daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 40,650
- Points
- 1,160
Have the troops stopped bitching? Read on... 
Why Employees Stay Silent When They See Warning Signs of a Problem
Summary.
To address challenges posed by ambiguous threats, employees need to speak up at the earliest signs of trouble. Yet research shows that the more ambiguous a threat, the more likely employees are to remain silent. Why does it happen? The likely explanation is cognitive overload. Employees juggle multiple responsibilities, and ambiguous threats require significant mental effort to assess. As a result, they may shift their focus to more manageable tasks. Additionally, traditional workplace structures reinforce the assumption that decision-making is a leadership responsibility, while employees are expected to execute rather than question. Thus, by relying on leaders to make sense of the threat, employees offload the burden of grappling with ambiguity themselves. This reliance is problematic because even the most capable leaders may overlook ambiguous threats or misjudge weaknesses in their team’s products and processes. Meanwhile, employees—who interact with these products and processes daily—may have critical insights that could help navigate uncertainty. The authors recommend targeted actions at three levels. At the organizational level, companies should foster a mindset of proactively analyzing even the smallest errors. At the leadership level, managers should prepare employees for uncertain situations and provide them with the skills needed to recognize and respond to threats. Finally, employees themselves should be enabled to challenge leadership when necessary.
Threats to organizations take two distinct forms: clear and ambiguous. Clear threats are obvious and immediate. Imagine a chemical plant detecting a dangerous gas leak through alarm systems. The problem is clear, and the response options are easy to identify: evacuate the facility and seal the leak.
Ambiguous threats, however, are harder to recognize and address. Imagine workers in the same plant noticing a faint, intermittent odor in certain areas. Some suspect a minor gas leak, while others believe it’s just residual fumes from normal operations. Sensors show no abnormal readings, and inspections find no visible issues. No immediate danger is apparent; but over time, more employees report mild symptoms and discomfort. The signals are mixed, and the best course of action is unclear.
While clear threats often lead to quick action, ambiguous ones tend to slip through the cracks. That’s why it’s important to understand how people make sense of uncertain warning signs from ambiguous threats, why they may hesitate to act, and what organizations can do to stay prepared for these kinds of threats that aren’t obvious at first—but can still cause serious harm.
Why Ambiguous Threats Are Difficult to Tackle
Our research has identified three defining characteristics of ambiguous threats. First, they are complex, with unclear or multifaceted causes that make them difficult to diagnose. Employees may struggle to determine whether the issue is a genuine problem or a one-time anomaly. Second, they are unpredictable, with uncertain consequences that make it hard to gauge their urgency. Finally, they are often unprecedented, leaving employees without past examples to guide their response.
These findings suggest that threats exist on a spectrum and truly clear threats are rare; most threats contain some level of ambiguity. This raises a critical question: How do individuals and teams respond to threats that vary in ambiguity? To answer the question, we asked 102 employees and managers from different industries how they perceived and reacted to different threats.
When a threat was clear, respondents said that there was little room for misinterpretation. Employees recognized the danger, openly discussed their preparedness, and quickly brainstormed solutions. For example, an employee at a chemical engineering company recalled a rise in safety accidents at work. The signal was clear, the cause—insufficient use of protective equipment—was obvious, and the clarity made it easy for them to identify solutions, such as redesigning safety protocols and increasing compliance.
Ambiguous threats, by contrast, often created disagreement about whether a problem exists at all. An employee at an electronics company described how early signs of a malfunctioning subcomponent were initially dismissed due to their complexity. Initial failures appeared isolated, so the team assumed they weren’t predictive of a larger trend. The issue was also unprecedented; without similar past cases to reference, they struggled to gauge its severity or determine the appropriate response. As a result, they failed to act until the problem escalated into a major crisis, ultimately costing the company a key client.
But why didn’t they at least flag the issues?
The Employee Silence Problem
To address challenges posed by ambiguous threats, employees need to speak up at the earliest signs of trouble. Yet the more ambiguous a threat, the more likely employees are to remain silent. In a survey of 436 employees and managers in an oil and gas consulting company, employees frequently encountered ambiguous signals that could indicate engineering hazards, given the high-risk nature of activities such as drilling, subsea processing, and pressure control. Time and again, we found that employees were less likely to speak up as the ambiguity of these signals increased.
