Silence does not mean
everyone knows what
is being said

She began, "As you know, we called in a consultant to do a study of worker motivation and morale. The consultant concluded that the well-known distinction between self-evaluation and self-efficacy is central to understanding motivational issues in our company."

Allison then paused to see if there were any questions or comments. People glanced at each other and each individual wondered if he or she was the only person who did not know the distinction between self-evaluation and self-efficacy. But since no one wanted to admit to this lack of knowledge, nobody spoke up.

Allison then continued the meeting, having concluded that everyone knew what she was talking about.

Allison has encountered an example of pluralistic ignorance. No one person wants to admit that they dont understand the terms that the boss is using. In reality, nobody knew the distinction to which Allison was referring. But since no one asked a question, the boss felt that everyone was on the same page. So the meeting continued with everyone ignorant of what was being discussed.

With Allison continuing her discussion of workplace motivation, the company meeting became a waste of everyone's time since there was no understanding of the concepts being discussed.

Self-evaluation refers to general assessments people make of themselves. People with a positive self-evaluation view themselves as worthwhile individuals who have a great deal to offer to their workplaces and to their communities.

People with high self-efficacy view themselves as competent to perform specific workplace tasks. Different people feel self-efficacious about different tasks. Some salespeople, for example, feel that they are better at contacting potential new customers than they are at closing deals. People can have positive self-evaluations but can also admit that they have little self-efficacy with certain workplace tasks. Senior executives who are proud of their career accomplishments can marvel at the sophisticated computer skills of recent college graduates. They can be excellent executives without feelings of self-efficacy about using sophisticated software.

To combat pluralistic ignorance, someone at the meeting has to sense that many of the attendees do not understand the concepts being discussed. That same person then has to speak up and ask the boss to clarify the terms being used. Often, others will later thank the person who spoke up, saying, "I thought I was the only one who did not understand, but I noticed that everyone was paying very close attention when the boss explained the terms that she was using."

The unwillingness to speak up and ask basic questions is undoubtedly one reason why people dread going to meetings in the workplace. No one wants to admit ignorance, so meetings drone on without a shared understanding of the ideas that people are supposed to discuss.

While the term pluralistic ignorance is recent, the psychological phenomenon it captures is not.

In Hans Christian Andersen's tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes," two con artists convince the head of state that they have a beautiful suit that they want to sell him. The suit would be invisible to him because he is so intelligent, but common folk in the kingdom would admire it. So the king parades down the street in his skivvies, and everyone cheers since they do not want to admit that they could not see the suit. A young lad finally speaks up, "The emperor has no clothes," thus contributing a phrase that has long since been used to puncture pomposity.