Should I say something?
How often does this thought cross our minds? In meetings, around dinner tables, during classes, with friends: an unmistakable flicker of uncertainty. We pause, however briefly - Is this the right moment? Will it sound silly, or obvious? Is it really my place? What if nobody else agrees?
From there, the hesitation can quickly turn into internal calculation: What happened the last time someone challenged the group? Will bringing this up cause trouble? Is it worth the risk? Sometimes we decide it’s not worth it—maybe now isn’t the time, or maybe keeping the peace seems better than rocking the boat. And the moment passes…
Silence, in this context, is not simply the absence of speech. It is the moment when people notice something worth questioning, correcting, or challenging — and decide not to. It shows up when assumptions go untested, concerns are softened or withheld, and people choose not to respond when something needs to be called out. Critical decisions, risks, and innovations often hinge not on strategy alone, but on what people feel able to say — or not say — when it matters most.
Individual hesitation can become collective risk. Silence rarely announces itself all at once. Instead, it builds through countless small moments — questions unasked, concerns unspoken, ideas quietly set aside. Over time, what goes unsaid may affect not only team performance, but the resilience and integrity of an organisation.
So, what determines whether people feel able to speak up before that risk takes hold? This is the space Amy Edmondson describes through the concept of psychological safety: not comfort, endless harmony, or the absence of challenge, but a working environment where people can raise questions, admit mistakes, or challenge the status quo without fear of embarrassment or subtle punishment. In practice, it might be the analyst who flags a potential error before it becomes a crisis, or the project team that asks, “Do we actually understand this new process?” In these teams, candour is normal, disagreement productive, and “I don’t know” a sign of honesty, not weakness.
Of course, not every silence leads to disaster. But the risks of low psychological safety can be severe. In Edmondson’s analysis of Boeing’s production culture, workers’ reluctance to raise safety concerns was one factor among many contributing to two fatal crashes. In healthcare, research with frontline nurses during Covid-19 found that staff often hesitated to ask clarifying questions about new procedures, making safe, effective care harder to deliver in a crisis (Ivcevic et al., HBR, 2021). While these studies don’t claim psychological safety is the only variable, they highlight how a culture of silence can amplify existing risks—sometimes with tragic consequences.
And it seems the costs of silence and disengagement are widespread. Gallup’s 2026 global survey estimates disengagement costs the world economy $10 trillion each year. That’s not just about people leaving; it’s about people staying but withholding their best ideas, energy, and judgement.
Those quieter patterns matter because they accumulate. Edmondson describes not only dramatic failures but also the “creeping complacency” that can sap a company’s edge when leaders don’t have “all hands (eyes, and voices) on deck.” When people hold back, organisations can become less resilient, slower to respond to disruption, and more vulnerable to ethical lapses — whether involving a market shift, reputational crisis, or safety incident. Research by Ivcevic and colleagues suggests engagement isn’t just about inspiration; it depends on clarity, freedom to ask questions, space for creative problem-solving, and the belief that your contributions matter: all depend on people being able to speak up in the first place. Without psychological safety, even the most promising engagement initiatives can stall. Participation drops, enthusiasm fades, and teams revert to doing only what’s required. The roots of engagement are unlikely to take hold if people don’t feel safe to be candid.
So how do you know if psychological safety and engagement is present in your teams? This is where research-driven climate assessments can help. The Psychological Safety and Engagement survey gives teams a clear, practical view of how safe people feel to speak up, how engaging the work feels, and where action is needed to strengthen both. The goal isn’t to assign blame or create “scorecards for leaders.” It’s to make the climate visible—so that early warning signs can be addressed, and practical action can follow. Practitioners gain clarity on where to focus, and leaders gain insight on how to adjust their approach for even better results.
As the cost of silence rises, perhaps making the invisible visible is becoming a foundation for organisations that want to thrive, adapt, and do the right thing when it matters most.
References
De Smet, A., Edmondson, A., Boyatzis, R., & Schaninger, B. (2020, July). Psychological safety, emotional intelligence, and leadership in a time of flux. McKinsey & Company.
Edmondson, A. C. (2019, May 1). Boeing and the importance of encouraging employees to speak up. Harvard Business Review.
Gallup. (2026). State of the global workplace: 2026 report: The human side of the AI revolution. Gallup.
Ivcevic, Z., Stern, R., & Faas, A. (2021, May 17). Research: What do people need to perform at a high level? Harvard Business Review.
