Opinion: Why good employees stay silent

Ron Bogart

Most leaders believe silence means one of two things: Employees agree, or employees are afraid to speak. My doctoral research suggested a more complicated and more useful answer.

I studied psychological safety inside an established employee-owned company. Psychological safety is the belief that people can take interpersonal risks at work. In plain language, employees feel safe speaking up, asking for help, admitting mistakes and challenging an idea.

The quantitative results looked encouraging. On Amy Edmondson’s psychological safety instrument, the statement that team members could bring up problems and tough issues scored approximately 6.6 out of 7. It was among the strongest findings in the survey.

If we had stopped there, we might have concluded that important information moved freely through the organization.

Then we conducted interviews. We asked employees to think of a time when they did not speak up and explain why. Everyone had an answer.

Some did not want to bother a manager who seemed busy. Others were unsure the issue was important enough. Some wanted more information before raising a concern. A few assumed leadership already knew.

Most trusted their leaders. They still filtered what they said.

The survey was not necessarily wrong. It measured employees’ general belief about the environment. The interviews examined specific moments when employees chose silence. An employee can honestly believe it is safe to approach a manager while deciding that a particular concern is too small, too uncertain, poorly timed or likely to create more work.

This matters because leaders often misdiagnose silence. Fear certainly causes people to withhold information, particularly when they have experienced ridicule or retaliation. But silence has many parents.

Employees may assume someone else reported the problem. They may have raised a similar issue before and seen nothing change. They may think a decision is final or fear that identifying the problem will make them responsible for fixing it. Some have simply learned to work around it.

The behavior looks the same from the outside. The cause determines what a leader should do next.

If people are trying not to burden an overloaded manager, telling them to be more courageous will not help. If they are uncertain, demanding accountability may cause them to wait until they have perfect information. If they believe speaking up changes nothing, another open-door speech will sound hollow.

The most expensive source of silence may be the one a leader misdiagnoses.

Leaders need better questions. Asking, “Do you feel comfortable coming to me?” usually produces a predictable yes. Instead ask, “Tell me about a time you chose not to bring something to me. What made you hold back?”

Then listen without defending, explaining or solving too quickly.

Leaders should also notice what information tends to arrive late. Is it bad news, safety concerns, mistakes or disagreement? Where does silence live: leadership meetings, the field or the boardroom?

Finally, close the loop. Employees do not expect every suggestion to become policy. They do need evidence that speaking up enters a real decision process. Explain what changed, what did not and why.

A healthy survey score deserves recognition, but it should begin a conversation rather than end one. Averages describe the climate. Stories reveal the weather employees encounter in particular moments.

The next time a meeting grows quiet, do not assume agreement or disengagement. Get curious.

The better question is not simply, “Do people feel safe to speak?” It may be, “When they choose silence, what are they trying to protect?”

Ron Bogart is CEO of Gold Mechanical Inc. and earned a doctorate in strategic leadership at Evangel University. His research explores the relationship between authentic leadership, psychological safety and organizational performance. He can be reached at rbogart@goldmechanical.com.