Why People Stay Silent Even When They Know Something Is Wrong

Silence is easy to misread from the top of an organisation. A meeting reaches the point at which a decision appears to have been made, the person leading it looks around the table and asks whether anyone sees a problem, and nobody objects. The discussion ends and the decision moves forward. From the leader’s position, there may be little reason to think that anything important has been left unsaid.

Someone in that room may nevertheless have seen the problem clearly. Perhaps they recognised an assumption that did not make sense, remembered a similar decision that had failed before, or knew that the plan would be difficult to execute. Before speaking, however, they had another judgement to make. They had to consider how the person in authority was likely to respond, what had happened when others challenged decisions in the past, and whether raising the issue had any realistic chance of changing what happened next. They stayed silent, not necessarily because they lacked confidence or commitment, but because experience had given them reasons to question the value of speaking.

Research on employee voice and silence has examined versions of this problem for decades. Elizabeth Morrison’s 2023 review describes a substantial body of work concerned with when and why employees speak up or remain silent, while also making clear that silence cannot be reduced to a single cause. The absence of an objection tells a leader very little about why that objection was never expressed.

In my work as a Mental Performance Coach, I approach the problem from a practical direction. When somebody is not speaking, I do not automatically assume that they lack an opinion, confidence or commitment. I want to understand what they believe will happen if they speak and, just as importantly, whether they believe anything useful will happen afterwards. Those questions overlap, but they are not the same.

Silence is a decision, not an empty space

Organisations depend on information moving towards the people who can act on it, yet some of the most valuable information available to a leader is also the information most difficult to hear. It may contradict a preferred strategy, expose an operational weakness, challenge the judgement of someone senior or simply complicate a decision everyone would rather consider finished.

Employee voice generally concerns the voluntary communication of ideas, concerns, suggestions or information intended to improve a situation. The voluntary element matters because people do not decide whether to speak in a social vacuum. They read the person in front of them, remember previous interactions and estimate both the potential value and the possible cost of intervention.

A few seconds of hesitation during a meeting can therefore contain far more information than they appear to. An employee may be considering the strength of the evidence, but also the hierarchy in the room, the reputation of the manager, the experience of colleagues who have spoken previously and whether the decision is genuinely open to challenge. What looks like hesitation in the present may have been shaped by months or years of experience. This is one reason the familiar declaration that “my door is always open” tells us surprisingly little about the culture around that door.

Morrison, See and Pan examined employee silence across three studies using different methods: a laboratory experiment, a survey of healthcare workers and a survey involving employees from a wider range of industries. Their findings supported the importance of an employee’s personal sense of power in the decision to remain silent, while also showing that perceived openness in the person receiving the information could mitigate that tendency. Hierarchy matters, but the behaviour of the person with greater power matters too.

That distinction gives leaders more to work with than the vague instruction to encourage people to speak up. An organisation cannot remove every difference in status, nor would that necessarily be desirable, but people in authority influence how those differences are experienced.

Feeling safe is not the same as believing speaking will matter

Psychological safety has become one of the most familiar concepts in discussions about teams and workplace communication. Amy Edmondson’s foundational work examined psychological safety as a shared belief concerning whether a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking and connected it with learning behaviour in work teams. The concept remains relevant to understanding why people may be reluctant to ask questions, admit uncertainty or raise concerns, but it should not become a convenient explanation for every instance of organisational silence.

An employee may believe that nothing particularly bad will happen if they speak while simultaneously believing that nothing useful will happen either. The manager may listen politely, thank them for raising the issue and continue exactly as before. A concern may be acknowledged but never revisited, or an employee may raise the same operational problem repeatedly and eventually discover that silence produces almost exactly the same outcome with considerably less effort.

This is easy for leaders to miss because futility is less visible than fear. If nobody is being shouted at, punished or publicly embarrassed, an organisation can appear open while employees have already learnt that challenging a decision consumes social and cognitive energy without affecting the decision itself. People may still be technically free to speak, but freedom to speak is not the same as believing there is a reason to do it.

For a leader trying to understand a quiet team, the useful question is therefore not only whether people feel safe enough to speak. It is also what the environment has taught them about what happens after they do.

Hierarchy does not disappear because a leader invites honesty

An invitation to speak does not remove the relationship in which that invitation is made. An employee talking to a colleague of similar status is in a different position from an employee challenging someone who influences workload, progression, access to opportunities or professional reputation. The factual content of the concern may be identical, but the social consequences attached to expressing it can be different.

Statements such as “Tell me what you really think” may be entirely sincere, yet employees interpret them alongside everything else they know about the person making the invitation. They remember whether disagreement produces curiosity or defensiveness, whether people who raise uncomfortable questions continue to be included in important conversations, and whether senior figures ask for alternative views before making a decision or only after their own preference has become obvious. They notice whether a mistake can be discussed without somebody immediately looking for a person to blame.

Over time, these observations become part of the organisation’s informal operating system. Culture is not learnt only through values statements; it is learnt through consequences, including consequences that are subtle enough to be dismissed individually. A change in tone, an impatient interruption, an idea rejected before it is properly explored or a difficult question acknowledged during a meeting and then quietly forgotten may appear trivial in isolation. Repeated often enough, such moments tell people which forms of participation are genuinely welcome.