We followed up with a series of psychological experiments with 1,193 employees across various industries. In one experiment, participants took part in a realistic simulation as members of a product R&D team developing a new cosmetic product. During the beta testing phase, we introduced an ambiguous threat: Customers reported mild and unclear symptoms, such as minor skin irritation, that could either be benign or indicate a serious health risk. We found that under such ambiguity, employees were more likely to defer to leadership: Rather than analyzing the problem themselves or voicing concerns, they expected their manager to handle the situation.
Why does this happen? One likely explanation is cognitive overload. Employees juggle multiple responsibilities, and ambiguous threats require significant mental effort to assess. As a result, they may shift their focus to more manageable tasks. Additionally, traditional workplace structures reinforce the assumption that decision-making is a leadership responsibility, while employees are expected to execute rather than question. Thus, by relying on leaders to make sense of the threat, employees offload the burden of grappling with ambiguity themselves.
This reliance is problematic because even the most capable leaders may overlook ambiguous threats or misjudge weaknesses in their team’s products and processes. Meanwhile, employees—who interact with these products and processes daily—may have critical insights that could help navigate uncertainty. Thus, our findings indicate that, ironically, in the very situations where employee engagement is most needed, they withdraw, leaving organizations vulnerable at precisely the wrong moment.
How Companies can Encourage Employee Vigilance
Since ambiguous threats emerge without clear warning signs and employees often rely on leadership to handle them, how can organizations encourage employees to stay alert and engaged? We recommend targeted actions at three levels: organizations, leaders, and employees.
Organizations: Create a culture of vigilance.
Companies can successfully address the challenge of ambiguous threats by fostering a culture of “preoccupation with failure”—a mindset of proactively analyzing even the smallest errors. In our interviews, employees emphasized the importance of this mindset, noting that they should have taken more time to assess risks thoroughly. Toyota is a leader in this approach. Its andon system—a visual alert board triggered when workers pull a cord or press a button upon detecting a problem at their station—empowers employees to halt production at the first sign of any problem. Rather than seeing it as a disruption, the company treats it as a responsibility, reinforcing a culture where early warnings are valued. By encouraging employees to analyze near-misses, stay vigilant even in stable conditions, and speak up, organizations can catch risks before they escalate.
Leaders: Train employees to scan for threats.
Leaders play a crucial role in preparing employees for uncertain situations and providing them with the skills needed to recognize and respond to threats. Respondents in our interviews highlighted how structured testing—systematic assessments like simulations, stress tests, or controlled drills designed to assess vulnerabilities and preparedness of the current system—could have helped prevent failure in their organizations. Netflix takes this concept further with Chaos Engineering, where it deliberately introduces system failures to test resilience. Their Simian Army tools, particularly Chaos Monkey, randomly disrupt systems, training employees to detect vulnerabilities and discuss appropriate responses. By institutionalizing such training, companies equip employees with real-time threat detection skills.
Employees: Challenge leadership when it matters.
Employees themselves also play a role in addressing ambiguous threats by challenging leadership when necessary. Several respondents in our interviews regretted not pushing back on their managers when they suspected an issue, admitting that they should have insisted on further investigation. NVIDIA encourages this mindset in their employees by emphasizing “intellectual honesty”—the ability to call a spade a spade without hesitation. Employees are expected to speak up, challenge decisions, and propose changes without fear of backlash. This approach has kept NVIDIA at the forefront of innovation, as it quickly pivots based on employee insights when projects fail to gain traction.
• • •
Organizations that thrive in uncertain environments do not wait for clarity; they actively seek out and act on even the faintest signals of trouble. The key is ensuring vigilance is not confined to leadership but shared across all levels. By fostering a culture of questioning, anticipating risks, and acting early, companies can transform ambiguous threats from a liability into a competitive advantage. In a world where disruption is inevitable, the organizations that proactively identify risks—rather than react to crises—will be the ones that stay ahead.
