Co Authors:

Assoc. Prof. Nainaben Dhana DCRT (London), HDRT( South Africa) Grad Cert EBP ( Monash) , ACA registered Counsellor

RT Education and Quality Lead, Adjunct Industry Associate Professor of RMIT, AUSCEP participant (2025-26) &

Dr Alwin Tan, GAICD, MBBS, FRACS, EMBA (Melbourne Business School)

Senior Surgeon | Governance Leader | HealthTech Co-founder | Founder of the Institute for Systems Integrity (ISI) |Harvard Medical School — AI in Healthcare | University of Oxford — Sustainable Enterprise | Bastas Academy for Healthcare Leadership – Triple Scholar

Institute for Systems Integrity (ISI)

🚨 THE MOST DANGEROUS SILENCE IN AN ORGANISATION IS NOT ALWAYS THE SILENCE OF FEAR.

Sometimes, it is the silence of a system that has stopped taking responsibility for closure.

Most organisations treat ghosting as a communication lapse.

An unanswered email.

A candidate who never receives an outcome.

A proposal that disappears into executive review.

A project quietly abandoned.

A stakeholder left waiting until they eventually understand that no answer is coming.

Each incident appears minor.

And not every unanswered message is a governance problem.

But governance failures rarely begin with dramatic misconduct.

They can begin when small inconsistencies become normal, tolerated and structurally invisible.

Ghosting can be one of them.

Because ghosting is not merely silence.

It is the abandonment of an organisational obligation without the accountability of saying so.

The governance question begins when that non-closure becomes repeated, material, consequential or capable of concealing unresolved risk.

Ghosting is not an isolated interpersonal behaviour

In contemporary organisations, ghosting appears everywhere.

Candidates complete interviews and hear nothing.

Employees raise requests that remain indefinitely “under consideration.”

Stakeholders provide advice that is never acknowledged.

Partners invest time in discussions that simply stop.

Projects disappear without a decision, a lesson or a formal ending.

Concerns are raised, received and then absorbed into organisational silence.

The common explanation is busyness.

Sometimes that is true.

People are overloaded.

Priorities change.

Messages get missed.

But when non-response becomes repeated, selective or predictable, it is no longer adequately explained by workload alone.

It becomes a pattern.

And patterns are how culture becomes operational.

An organisation’s culture is not revealed only by how it responds when communication is easy.

It is revealed by whether it still provides clarity when the answer is difficult.

Because culture is not only what an organisation tells people they should do.

Culture is also what people learn the system will do in return.

The real issue is not communication

The deeper issue is closure.

Healthy organisations depend on reliable completion cycles:

Request → Response

Proposal → Decision

Concern → Resolution

Commitment → Delivery

Engagement → Closure

These cycles allow people to determine the state of the system.

Has the issue been received?

Who owns it?

Is action occurring?

Has a decision been made?

Is the matter closed?

Ghosting breaks that visibility.

It leaves the interaction open while responsibility disappears.

At the Institute for Systems Integrity, we describe this as a failure of Loop Integrity™.

Loop Integrity exists when a material interaction is:

acknowledged;

owned;

progressed;

resolved or explicitly deferred;

communicated;

and, where material, recorded and verified.

Ghosting interrupts that sequence.

It does not simply delay communication.

It prevents the organisation from reliably declaring what has happened.

Ghosting is the symptom.

Loop failure is the governance problem.

A system that cannot close its loops cannot reliably distinguish delay from abandonment, consideration from avoidance, or accountability from disappearance.

Silence is not the absence of information

When an organisation does not provide closure, people do not receive nothing.

They construct an explanation.

Perhaps the proposal was rejected.

Perhaps leadership disagreed.

Perhaps the issue became politically inconvenient.

Perhaps responsibility was never assigned.

Perhaps the person raising it no longer matters.

Perhaps the organisation never intended to act.

These conclusions may be wrong.

But in the absence of authoritative information, speculation can become the operating narrative.

That narrative spreads.

Assumptions are made.

And behaviour changes.

People stop following up.

They become more cautious about contributing.

They preserve resources because they do not know whether a project remains active.

They may reduce discretionary effort.

They may begin treating official processes as performative.

Where closure disappears, unofficial explanations take its place.

That is not merely poor communication.

It is information degradation.

Ghosting creates Closure Debt™

Organisations understand financial debt.

They understand technical debt.

They increasingly understand workforce debt.

But many remain blind to Closure Debt™.

At ISI, we define Closure Debt as:

the accumulated operational, relational and governance burden created by material interactions that remain unresolved without an explicit organisational state.

It appears as:

• repeated follow-up;
• duplicated work;
• unallocated responsibility;
• resources held in reserve;
• decisions delayed elsewhere;
• emotional rumination;
• unresolved expectations;
• meetings designed to discover what happened;
• external reviews whose findings are never implemented or formally resolved;
• corrective actions repeatedly carried forward;
• and organisational energy spent chasing answers that should already exist.

One unanswered message may carry little consequence.

Thousands of incomplete loops across an organisation can create significant operational drag.

