Available March 26, 2026

Episode 019: Structural Silence – Why Organizations Train People Not To Speak

DURATION: 32 minutes
HOST: Kevin Novak
SHOW: The Human Factor Podcast

COLD OPEN

A compliance director at a mid-size healthcare company knew about a data vulnerability for nearly four months before anyone formally raised it. She was not the only one who knew. At least three other department leads had flagged it informally in one-on-one conversations. None of them brought it up in the cross-functional meetings where it should have been discussed. When the breach finally occurred, the executive team was stunned. The compliance director was not. She told us, “I knew it was coming. We all did. But the cultural dynamics of our organization made it clear that raising it would create more problems for each of us than the breach itself.”

Wow! That story should disturb every leader listening to this right now. Not because of the breach, but because of what it reveals about how organizations actually function. Four people knew. None of them spoke. And every one of them made a rational calculation that staying silent was safer than telling the truth.

I’m Kevin Novak, CEO of 2040 Digital, Professor at the University of Maryland, and author of The Truth About Transformation: Leading in the Age of AI, Uncertainty and Human Complexity along with the Ideas and Innovations weekly newsletter.

Welcome to The Human Factor Podcast. The show that explores the intersection of humanity, technology, and transformation along with the psychology behind transformation success.

Today I’m going solo for this episode because this topic demands that we sit with it carefully. We’re exploring structural silence, the invisible system that trains people not to speak, and why it may be the single most dangerous force operating inside your organization right now. And by the end of this episode, you’re going to understand something that changes how you see every quiet room you walk into: silence is not the problem. It is the signal.

INTRODUCTION

This is Season 2, Episode 19, and if you’ve been following this season, today’s episode is going to connect directly to everything we’ve built so far. In the first Episode of this season, we explored the identity crisis that transformation triggers. In the second Episode with Elizabeth Stewart, we examined emotional contagion and how anxiety spreads through organizations. In the third episode, I unpacked the structural traps of middle management. In the fourth episode, we looked at algorithmic mirrors and how AI reflects existing cultural patterns. And in last week’s episode, with James Eliott, we explored the organizational immune system, how culture deploys antibodies to attack what it doesn’t recognize. My main takeaways from talking with Jim were how he continuously stressed the need to be honest with his company’s workforce, be forthright, open to learning what he doesn’t know, and how he expressed the importance of the human factor.

Today, we’re looking at something that runs counter to the sage advice Jim shared last week. It is one of the most powerful antibodies in the organizational immune system’s arsenal: silence. Not the kind of silence that comes from having nothing to say. The kind that comes from having learned, through years of subtle reinforcement, that saying something carries more risk than staying quiet.

Every organization says it wants candor. In leadership meetings, town halls, and strategy sessions, the message is consistent: “We want open dialogue,” “Speak up if you see something,” “Challenge assumptions.” There is a communicated permission to exercise critical thinking and to be open and honest, without fear of retaliation. But in reality, there is often fallout.

The data on this is striking, and it should concern every leader listening. According to the Institute of Business Ethics 2024 Ethics at Work Survey, which surveyed 12,000 employees across 16 countries, one in three employees who knew about workplace misconduct did not report it. Among those who cited reasons for staying silent, 34 percent said they feared jeopardizing their job, and another 34 percent doubted corrective action would be taken.

And perhaps most troubling, among the two-thirds who did speak up, nearly half reported facing personal disadvantage or retaliation from their coworkers, supervisors, and leadership as a result. Let that land for a moment. The people who did the right thing were punished for it.

Separate U.S. research found that 43 percent of workers fear retaliation if they speak up about concerns at work. An ISS commissioned survey of more than 4,500 employees across five countries found that 51 percent felt unable to share their opinions freely at work. Research cited widely across organizational psychology estimates that approximately 70 percent of employees are afraid to speak up due to fear of retribution.

That is not a communication problem.

That is a system operating exactly as it was designed to operate.

And understanding how that system works is what today’s episode is about.

I want you to think about something as we go through this.

Think about your last leadership meeting.

Think about the room.