A 2026 six-year qualitative study by Katja Einola, Riitta Hekkala and Emma Nordbäck provides a useful illustration. Examining voice and silence within a technology company, the researchers found that even an organisation characterised by self-management and an ostensibly candid speak-up climate could develop uneven patterns of voice, with occupational position and shared beliefs about whose expertise counted shaping whose contributions gained legitimacy. It is one organisation and should not be treated as a universal model, but it complicates the comforting assumption that declaring openness is enough to produce it.

What happens after inconvenient information arrives

In difficult conversations, the response immediately after an unwelcome challenge often tells people more than the invitation that preceded it. A leader may spend months saying that honesty is welcome, but if an inconvenient concern is met with interruption, defensiveness or an immediate attack on the speaker’s credibility, everyone present receives information about the practical cost of speaking.

I pay close attention to this in performance environments because the pattern appears in different forms. A coach may tell an athlete that questions are welcome but respond impatiently when a tactical decision is challenged. A manager may say that mistakes should be discussed openly and then become visibly irritated when somebody identifies a failure in a project they personally supported. A leader may ask for independent thinking while, without intending to, giving more time and warmth to the people who agree fastest.

None of this means that leaders should agree with every challenge. Information can be incomplete, objections can be mistaken and people can advocate positions for reasons that have little to do with the wider interests of a team or organisation. What matters is whether the act of raising a concern can be separated from the quality of that concern and from the final decision. A leader can listen seriously and still conclude that the employee is wrong. Protecting disagreement does not require surrendering responsibility for deciding.

When those distinctions disappear, disagreement can begin to feel personal. Challenging an idea becomes indistinguishable from challenging the leader, and an organisation may gradually lose access to precisely the information its leaders most need.

When people learn that speaking is pointless

Some of the most difficult silence to detect exists in organisations where relationships remain outwardly civil. Nobody appears frightened, nobody has been explicitly told not to speak, meetings remain polite and managers continue asking for feedback. People simply stop investing in it.

From a performance perspective, this matters because behaviour adapts to perceived consequences. When an action repeatedly appears to produce no meaningful result, people have less reason to keep spending effort on it. In an organisation, an employee may continue meeting the formal requirements of a role while withdrawing something much harder to measure: discretionary information, early warnings, challenge and ideas that require some interpersonal risk to express.

When I encounter a team that has become quiet, I find two questions useful. Can people speak without paying an unreasonable interpersonal or professional price? And do they believe speaking has a reasonable chance of producing a visible response?

I think of this as safety plus consequence. It is a practitioner framework, not a validated psychological model, but it helps organise what can otherwise become a vague discussion about openness. An organisation can be relatively safe while people conclude that speaking achieves little. Another can respond to concerns but make raising them personally costly. Neither condition provides the kind of information flow leaders usually believe they have when they describe their culture as open.

A stronger environment does not promise that every suggestion will become policy or every objection will change a decision. It makes the path from speaking to response visible. Sometimes the result will be change, sometimes investigation and sometimes the original decision will stand. What matters is that useful information does not simply disappear into a process nobody can see.

Silence itself is information

A quiet meeting may mean that the proposal is sound and everybody agrees. It may mean that the team has no additional information to contribute. It may also mean that the people who once challenged weak assumptions have stopped trying, while those who remain have become skilled at recognising which conversations are genuinely open. From the head of the table, these conditions can look remarkably similar.

Silence is therefore better treated as information requiring context than as automatic evidence of either agreement or dysfunction. Who usually speaks, and who rarely does? What happens after concerns are raised? Does disagreement travel upwards as easily as approval? Are the same people consistently heard? When somebody offers inconvenient information, does the discussion become more curious or more defensive?

These questions are uncomfortable because they cannot be answered entirely by examining a leader’s intention. Someone may genuinely want honesty and still preside over an environment in which people have learnt to withhold it. Good intentions do not cancel hierarchy, previous experience or the accumulated consequences through which people learn how an organisation actually works.

When people stop speaking, the information they hold does not necessarily disappear. It simply stops reaching the people with the authority to use it. By the time a leader notices that the room has become unusually quiet, the more revealing question may not be why people suddenly stopped talking, but what they learnt while they were still trying.

ALTIUS Note

Research on employee voice and silence spans different occupations, organisations and cultural settings, and no single mechanism explains why people withhold information. Psychological safety, perceived power, the openness of the person receiving a concern, expected consequences and wider organisational structures can all be relevant. The “safety plus consequence” distinction used in this article is an ALTIUS practitioner framework intended to organise these questions; it should not be presented as an independently validated psychological model.

Research References

• Morrison, E. W. (2023). Employee Voice and Silence: Taking Stock a Decade Later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 79–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654
• Morrison, E. W., See, K. E., & Pan, C. (2015). An Approach-Inhibition Model of Employee Silence: The Joint Effects of Personal Sense of Power and Target Openness. Personnel Psychology, 68, 547–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12087
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
• Einola, K., Hekkala, R., & Nordbäck, E. (2026). Speaking up, falling silent: Voice, silence and the emergence of toxic organizational culture in a technology company. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 99, e70104. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70104

Related from ALTIUS

• The Cost of Always Being Right — How leader certainty can reduce independent thinking.
• The Dangerous Comfort of Consensus — Why agreement can conceal missing information.
• A Political Consultant Is Not Paid to Tell the Candidate They Are Right — Why decision systems need protected disagreement.

Keep reading ALTIUS

Subscribe for new essays and analysis, or sign in if you already have an account.

Subscribe · Sign in