Speaking up on social injustices may help create more just and inclusive organizations. Yet, many people choose to remain silent. In this article, we test how managerial silence on injustices can shape impressions of a manager's lack of support for an outgroup. In Study 1, we surveyed employees and found that many noticed their managers' silence and recounted that such silence influenced how they perceived their managers. We then conducted nine experimental studies (Studies 2-6, Supplemental Studies 1-4) to test how observers' perceptions of managers who engage in silence on an outgroup injustice depend on whether managers have spoken up or remained silent in the past. We demonstrate that when a manager engages in selective silence by previously speaking up on an ingroup injustice but remains silent on an outgroup injustice, observers perceive the manager as harboring greater bias and as less supportive of the outgroup than if they remained totally silent on both issues. In contrast, when a manager engages in selective silence by previously speaking up on an outgroup injustice but then remains silent on a second outgroup injustice, observers perceive the manager as generally supportive of social justice and as more supportive of the second outgroup than if they remained totally silent on both issues. We discuss implications for speaking up and remaining silent on injustices in the workplace. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

对不公正现象保持沉默意义重大：沉默何时以及如何影响管理者的看法。


大声疾呼社会不公正现象可能有助于创建更加公正和包容的组织。然而，很多人却选择保持沉默。在本文中，我们将测试管理层对不公正现象的沉默如何影响管理者对外部群体缺乏支持的印象。在研究 1 中，我们对员工进行了调查，发现许多人注意到经理的沉默，并表示这种沉默影响了他们对经理的看法。然后，我们进行了九项实验研究（研究 2-6，补充研究 1-4），以测试观察者对对外群体不公正行为保持沉默的管理者的看法如何取决于管理者过去是否发声或保持沉默。我们证明，当一名管理者通过先前对内部群体的不公正发表言论而进行选择性沉默，但对外部群体的不公正保持沉默时，观察者会认为该管理者比在这两个问题上都保持完全沉默时怀有更大的偏见，并且更少支持外部群体。相比之下，当一名管理者通过先前公开谈论外群体的不公正行为来进行选择性沉默，但随后对第二外群体的不公正行为保持沉默时，观察者认为该管理者总体上支持社会正义，并且比他们继续存在时更支持第二外群体的行为。在这两个问题上完全保持沉默。我们讨论了对工作场所的不公正现象大声疾呼和保持沉默的影响。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。