Now ask yourself: was that silence agreement, or was it something else entirely?

SEGMENT 1: THE SCIENCE OF SILENCE

Why Silence Is Rational Behavior

Let me start with something that might challenge how you think about this. In most organizations, silence is not a failure of individual courage. It is a learned and rational behavior, trained into the workforce through years of subtle reinforcement. And the science behind this is well established.

Human beings are remarkably sensitive to social cues. We constantly scan our environments, consciously and unconsciously, for signals about what is safe to say, what is risky to question, and when it is wiser to remain quiet. These judgments often happen quickly and are mostly occurring in our subconscious, long before a hand is raised or an email is drafted.

Amy Edmondson at Harvard Business School, whose research brought the concept of psychological safety into mainstream management thinking and whose work I reference often across this podcast and in my writing, found that employees frequently withhold ideas, questions, or concerns even when they believe speaking up would benefit the organization. The reason is not apathy or indifference. It is risk assessment.

People ask themselves simple but powerful questions:

Will speaking up make me look uninformed?

Will I be perceived as difficult?

Will this harm my relationship with someone who controls my future?

When the answers feel uncertain, silence becomes the default.

A 2025 study published in Scientific Reports confirmed this dynamic, finding that employees may hesitate to engage in what researchers call “prohibitive voice” not because it lacks value, but because it carries significant interpersonal and political risks, including managerial retaliation, strained workplace relationships, and exclusion from important decision-making processes.

Now here’s where this connects directly to what we discussed in the last episode with James Eliott. In Episode 5, we talked about how the organizational immune system deploys cultural antibodies to neutralize change. One of those antibody types was narrative neutralization, where the culture generates stories about why change won’t work here. But structural silence is even more fundamental than that. Silence prevents the narratives that could challenge the status quo from ever entering the conversation in the first place. The immune system doesn’t just attack foreign ideas. It trains people not to introduce them.

And this training happens through what I call the quiet curriculum.

SEGMENT 2: THE QUIET CURRICULUM

How Organizations Teach People to Stay Silent

Most organizations do not explicitly tell employees to remain silent. The lesson is rarely written in a handbook. Instead, people learn through experience.

A junior employee raises a concern in a meeting and is told, politely but firmly, that “this isn’t the right forum.” A project manager challenges a timeline and is labeled as “not being a team player.” A senior leader reacts defensively when questioned, signaling that dissent carries consequences. None of these moments appears dramatic on its own. They may even seem reasonable in context. Something we have all practiced from time to time as our minds make the situational assessment of what feels right or what seems completely off base.

But the organization remembers. And more importantly, the people in the organization remember.

 Employees observe who receives recognition and who receives subtle correction. They watch how leaders respond when assumptions are challenged. They notice which voices carry influence and power, and which ones disappear from future meetings. Over time, a pattern emerges. Certain perspectives are welcome. Others are tolerated. Some are quietly discouraged.

This pattern becomes what sociologist Chris Argyris described as an organization’s “theory-in-use”: the unwritten rules governing behavior, which are often very different from the values printed in the annual report. If you recall from Episode 18, Edgar Schein described something very similar with his concept of basic underlying assumptions, which are those deeply embedded beliefs that are so ingrained that people can’t even articulate them. The quiet curriculum is the mechanism through which those assumptions get transmitted. It’s how new employees learn which assumptions they need to adopt to survive and advance.

The official message may encourage candor. The lived experience quietly rewards restraint. And the gap between the need to belong and expressing one’s voice is a direct reflection of the silent curriculum at work.

This connects directly to the identity crisis we explored in the first Episode of this season. Speaking up doesn’t just risk professional consequences. It risks social identity. When the quiet curriculum teaches you that your value in the organization is tied to being perceived as a team player, as someone who doesn’t make waves, then voicing dissent becomes an identity threat. You’re not just risking a project assignment or a performance review. You’re risking your sense of belonging. And as we discussed in that episode, identity protection is one of the most powerful motivators in human behavior.

