Why people stay silent, even when the policy says “speak up”?

Most organisations do not introduce speak-up policies because they want silence. They do it because they want problems surfaced early, handled fairly, and resolved before they become bigger than they needed to be. The intent is usually sound, and the infrastructure often exists. A reporting channel, a policy, maybe even training.

And yet, in many workplaces, silence still wins.

One reason is that policies describe what an organisation wants to be true. Speaking up tests what is actually true. Employees understand this instinctively. They also understand that the outcome of that test does not only affect the organisation. It can affect them personally. Their standing with a manager, their team relationships, their career trajectory, and sometimes their sense of belonging. So when organisations ask, “Why do people not speak up?” the answer is rarely apathy. More often, it is risk calculation.

Go deeper: If your team is trying to move from “we have a policy” to “people trust the system”, Whistleblowing done right. Creating a culture of trust and transparency explores what “trusted reporting” looks like in practice, and where well-meaning programmes typically break down.

{{wb-webinar-whistleblowing-done-right="/components"}}

The misunderstanding behind “speak up”

When leaders say they want people to speak up, they often mean it as a signal of openness. It is meant to invite early conversations, surface problems, and build a culture where issues are addressed before they harden into crises. Employees hear it differently. For them, it can sound like an invitation to take a chance, especially when the concern involves power, status, or conflict.

Most employees are not deciding whether honesty is a virtue. They are deciding whether speaking up will create a bigger problem for them than the original issue. They ask themselves whether the situation is serious enough, whether they have misunderstood, and whether they are about to become the story instead of the issue they are reporting.

That is why speak-up programmes often struggle. Not because people do not care, but because the emotional and professional stakes of reporting feel unclear, while the personal downside can feel very concrete.

Silence is not a lack of information. It is information.

Silence does not always mean nothing is happening. It can mean employees have learned that reporting is unpredictable, socially costly, or simply not worth it. They reach that conclusion not from policies, but from patterns.

If people have seen concerns disappear into a black box, they internalise that nothing changes. If they have watched someone raise an issue and be labelled as “difficult”, they internalise that honesty carries a price. If “confidentiality” still results in gossip, they internalise that the organisation cannot protect them, even if it wants to. Over time, silence becomes a sensible form of self-management. It is how people keep their jobs, protect relationships, and avoid becoming a target.

From a leadership perspective, this is uncomfortable because it suggests the speak-up system may exist formally while failing informally. From a risk perspective, it matters because issues that do not surface early tend to surface later, with higher stakes and fewer options.

The real calculation employees make when deciding whether to report

It helps to understand speaking up as a decision made under uncertainty. People may care about the underlying issue, and still choose silence because the outcome of reporting feels too unpredictable.

One part of the calculation is identity risk. Even when a channel is “anonymous”, many employees believe they can still be identified by details, timing, team size, writing style, or simply the fact that only a handful of people could have seen what is being described. If a person feels identifiable, the question becomes less about whether to report and more about whether they can live with being known as the person who did.

Another part is impact risk. Many people fear that reporting will change nothing. This is not always cynicism. It can be learned experience. If previous reports seemed to go nowhere, or if outcomes were never communicated, employees assume the organisation is collecting information rather than acting on it. When impact feels unlikely, the incentive to take personal risk collapses.

Then there is belonging risk, which is often the most decisive. People consider how reporting might change their team dynamics. Will they be seen as disloyal? Will they be treated differently? Will their presence in the group feel less comfortable? Even when retaliation is prohibited, people worry about subtler consequences, such as being left out of projects, losing informal support, or becoming “that person” who makes things difficult.

Why “anonymous” is not the same as “safe”

Many organisations lean heavily on anonymity as the answer. It helps, but it does not solve the full problem. Anonymity can reduce one type of fear, but safety is broader than identity protection.

Safety also includes emotional predictability. Do employees understand what will happen after they report? Do they know who will see the information? Do they believe the organisation can manage the process without exposing them? Do they have confidence that the process will be fair, even if the report is inconvenient?

When the answers feel vague, people default to the option with the least personal risk. That is often silence. Sometimes it is an informal conversation with a trusted colleague. Sometimes it is leaving the organisation. In some cases, it is bypassing internal channels entirely.

Go deeper: If you are looking for practical ways to design a reporting experience that feels safe and usable, Speak up at work. A simple guide to safe, trusted reporting goes into the mechanics of making reporting feel simpler, clearer, and more trusted.

{{wb-webinar-speak-up-at-work-a-simple-guide-to-safe-trusted-reporting="/components"}}

The hidden role of managers in whether people speak up

Most speak-up programmes focus on the formal channel. In practice, many employees test the waters informally first, often through a manager. That moment can determine whether the organisation ever learns about an issue.

Managers are rarely trained for this role in a way that matches reality. They may feel defensive, uncertain, or worried about escalation. They may be trying to protect the employee, protect the team, or protect themselves. In any case, the employee is listening carefully for signals.

If a manager minimises the concern, discourages escalation, frames it as a personal issue, or asks the employee to keep it “informal”, the employee learns that speaking up is not welcome, regardless of what the policy says. From that point, the formal channel may as well not exist.

This is one of the reasons speak-up programmes fail quietly. The organisation designs a system for reporting, but employees experience culture through people.

A better question for leaders to ask

If the goal is to make reporting more likely, it can help to shift the question away from “How do we get more reports?” and toward something more diagnostic.

What would make reporting feel like a reasonable choice for a normal person in your organisation, on an average day, dealing with a concern that is serious but not perfectly provable? Where does your process create fear, even unintentionally? Which parts of your culture reward loyalty over honesty? What do employees believe happens after they submit a report, and where did they learn that belief?

The most revealing question might be this. Are you treating whistleblowing as a compliance mechanism, or as a trust mechanism?

A compliance mechanism can exist on paper. A trust mechanism has to work in lived reality. It has to be usable, predictable, and protective, especially in the moments when it is inconvenient.

{{whistleblowing-cta="/components"}}