Why You Don't Speak Up at Work (And How to Change That) | Ep 12

In one interview study, 34 of 40 professionals said they had stayed silent about a concern at work. So the silence on that call is normal in its shape. It also takes more than one form, and each form needs different responses. 1. Staying silent in the room, and sending sympathy afterwards. 2. Staying out of it, fewer invitations, slower replies, keeping your distance from the target.

3. Joining in, laughing along or deciding she had it coming. 4. Going along with the instruction, when the person behaving badly is senior and asks you to do something. 5. Researchers called the wider pattern the bystander effect, or employee silence. Both describe what people do in that situation. Neither describes a type of person, and that distinction runs through everything that follows.

And it's not free for the people watching. 5. A review of 24 studies from 13 countries linked witnessing bullying at work to poorer mental health, and a stronger desire to leave. In my experience, the first people to leave the room like that are rarely the target. They're the observers with other options.

5. Before any of that's useful, here are four things that can look like going along, but are actually something else. The first is a colleague who helped quietly and invisibly. A study of bystanders to bullying described 13 different roles they take, including quiet ones that protect the target out of sight.

For example, the person who said nothing on the call, but may have rung the director's boss that afternoon. The second is a colleague for whom speaking costs far more than it would cost you. A junior analyst, someone on a temporary contract, someone already treated as an outsider. The third is a colleague who knows more than you do.

A complaint may already be in progress, or the target may have asked people not to step in. And the fourth is the director himself. His behaviour can be recorded and acted on. Whether it reflects any trait or psychological condition, he's worked for a qualified clinician who has assessed him, not for a colleague on a video call.

None of these make the silence right. They make it worth considering before you jump to judgement. However, The first reason is the one that makes going along feel normal. Each person assumes the others are less bothered than they are and waits for someone better placed to act first. You've probably heard of the bystander effect.

People help less when others are present, partly because responsibility feels shared. A pooling of more than 7,700 participants confirmed it and found it weaker when the bystanders knew each other, like work colleagues do. The second half is closer to the boardroom. In a large study of company directors, those on struggling boards underestimated how far their fellow directors shared their doubts about strategy, so they stayed quiet and the strategy didn't change.

Researchers call this pluralistic ignorance. Most people privately reject something while each believes the other accepts it. The person next to you on the call is more likely to agree with you than their silence suggests, because their silence comes from the same assumption about you. And here's a surprise.

When researchers watched CCTV footage of real public conflicts in three countries, someone stepped in to help in nine conflicts out of ten, and more unlookless made help more likely, not less. That was on the streets, though, not in offices. In the case of the three people who messaged the analyst, they weren't indifferent.

Each was waiting for a signal that nobody gave. Okay. The second reason surprises people. A lot of silence at work is learned, and what's learned is that speaking up often changes nothing. In that interview study, a quarter of people said they stayed silent because speaking would make no difference, slightly more than said they feared retaliation.

In two experiments with 654 people, those shown repeatedly that the voice changed nothing stopped speaking up. The researchers call it learned helplessness, simply announcing that the company value speaking up doesn't address a problem, because the problem was never about safety. The third reason is cost, and the fear isn't irrational.

In a field study and two experiments, managers rated employees who challenged the way things were done as worse performers. But the cost isn't shared evenly. Across three studies, observers with more power were more likely to step in, because they felt more responsible. Look at the call again. The sales manager reports to the director, and asking him to speak first is asking the person with most to lose.

The finance business partner works with the director every week, and he relies on her numbers. She's the person for whom speaking costs least. She also said nothing. She's the person with The fourth reason is the most corrosive because it lets people get away with a clear conscience. Observers don't simply see mistreatment, they read it.

When co-workers believed a colleague deserved hostile treatment from the boss, they tended to feel content and to exclude that colleague. When they believed it was undeserved, they felt angry and supported them. The type of mistreatment changes the reading. In a study of 578 people, bystanders were least likely to support a target when the bullying was about their work.

Calling a forecast a fantasy is about work. She should have read the client plan, the room tells itself, and a public humiliation becomes a performance conversation, which is none of their business. Psychologists call these justifications moral disengagement, switching off your own moral standards to suit a particular situation.

From my own experience, and this is judgment rather than a tested finding, the giveaway is one small word. It was harsh, but the forecast was wrong. He's abrasive, but he gets results. The half before the but is the honest reaction. The half after it is the permission to stay out. That's why each Monday morning nobody speaks out.

The permission gets easier to give, because speaking up now means admitting it was wrong last week and the week before. The The fifth reason is the one leaders control and much of it comes from design choices nobody thinks of as behaviour related Across four studies, one of them covering more than 3,000 workers in 113 organisations people who saw their organisation as having switched off its own moral concern were more likely to stay silent Rewards matter too In another four studies, people were less likely to report a teammate's unethical behaviour when rewards were team based because they felt less moral anger about it If the sales team is paid on a pooled target the director's results are their results What an organisation does closes gaps that what it says cannot In studies of how people respond to harassment at work where the organisation showed strong intolerance men and women alike stepped in more and stayed silent less So the eight people on the call are reading a rule nobody wrote down If this director has behaved like this before and kept his standing or the last complaint led to a quiet word and nothing else the room has learned the rule In my experience, people read it from who gets promoted who gets moved sideways after a complaint and whether the senior person present lets a remark pass they What breaks this cycle?