Ghosting does not save time.

It transfers the cost of closure from the decision-maker to everyone else.

The person who could close the loop avoids one uncomfortable response.

The system absorbs the uncertainty.

Why this becomes a governance concern

Boards are not responsible for monitoring routine correspondence.

Nor should they be.

They are responsible for overseeing the systems through which culture, accountability, risk and material stakeholder relationships are governed.

Ghosting becomes governance-relevant when it is:

• repeated;
• material;
• enabled by unclear ownership;
• tolerated by leadership;
• concentrated around difficult decisions;
• capable of obscuring accountability;
• or capable of concealing unresolved risk.

This is especially serious where the unanswered interaction concerns:

• complaints;
• clinical or operational risk;
• whistleblowing;
• corrective actions;
• audit findings;
• recruitment commitments;
• strategic partnerships;
• project termination;
• stakeholder consultation;
• change management;
• or decisions on which others are reasonably relying.

In these circumstances, silence is not entirely passive.

It changes the distribution of power and uncertainty.

The person awaiting an answer carries the uncertainty.

The person withholding it retains discretion.

And the organisation may avoid having to make its position visible.

Ghosting is often presented as a failure to communicate.

Sometimes, it creates the effect of governing without leaving a visible decision behind.

Importantly, that does not require deliberate intent.

The same outcome can arise from avoidance, workload, poor system design, unclear authority, failed handovers or nobody knowing who actually owns the decision.

The governance concern is not simply why the loop failed.

It is whether the organisation knows that the loop remains open.

The cultural damage is cumulative

Organisational justice research demonstrates that people assess not only outcomes, but whether processes are fair, respectful and adequately explained (Colquitt, 2001).

A person may accept rejection.

They may accept disagreement.

They may accept that a proposal will not proceed.

What corrodes trust is not always the adverse decision.

Sometimes it is the refusal — or inability — to make the state of that decision visible.

Repeated non-closure can weaken:

• procedural fairness;
• informational justice;
• behavioural integrity;
• trust in organisational promises;
• and confidence that participation will produce any meaningful response.

Over time, people learn the behavioural rule.

Do not expect an answer.

Do not invest too much.

Do not raise matters that create discomfort.

Do not rely on stated timelines.

Do not assume that engagement means consideration.

Research on employee voice and silence demonstrates that whether people speak is influenced by their assessment of the consequences and likely effectiveness of doing so (Morrison, 2023).

Psychological safety research similarly highlights the importance of environments in which people can contribute without excessive interpersonal risk (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson and Bransby, 2023).

That leads to an important distinction.

People do not only stop speaking because they fear the consequences.

They may also stop speaking because experience has taught them that nothing will happen.

An employee who believes speaking up will produce retaliation may remain silent.

So may an employee who believes speaking up will simply disappear into the system.

The mechanisms are different.

But both can weaken organisational voice.

Not every unanswered message is a governance failure

A credible framework must remain proportionate.

Not every delay is ghosting.

Not every interaction creates an obligation for personalised closure.

Organisations face high volumes, conflicting priorities, legal constraints, confidentiality requirements and genuine uncertainty.

Some interactions are abusive, unsafe or manipulative and do not warrant continued engagement.

Some decisions require time.

Some outcomes cannot be disclosed fully.

But delay and non-closure are not the same.

A mature organisation can say:

• We have received this.
• This is under review.
• Responsibility has been assigned.
• We cannot provide further detail.
• A decision has been deferred.
• This will not proceed.
• This matter is now closed.

Closure does not require agreement.

It does not require extensive explanation.

And importantly:

Closure does not always require full disclosure.

Confidentiality, privacy, legal obligations or commercial sensitivity may legitimately restrict what an organisation can say.

But an organisation can often make the state of the interaction visible without disclosing information that should remain protected.

Received → Under Review → Decision Made → Unable to Disclose Further → Closed

The opposite of ghosting is not endless communication.

It is accountable clarity.

An ISI framing: Loop Integrity™

At ISI, we propose that Loop Integrity should be understood as a core feature of organisational reliability.

A high-integrity loop contains six elements:

1. Acknowledgement

The interaction has been received.

2. Ownership

Responsibility for the next step is visible.

3. Status

Relevant parties can determine whether the matter is active, transferred, deferred or concluded.

4. Decision

An outcome or next action has been reached.

5. Communication

Those reasonably relying on the process are appropriately informed.

6. Verification

Where material, completion is confirmed and relevant learning is retained.

In simple terms:

ACKNOWLEDGE → OWN → STATE → DECIDE → CLOSE → VERIFY

Ghosting is one manifestation of failure across this sequence.

Others include:

• invisible handovers;
• permanently deferred decisions;
• abandoned projects;
• unresolved corrective actions;
• consultations with no published outcome;
• repeated audit findings without resolution;
• and board actions repeatedly carried forward without completion.

The issue is not whether the organisation communicates frequently.

The issue is whether it can reliably complete what it initiates.

Not all ghosting is the same

Understanding why loops remain open also matters.

At a practical level, organisational ghosting may arise in at least three ways.