Why Employees Stay Silent When They See Warning Signs of a Problem
Why Employees Stay Silent When They See Warning Signs of a Problem
Summary.
To address challenges posed by ambiguous threats, employees need to speak up at the earliest signs of trouble. Yet research shows that the more ambiguous a threat, the more likely employees are to remain silent. Why does it happen? The likely explanation is cognitive overload. Employees juggle multiple responsibilities, and ambiguous threats require significant mental effort to assess. As a result, they may shift their focus to more manageable tasks. Additionally, traditional workplace structures reinforce the assumption that decision-making is a leadership responsibility, while employees are expected to execute rather than question. Thus, by relying on leaders to make sense of the threat, employees offload the burden of grappling with ambiguity themselves. This reliance is problematic because even the most capable leaders may overlook ambiguous threats or misjudge weaknesses in their team’s products and processes. Meanwhile, employees—who interact with these products and processes daily—may have critical insights that could help navigate uncertainty. The authors recommend targeted actions at three levels. At the organizational level, companies should foster a mindset of proactively analyzing even the smallest errors. At the leadership level, managers should prepare employees for uncertain situations and provide them with the skills needed to recognize and respond to threats. Finally, employees themselves should be enabled to challenge leadership when necessary.
Threats to organizations take two distinct forms: clear and ambiguous. Clear threats are obvious and immediate. Imagine a chemical plant detecting a dangerous gas leak through alarm systems. The problem is clear, and the response options are easy to identify: evacuate the facility and seal the leak.
Ambiguous threats, however, are harder to recognize and address. Imagine workers in the same plant noticing a faint, intermittent odor in certain areas. Some suspect a minor gas leak, while others believe it’s just residual fumes from normal operations. Sensors show no abnormal readings, and inspections find no visible issues. No immediate danger is apparent; but over time, more employees report mild symptoms and discomfort. The signals are mixed, and the best course of action is unclear.
While clear threats often lead to quick action, ambiguous ones tend to slip through the cracks. That’s why it’s important to understand how people make sense of uncertain warning signs from ambiguous threats, why they may hesitate to act, and what organizations can do to stay prepared for these kinds of threats that aren’t obvious at first—but can still cause serious harm.
Why Ambiguous Threats Are Difficult to Tackle
Our research has identified three defining characteristics of ambiguous threats. First, they are complex, with unclear or multifaceted causes that make them difficult to diagnose. Employees may struggle to determine whether the issue is a genuine problem or a one-time anomaly. Second, they are unpredictable, with uncertain consequences that make it hard to gauge their urgency. Finally, they are often unprecedented, leaving employees without past examples to guide their response.
These findings suggest that threats exist on a spectrum and truly clear threats are rare; most threats contain some level of ambiguity. This raises a critical question: How do individuals and teams respond to threats that vary in ambiguity? To answer the question, we asked 102 employees and managers from different industries how they perceived and reacted to different threats.
When a threat was clear, respondents said that there was little room for misinterpretation. Employees recognized the danger, openly discussed their preparedness, and quickly brainstormed solutions. For example, an employee at a chemical engineering company recalled a rise in safety accidents at work. The signal was clear, the cause—insufficient use of protective equipment—was obvious, and the clarity made it easy for them to identify solutions, such as redesigning safety protocols and increasing compliance.
Ambiguous threats, by contrast, often created disagreement about whether a problem exists at all. An employee at an electronics company described how early signs of a malfunctioning subcomponent were initially dismissed due to their complexity. Initial failures appeared isolated, so the team assumed they weren’t predictive of a larger trend. The issue was also unprecedented; without similar past cases to reference, they struggled to gauge its severity or determine the appropriate response. As a result, they failed to act until the problem escalated into a major crisis, ultimately costing the company a key client.
But why didn’t they at least flag the issues?
The Employee Silence Problem
To address challenges posed by ambiguous threats, employees need to speak up at the earliest signs of trouble. Yet the more ambiguous a threat, the more likely employees are to remain silent. In a survey of 436 employees and managers in an oil and gas consulting company, employees frequently encountered ambiguous signals that could indicate engineering hazards, given the high-risk nature of activities such as drilling, subsea processing, and pressure control. Time and again, we found that employees were less likely to speak up as the ambiguity of these signals increased.
