more communication or different communication. This paper challenges these widely accepted assumptions. It contends that the most fundamental alternative to strategic communication is neither to communicate more, nor differently, but rather to abstain from communication altogether. Design/methodology/approach This conceptual paper develops the concept and forms of strategic non-talking and is intentionally open to a range of theoretical perspectives on strategic communication, including action theory, systems theory and organizational theory. Findings Strategic non-talking is defined as a communicator’s deliberate decision to withhold verbal communication in order to reduce the risk of rejection or to enhance the acceptance of previously proposed options – regardless of whether the recipients expected a message in that situation. Building on this concept, the paper systematically develops twelve distinct forms of strategic non-talking, each illustrated with numerous practical examples. Originality/value The concept of strategic non-talking incorporates, on the one hand, the notion of strategic silence, as established in the literature. This represents the visible tip of the iceberg of non-talking, since the refusal to speak is itself perceived as a communicative act. The larger, invisible, portion of the iceberg is likely more prevalent in communication practice: this is simple strategic non-talking, which remains unnoticed precisely because no message was expected. An example would be a company choosing not to launch a sustainability campaign in order to avoid accusations of greenwashing.
Olaf Hoffjann (2026) studied this question.