There’s also a generational dimension to this that the data reveals. The IBE’s 2024 research found that younger employees, at 52 percent, are significantly more likely to experience retaliation after raising concerns about misconduct than their older colleagues at 43 percent, or those 55 and over at 33 percent. These generational differences suggest that institutional memory operates in layers. Younger workers may be more willing to test the system, but they are also paying a higher price for doing so, which in turn shapes the silence patterns of the generation that follows them.

So let me ask leaders a direct question: if 52 percent of your youngest employees are being punished for speaking up, and this is the generation that fundamentally needs to make an impact to stay engaged, how long do you think they’re going to stay?

SEGMENT 3: THE POWER GRADIENT

How Hierarchy Enforces Silence

Silence is also shaped by power. Organizations are hierarchical systems. Authority, resources, and career advancement are unevenly distributed. That imbalance inevitably influences how people communicate and what they choose to say.

Research in aviation safety provides a vivid and well-documented example. Investigations into airline accidents in the 1970s and 1980s revealed that copilots often noticed errors made by captains but hesitated to challenge them directly. The difference in status created a communication barrier that sometimes proved catastrophic. This discovery eventually led to the development of Crew Resource Management, a training approach designed to encourage more open communication across hierarchical boundaries. The term was coined in 1979 by NASA psychologist John Lauber, and while it retained a command hierarchy, the concept was intended to foster a less authoritarian culture in which those with less positional authority were encouraged to question those with more of it when they observed mistakes being made.

The same dynamic played out tragically in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster of 1986. Engineers at NASA and Morton Thiokol, the company that manufactured the shuttle’s solid rocket boosters, had raised concerns about launching in cold weather. They believed the O-ring seals could be compromised at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit. But during a meeting the night before the launch, NASA managers challenged those safety concerns. After a 30-minute offline caucus, Morton Thiokol’s senior management overruled their own engineers and gave the launch a go-ahead. The shuttle exploded 73 seconds after liftoff, killing all seven crew members. The Rogers Commission, which investigated the disaster, concluded that the organizational culture and decision-making process had contributed directly to the tragedy. Dissenting voices were present. They were simply overridden by the hierarchy.

But the lesson extends far beyond aviation and aerospace. In any organization, the greater the power distance between individuals, the more difficult it becomes to question authority.

Employees quickly learn which leaders welcome challenge and which ones interpret it as insubordination.

The result is predictable.

Information flows upward selectively.

Risks are softened.

Concerns are framed cautiously or not raised at all.

Silence becomes a strategy for navigating hierarchy.

And this is where the structural traps we discussed in Episode 16 become directly relevant. Middle managers sit at the intersection of two power gradients, pressure from above and responsibility for those below, and the structural silence dynamic puts them in an impossible position. They see the problems that frontline employees see, but they also understand the political cost of escalating those problems. So they filter. They soften. They translate uncomfortable truths into palatable summaries. And by the time information reaches the executive suite, the signal has been diluted to the point where it no longer triggers action.

History shapes this behavior too. Organizations and their workforces carry memory. Employees remember how dissent was treated in the past, even when new leadership is in place.

A department that once punished failure may remain risk-averse years later.

A company that experienced layoffs following strategic disagreement may see employees avoid challenging senior leaders long after the event.

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his colleagues demonstrated that people are far more sensitive to potential losses than equivalent gains. In organizational settings, the perceived loss of reputation, opportunity, or job security can easily outweigh the abstract gain of contributing to better decisions.

Even when leadership changes and seeks to create a new energy and direction, the organization’s cultural memory remains solidly in place. I’d bet most of you have a memory of a mentor offering you counsel to stay quiet or experience the consequences. I have a few of those memories myself from early in my career.

Now, stay with me here, because in a few minutes I’m going to share the data on what structural silence actually costs organizations, and the numbers are going to challenge everything you think you know about employee engagement.

SEGMENT 4: THE LEADERSHIP ILLUSION AND THE COST OF SILENCE

When Quiet Rooms Aren’t Aligned Rooms

Think about the last project that surprised your leadership team when it failed. I’d bet someone in that organization saw it coming. They just didn’t say anything. And that’s the most dangerous aspect of structural silence: it creates the illusion of consensus. And this is where leaders are the most vulnerable.