The answer is older than any of this and smaller than people expect. In a version of the famous obedience experiments, two people working alongside the participant refused to continue. Only 4 of 40 participants continued to the end against 26 of 40 when nobody refused. When the two people obeyed instead, almost nothing changed.

29 out of 40 carried on. This suggests one refusal on its own may not be enough. In a partial replication of this experiment decades later, 70 adults who saw a single individual refuse obeyed as often as those who saw nobody refuse. Put together, what breaks the pattern isn't a lone hero. It's seeing more than one person stand up.

The first makes refusal visible. The second makes it okay. Now the gap. Evidence of this is lacking. Nobody has tested this in a meeting at work. These are lab and street findings, so treat them as the best explanation we currently have. But it changes the question. Not who's brave enough, but which two people will agree beforehand.

Thank you. Thank you. So, now I Here's what you can actually do. Four moves if you're in the room and three if you run the meeting. As usual I'll tell you how well evidenced each one is as we go. The first is judgement from practice. If you've watched the same thing happen more than once, decide before the next meeting what you'll do and the words you'll use.

Everything we've covered impacts a few seconds after the remark and the decision made in the moment is made under the room's rules. The second move, also practice, is to make a subtle move that interrupts rather than direct confrontation. Redirect. Let's come back to that account once we have the latest figures.

Take it offline. I've been through her numbers. I'll pick up with you after. Or ask a neutral question that slows the moment such as what would you need to be comfortable that figure. None of those accuses anyone. None of them needs courage and each tells a room that somebody noticed. One test for your words.

Could you say them in the tone you would use to correct a factual error? If yes, the room can follow you. are slightly The third move is the one the evidence points straight at and it's the one people forget. Find the second person before the meeting. This is judgement from practice built on those lab findings.

Talk to one colleague who you think shares your view. Agree that if one of you speaks, the other backs it up within seconds. In the boardroom you'll find they were more concerned than you assumed. Here's what that looks like for the business partner. On Sunday evening she rings the analyst's peer. Two minutes.

If he starts again, I'll redirect and I need you to back me up. If he doesn't start, we'll lose nothing. Monday, third slide, it starts. She says she's been through the figures with the analyst, they look reasonable, and she'll pick up the largest account with him afterwards. Her colleague says agreed, the meeting moves on.

Nobody was humiliated, nobody made a speech, but the room watched two people decline to go along, and every Monday after that is different. That afternoon she checks in with the analyst, which is the next move. We The fourth move is evidence-based. If you're the most senior person in the room after the person behaving badly, you're the one for whom speaking costs least, and observers with more power are more likely to step in.

The others are most likely waiting for you. From experience, use that standing quietly, redirecting the room, then talk to the director privately about behaviour and its effect on the work, and afterwards ask the target what she wants before acting for her. Some people want it raised formally, some want it handled quietly, and doing what they want is part of the help.

A review of the research found that targets benefit when somebody steps in. And three things I wouldn't do. I wouldn't join the she-deserved-it crowd. If you find yourself leaning that way, ask why. I wouldn't tell her to toughen up. It moves the responsibility to the person least responsible. And I wouldn't wait for everybody to agree.

You need one other person, not a consensus. Waiting for a consensus is exactly why the room stays silent. Waiting Now if you run the room or the organisation, these are your three moves Watch what happens to the first person who speaks, because everybody else is watching too If they're thanked and nothing changes, the futility evidence says fewer people will speak next time Close the loop visibly, say what was done or why nothing could be done within a reasonable time Making tolerance concrete, value statements build the intention to report wrongdoing But whether people actually report wrongdoing depends on accountability systems and protection against retaliation Concrete means a route for concerns that doesn't run through the person being complained about And check what your rewards teach In practice, pooled targets quietly raise the price of objecting to the person who delivers the most of the reward What about training?

Be sceptical about training on its own In a randomised test, 35 anaesthetists took a speaking up workshop and 36 did not There was no reliable difference in whether they spoke up A review of 14 workplace studies found that practice workshops can help But almost none measured what happened months later Training gives people words and may expand understanding It does little unless the people in the room are prepared to change Just a little Here's what this episode doesn't promote.

It doesn't suggest who in the room is a coward, or how to characterise the director. The research evidence is built from groups and experiments. Behavioural patterns across thousands of people don't describe the person sitting next to you on the conference call. Some of the people who sat silent may have helped in ways you couldn't see.

This episode gives you a way to think about that silence, and some approaches to deal with those situations. And the uncomfortable part, in my experience, the person for whom speaking costs least is often the one who waits for somebody else to stand up. Next time, what happens to the people who do speak up, and what the evidence says about protecting them.

Thank you. Thank The rent version of this episode is on my website with every source and every limitation the worked example of that Monday call step by step and things we don't know If you found this episode interesting please like and subscribe to my channel It takes a lot of effort to produce these videos and without that feedback the YouTube algorithm won't find the audience for this content And in the comments tell me what happened in your last team meeting Did somebody speak up?

What happened next? If one thing survives the week make it this Find the second person to back you up before the meeting I'm Nick Kecker Thank you for watching and I'll see you next time Observe and act differently Number two And next time f