1. Accidental non-closure

Workload, oversight, competing priorities or simple human error.

2. Structural non-closure

Nobody clearly owns the decision, authority is fragmented, handovers fail or the matter moves repeatedly between teams.

3. Avoidant non-closure

A difficult decision, conversation or explanation is repeatedly deferred because silence is easier than closure.

These causes are different.

But they create a common governance question:

Can the organisation identify which material loops remain open, who owns them and what needs to happen next?

The governance controls are not complex

The controls required to improve Loop Integrity are often straightforward.

Define which interactions require closure

Not every interaction carries equal significance.

Materiality, reliance, risk and explicit commitments should determine the level of response required.

Assign a closure owner

Every material loop should have one visible person accountable for progressing or closing it.

Establish recognised outcome states

Received.

Under review.

Awaiting information.

Transferred.

Deferred.

Approved.

Declined.

Closed.

Silence should not function as an unofficial outcome category.

Set proportionate timeframes

High-risk concerns, recruitment processes, audit actions, complaints and stakeholder commitments should not remain indefinitely unresolved.

Standardise respectful closure

Clear language reduces the temptation to avoid difficult communication.

Escalate ageing open loops

Repeated non-closure should be examined as a potential design, capacity, culture or accountability failure.

Measure closure reliability

Organisations frequently count how many activities begin.

Projects launched.

Reviews commissioned.

Actions assigned.

Consultations commenced.

They should also examine how many reach an explicit, communicated and — where material — verifiable conclusion.

The questions boards should ask

Boards do not need dashboards showing every unanswered email.

They should ask something more consequential:

Which material organisational loops remain open?

Who owns them?

How long have they remained unresolved?

Which open loops have been repeatedly carried forward without a change in status?

What risks are being obscured by the absence of closure?

Which stakeholders are repeatedly left without an outcome?

Where has silence become a substitute for decision-making?

What does non-closure reveal about workload, authority, culture and accountability?

These are not etiquette questions.

They are questions about system reliability.

Because organisations do not only lose trust through dishonesty.

They also lose trust when people can no longer rely on them to finish what they begin.

Final Observation

Governance failure rarely announces itself.

It can accumulate through tolerated ambiguity.

An unanswered concern.

An abandoned commitment.

A stakeholder left waiting.

A corrective action carried forward meeting after meeting.

A project quietly abandoned while its leader continues carrying the people, costs and expectations attached to it.

An external review completed — but its recommendations never formally resolved.

A decision everyone assumes somebody else will communicate.

Each is an open loop.

And each open loop can teach the organisation something.

That promises are optional.

That discomfort can be avoided through silence.

That difficult decisions do not always require visible ownership.

That accountability becomes harder to locate when communication stops.

Ghosting is not always a governance failure.

But when silence becomes patterned, consequential and structurally tolerated, it is no longer merely a communication lapse.

It becomes a failure of Loop Integrity.

Because what disappears first is not simply communication.

It is accountability.

And eventually:

Trust.

References

ASX Corporate Governance Council (2019) Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations. 4th edn. Sydney: ASX Corporate Governance Council.

Ashby, W.R. (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.

Colquitt, J.A. (2001) ‘On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), pp. 386–400.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., Costa, S.P., Doden, W. and Chang, C. (2019) ‘Psychological contracts: Past, present, and future’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, pp. 145–169.

Dirks, K.T. and de Jong, B. (2022) ‘Trust within the workplace: A review of two waves of research and a glimpse of the third’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, pp. 247–276.

Edmondson, A.C. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383.

Edmondson, A.C. and Bransby, D.P. (2023) ‘Psychological safety comes of age: Observed themes in an established literature’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, pp. 55–78.

ISO (2021) ISO 37301:2021 Compliance Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) ‘An integrative model of organizational trust’, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), pp. 709–734.

Morrison, E.W. (2023) ‘Employee voice and silence: Taking stock a decade later’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, pp. 79–107.

Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000) ‘Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world’, Academy of Management Review, 25(4), pp. 706–725.

Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997) ‘When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops’, Academy of Management Review, 22(1), pp. 226–256.

Project Management Institute (2021) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 7th edn. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994) ‘Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), pp. 245–259.

Rousseau, D.M. (1989) ‘Psychological and implied contracts in organizations’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), pp. 121–139.

Simons, T., Leroy, H. and Nishii, L. (2022) ‘Revisiting behavioral integrity: Progress and new directions after 20 years’, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, pp. 365–389.

Weick, K.E. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2015) Managing the Unexpected: Sustained Performance in a Complex World. 3rd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Wood, N.R., Leckfor, C.M., Wicks, S.G. and Hales, A.H. (2023) ‘Ghosting from the workplace: The impact of feedback (or lack thereof) on applicants’ psychological needs satisfaction’, Routledge Open Research, 2, article 3.

Zeigarnik, B. (1927) ‘Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungen’, Psychologische Forschung, 9, pp. 1–85.Zeigarnik, B. (1927) ‘Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungen’, Psychologische Forschung, 9, pp. 1–85.