We followed up with a series of psychological experiments with 1,193 employees across various industries. In one experiment, participants took part in a realistic simulation as members of a product R&D team developing a new cosmetic product. During the beta testing phase, we introduced an ambiguous threat: Customers reported mild and unclear symptoms, such as minor skin irritation, that could either be benign or indicate a serious health risk. We found that under such ambiguity, employees were more likely to defer to leadership: Rather than analyzing the problem themselves or voicing concerns, they expected their manager to handle the situation.
Why does this happen? One likely explanation is cognitive overload. Employees juggle multiple responsibilities, and ambiguous threats require significant mental effort to assess. As a result, they may shift their focus to more manageable tasks. Additionally, traditional workplace structures reinforce the assumption that decision-making is a leadership responsibility, while employees are expected to execute rather than question. Thus, by relying on leaders to make sense of the threat, employees offload the burden of grappling with ambiguity themselves.
This reliance is problematic because even the most capable leaders may overlook ambiguous threats or misjudge weaknesses in their team’s products and processes. Meanwhile, employees—who interact with these products and processes daily—may have critical insights that could help navigate uncertainty. Thus, our findings indicate that, ironically, in the very situations where employee engagement is most needed, they withdraw, leaving organizations vulnerable at precisely the wrong moment.
How Companies can Encourage Employee Vigilance
Since ambiguous threats emerge without clear warning signs and employees often rely on leadership to handle them, how can organizations encourage employees to stay alert and engaged? We recommend targeted actions at three levels: organizations, leaders, and employees.
Organizations: Create a culture of vigilance.
Companies can successfully address the challenge of ambiguous threats by fostering a culture of “preoccupation with failure”—a mindset of proactively analyzing even the smallest errors. In our interviews, employees emphasized the importance of this mindset, noting that they should have taken more time to assess risks thoroughly. Toyota is a leader in this approach. Its andon system—a visual alert board triggered when workers pull a cord or press a button upon detecting a problem at their station—empowers employees to halt production at the first sign of any problem. Rather than seeing it as a disruption, the company treats it as a responsibility, reinforcing a culture where early warnings are valued. By encouraging employees to analyze near-misses, stay vigilant even in stable conditions, and speak up, organizations can catch risks before they escalate.
Leaders: Train employees to scan for threats.
Leaders play a crucial role in preparing employees for uncertain situations and providing them with the skills needed to recognize and respond to threats. Respondents in our interviews highlighted how structured testing—systematic assessments like simulations, stress tests, or controlled drills designed to assess vulnerabilities and preparedness of the current system—could have helped prevent failure in their organizations. Netflix takes this concept further with Chaos Engineering, where it deliberately introduces system failures to test resilience. Their Simian Army tools, particularly Chaos Monkey, randomly disrupt systems, training employees to detect vulnerabilities and discuss appropriate responses. By institutionalizing such training, companies equip employees with real-time threat detection skills.
Employees: Challenge leadership when it matters.
Employees themselves also play a role in addressing ambiguous threats by challenging leadership when necessary. Several respondents in our interviews regretted not pushing back on their managers when they suspected an issue, admitting that they should have insisted on further investigation. NVIDIA encourages this mindset in their employees by emphasizing “intellectual honesty”—the ability to call a spade a spade without hesitation. Employees are expected to speak up, challenge decisions, and propose changes without fear of backlash. This approach has kept NVIDIA at the forefront of innovation, as it quickly pivots based on employee insights when projects fail to gain traction.
• • •
Organizations that thrive in uncertain environments do not wait for clarity; they actively seek out and act on even the faintest signals of trouble. The key is ensuring vigilance is not confined to leadership but shared across all levels. By fostering a culture of questioning, anticipating risks, and acting early, companies can transform ambiguous threats from a liability into a competitive advantage. In a world where disruption is inevitable, the organizations that proactively identify risks—rather than react to crises—will be the ones that stay ahead.
Why Employees Stay Silent When They See Warning Signs of a Problem