In meetings, a lack of dissent may appear to signal agreement. A quiet room can feel like alignment. Projects may proceed smoothly until unexpected problems surface months later.

From the leader’s perspective, everything looked fine. But the absence of disagreement does not always mean the absence of concern. Often, it means people have learned that expressing concern is unproductive.

Think about the connection to Episode 17 on algorithmic mirrors. We discussed how AI systems reflect and amplify existing cultural patterns. Structural silence feeds directly into this. When the data that organizations use to make decisions is shaped by what people are willing to say rather than what they actually know, then every system built on that data inherits the bias of silence. Your analytics dashboards, your employee surveys, your project status reports, they all reflect not reality, but the filtered version of reality that silence allows through.

The broader cost is immense. A 2025 meta-analysis published in the journal Psychology and Health examined the relationship between employee silence and burnout across multiple studies and found the correlation to be statistically significant. Greater silence and a lower voice were consistently associated with higher burnout. Silence not only costs the organization information. It costs the individual their well-being. When people suppress what they know, the psychological toll accumulates quietly, contributing to disengagement, exhaustion, and eventually departure.

That is a particularly important consideration when organizations are competing to attract and retain a highly skilled workforce, even in the AI era. You’re not just losing information when silence takes hold. You’re losing people.

And here’s where the data gets really striking. According to recent McKinsey research, only 26 percent of leaders exhibit workplace behaviors that actually create a sense of psychological safety on their teams. Let me say that again. Only 26 percent.

Only 50 percent of workers say their managers create psychological safety at all. Meanwhile, 84 percent of employees identify psychological safety as one of the three things they value most in the workplace, ranking it alongside regular pay raises and flexible work.

McKinsey’s broader research on employee engagement also found that allowing employees to voice their opinions freely increases engagement by 17 percent. That is not a marginal gain. It is the kind of shift that separates organizations where strategy stalls from those where it moves.

Yet psychological safety is often misunderstood. Organizations sometimes attempt to create it through training programs, workshops, or leadership messaging. These efforts are well-intentioned but frequently insufficient. Psychological safety is not something leaders announce. It is something employees experience. Edmondson’s research consistently shows that it emerges from patterns of interaction over time. When leaders respond to questions with curiosity rather than defensiveness, people notice. When mistakes are treated as learning opportunities rather than occasions for blame, people notice. And when speaking up leads to embarrassment, dismissal, or career risk, employees notice that too. Psychological safety is not a program. It is a system output.

SEGMENT 5: BREAKING STRUCTURAL SILENCE

From Diagnosis to Action

If silence is adaptive behavior, the implication is clear. The solution is not simply to encourage individuals to speak up. It is to examine the system that makes silence rational and to change that system.

Leaders who genuinely want candor must ask difficult questions.

How do we respond when someone challenges an assumption in a meeting?

What happens to the person who raises an uncomfortable truth?

Do our performance evaluations reward constructive dissent or penalize it?

Do our feedback tools encourage genuine dialogue, or have they become another mechanism through which employees learn to stay safe?

These questions often reveal that the organization’s structure, incentives, and leadership behaviors send mixed signals. People are told to be candid. But the system quietly teaches them when not to be.

Addressing this requires more than new policies or another round of leadership training. It requires structural changes to how decisions are made, how dissent is received, and how the organization defines good performance.

First, leaders must examine their own reactions to dissent. The subtle signals they send in meetings. The way decisions are explained, debated, and revisited. It requires acknowledging that power shapes communication and deliberately creating spaces where those power dynamics are softened.

Second, and this connects to our Season 2 framework, you need to make the silence visible before you can address it. Just as we discussed, making the organizational immune system visible in Episode 18, structural silence has behavioral signatures you can track. Look at the gap between what’s discussed in one-on-one conversations versus what’s raised in group settings. Track which topics consistently avoid being raised until problems surface. Examine whether your employee surveys are capturing real sentiment or just measuring people’s comfort with the survey itself.

