Why do employees remain silent when they see early signs of trouble?

Why Do Employees Keep Silent When They See Early Signs of a Problem?

Hyunsoon Park and Subra Tangirala – April 2025

The threats that organizations face can usually be divided into two categories: explicit threats and implicit threats.

Explicit threats are clear, obvious, and immediate. For example, a dangerous gas leak at a chemical plant is detected by alarm systems. The problem is clear, and the appropriate response is clear: evacuate and plug the leak.

In contrast, implicit threats are more difficult. Imagine that employees in the same plant notice a faint, intermittent odor in some areas. Some suspect there is a small leak; others think it is due to normal operations. Sensors show no problem, and inspections find no signs. There is no immediate danger; but over time, more employees report mild symptoms and discomfort.

Such threats may be ignored, while they can cause serious harm if addressed late. Therefore, it is important to understand how people perceive and react to these ambiguous signals, and to identify the reasons for their silence.

Why are ambiguous threats difficult?

Based on our research findings, ambiguous threats have three characteristics:

High complexity: The origin of these threats is not clear and may be multidimensional. It is difficult to determine whether the problem is real or just a temporary event.

Uncertain consequences: It is not clear what the consequences will be, so it is difficult to prioritize.

Unprecedentedness: The lack of previous experience with the threat makes decision-making more difficult.

In fact, most threats in the real world lie somewhere between clarity and ambiguity. We surveyed 102 employees and managers from a variety of industries and found that people react more quickly when faced with clear threats, while vague threats are more likely to cause hesitation and disagreement.

The Problem of Employee Silence

A survey of 436 people at an oil and gas consulting firm found that employees were more likely to remain silent as the signals became more ambiguous. These findings were confirmed by a series of psychological experiments on more than 1,100 people from a variety of industries.

In one experiment, participants played the role of members of the research and development team for a new cosmetic product. During the pilot phase, customers reported vague symptoms, such as mild skin irritation. The findings showed that in such situations, people tend to remain silent and leave the responsibility for investigation to managers.

There are several reasons for this behavior:

High cognitive load: Analyzing vague threats requires a significant amount of mental energy, so people turn to simpler tasks.

Traditional organizational structures: In many organizations, decision-making is defined as the domain of managers, and employees are considered merely executors.

But this overreliance on managers is dangerous, because they too may ignore ambiguous threats. While employees have key insights through direct contact with products and processes.

How can employee awareness be strengthened? We suggest three levels of action:

1. At the organizational level: Create a culture of awareness Organizations should make “failure prediction” part of their culture. For example, at Toyota, the Endon system allows employees to stop the production line at the push of a button as soon as they see a problem. This is seen as a responsibility, not a nuisance. The result is early identification of risks.

2. At the leadership level: Threat recognition training Leaders should prepare employees to face ambiguous situations. Structured tests such as simulations, stress tests, or controlled exercises can be effective. At Netflix, the concept of “chaos engineering” has been used to enhance employees’ ability to respond to threats by using tools like Chaos Monkey to create intentional disruptions.

3. At the employee level: Challenge leadership Employees should also be prepared to question management decisions when necessary. NVIDIA fosters this culture by emphasizing “intellectual honesty,” asking employees to voice their opinions without fear of backlash.

Ultimately, organizations will be more successful if they act before the threat is fully understood. Vigilance should not be expected only from managers, but should be instilled at all levels. By creating a culture of questioning and timely action, ambiguous threats can become a competitive advantage rather than a hindrance.

Source: https://hbr.org/