In Japan, there is a saying: “Silence is golden.” Speaking up can easily lead to being labelled as someone who “disrupts harmony,” “complains,” or is “difficult” .

However, is maintaining “silence” in the face of various unreasonable demands truly “golden”? Is it not merely an act of self-preservation or an energy-saving strategy to avoid making waves?

My answer is no.

In hierarchical organisations, “silence” can take away people’s sense of control at work and push leaders into chronic strain.

A case: the more capable the leader, the more they “stay silent”

“I’m already busy, and then more work got added—I’m getting irritable from the stress,” my client sighed in a coaching session.

He is a project leader in product development in a Japanese manufacturing company, leading a small team. In April, a new project was added, and he has been struggling to control workload. This is not only his personal problem. In Japan, long working hours remain common (e.g., 49+ hours/week still reported for a notable share of workers), and long hours are associated with serious health outcomes in global estimates.

In other words, “being busy” is not something that can be solved by individual willpower alone—it is also a job-design issue.

What was happening: unclear decision latitude and no time to talk

As I listened, it became clear that his team relationships were good, and there was no particular conflict with his manager. However, both were extremely busy and had little time to talk. Most importantly, he did not know how far his decision authority extended for this new project.

He did not know:

• why he was assigned,

• why the scope was defined as it was,

• whether the deadline was negotiable, and

• how much he was allowed to decide.

When I asked whether he had ever asked about adjusting scope or deadlines, he looked surprised: “I’ve never even thought about that.”

For him, a manager’s instruction equals an organisational instruction. Discussing background, difficulty, or negotiation felt risky—he feared being seen as selfish or incompetent. In a group, “the person who speaks up” can be treated as troublesome.

For him, silence really was “gold.”

Making sense of the case:
the Demand–Control–Support (DCS) model

The Demand-Control-Support (DCS) model, originally developed by Karasek and later extended by Johnson and Hall, helps explain this case.

In short, when job demands are high but control (decision latitude / skill discretion) is low or unclear, and support is weak, strain responses such as poor sleep, irritability, and exhaustion are more likely.

Figure 1. The Demand-Control-Support Model (Karasek & Theorell, 1990)

Applied to this case:

1) Demand: demands increased.

A new project increased workload and time pressure.

2) Control: control was “unclear.”

The core issue was not simply “role” but unclear decision latitude. Could he change priorities, reduce scope, or negotiate deadlines? He did not know. This lack of felt controllability is central to the job strain logic.

3) Support: a lack of dialogue closed the “adjustment gate.” Johnson & Hall’s extension emphasises that social support can buffer the harmful impact of high demands and low control. However, because his manager was also overwhelmed, opportunities for dialogue disappeared, and the buffer was not functioning.

“Scrolling away the night” is not simply weak willpower

He also said that after work he ends up scrolling videos until around 2 a.m., feeling guilty afterwards. It is important not to dismiss this as “laziness.”

From a stress perspective, this can be understood as avoidant / emotion-focused coping. Using the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, his appraisals become clearer: he appraises “asking to adjust work” as a threat (being seen as incompetent or disruptive), and he appraises that he lacks resources (control and time for discussion). As problem-focused coping feels unavailable, he relies on emotion-focused coping to temporarily escape the unpleasant feelings—at the cost of sleep and recovery.

In addition, recovery research suggests that psychological detachment from work is important. When detachment fails, fatigue is carried over.

So his night-time behaviour can be read as a signal that high demands plus low/unclear control are undermining recovery, rather than simply a personal weakness.

Culture is not an excuse, but it can be a risk condition

The problem is that he is not an exception. In cultures high in uncertainty avoidance, ambiguity tends to feel more stressful, and in higher power-distance settings, “checking upward / complying” can feel like the rational behaviour.

When demands increase, this can make it harder to negotiate workload or clarify decision latitude—silence delays both control clarification and access to support.

This is how “silence” becomes a cost rather than “gold.”

Intervention: solve by design, not by “courage”

I explained the DCS logic and the situation by stating, “This is not a matter of individual selfishness, but a structural problem.” I proposed the following three actions:

• Make demands visible: Map workload and deadlines and identify what is “additional.”

• Clarify control: Specify what he can decide (priorities, scope, deadline negotiation) and when escalation is required.

• Institutionalise support: Schedule regular check-ins with his manager, even if they last only 15 minutes, to keep the adjustment conversation open. He looked relieved: the situation had become logical rather than personal. He planned to speak with his manager before the next session.

Conclusion: do not make well-being depend on “luck”

This case progressed relatively smoothly because the manager relationship was positive. But employee well-being should not depend on individual “courage” or relationship luck. When organisations increase demands, they should simultaneously design systems that clarify control (decision latitude).

Many organisations invest in secondary interventions (e.g., mindfulness or resilience training), but for structurally generated stressors, primary prevention via job redesign is essential.

A culture that glorifies “silence” will quietly burn people out.

-fin