Third, consistency matters more than anything else. A single moment of defensiveness can erase months of trust-building. A dismissive response to one employee can become a cautionary tale repeated across the organization. Culture travels through stories. And employees remember the stories that teach them how to survive. As I shared across episodes and newsletter issues on nonverbal communication, we are more tuned into body language, facial expressions, and posture than we are to what is verbally communicated. People read the room before they read the memo.

Fourth, listen for what is not said. Organizations often focus their attention on what people say. But the more revealing signal is sometimes what people do not say. What questions go unasked?

What risks appear only after outcomes are already determined?

Which topics cause the room to grow noticeably quieter?

These moments offer clues about the invisible boundaries shaping conversation.

And fifth, measure the outcomes. The data tells us that closing this gap is achievable. Perceptyx research found that high psychological safety correlates with 72 percent greater motivation. The American Psychological Association reports that supported employees are twice as likely to avoid burnout. When you create environments where people speak not because they are told to but because experience has shown them that their voice matters, the organizational benefits compound across every dimension of performance.

CLOSING

Let me bring this full circle with the Season 2 arc. We’ve now explored six dimensions of why transformation fails at the human level. The identity crisis that change triggers at the individual level. The emotional contagion spreads anxiety through the organization. The structural traps that inadvertently block the very people tasked with driving change. The algorithmic mirrors that reflect and amplify existing patterns. The organizational immune system that deploys cultural antibodies against anything foreign. And now, structural silence, the mechanism that prevents the information needed for successful transformation from ever entering the conversation.

These six episodes form a diagnostic framework that we will continue to expand upon. If your transformation initiative is stalling or failing, the answer is somewhere in this framework. People’s identities are being threatened. Anxiety is spreading unchecked. Your structure is trapping the people who should be leading change. Your technology is reinforcing the patterns you’re trying to break. Your culture is attacking what it doesn’t recognize. And your people have learned that staying quiet is safer than speaking the truth.

The good news is that structural silence is not permanent. It is adaptive, which means it responds to changes in the environment. When the system consistently rewards candor more than caution, behavior shifts. Organizations that succeed in this work do not simply create louder conversations. They create healthier ones. People speak not because they are told to, but because experience has shown that their voice matters.

Until that shift happens, silence will continue to function exactly as it was designed to.

Silence is not the problem. It is the signal.

A signal that the system, however unintentionally, has taught people that staying quiet is safer than speaking the truth. And most organizations are still choosing to ignore what that signal is telling them.

If you found today’s episode valuable, subscribe to The Human Factor Podcast wherever you watch or listen to podcasts, and leave a rating and a comment. Share this episode with your leadership team, because understanding structural silence is the first step to breaking it.

For weekly insights about transformation psychology, organizational behavior, and the human factors that determine transformation success, subscribe to my Ideas and Innovations newsletter on 2040 Digital’s website or on Substack at 20forty.substack.com. Every week, I share practical frameworks and research on why change succeeds or fails. Today’s episode was actually built from a recent newsletter on this exact topic, so if you want to dig deeper into the research and data, that’s a great place to start.

Connect with me on LinkedIn as well. I post regularly about the psychology of transformation, and I love hearing from listeners about their own experiences with structural silence in their organizations.

Next episode, we’re going even deeper into the human side of transformation. We’re going to explore the psychological contract, the unwritten, unspoken set of mutual expectations between an employee and their organization. Every person in your organization is operating under a contract that nobody signed, nobody negotiated, and nobody can point to on paper. And your transformation just violated it. That’s Episode 20: The Broken Contract.

This is The Human Factor Podcast. I’m Kevin Novak. Thanks for watching or listening.

END OF EPISODE

🎵

Upcoming: Episode 0120: The Broken Contract – THE UNWRITTEN PROMISES YOUR TRANSFORMATION JUST VIOLATED

We’re exploring the psychological contract, the unwritten, unspoken set of mutual expectations between an employee and their organization.

Season 2 Launched on February 20, 2026

More Episodes Coming Soon

View Main Podcast Page →