Employees often stay silent on ambiguous threats: Harvard study
MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES — A recent Harvard Business Review study reveals that employees are far less likely to speak up when they encounter ambiguous warning signs of trouble at work.
Clear threats, such as a blaring alarm signaling a gas leak, prompt immediate action. However, ambiguous threats like inconsistent performance issues or subtle process failures often go unreported, not because employees don’t care, but because they’re overwhelmed or unsure.
“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,” the researchers noted.
The study found that as the ambiguity of a threat increases, employees are more likely to remain silent, expecting leaders to handle the situation.
When silence turns costly
Through a series of experiments involving 1,193 employees, Harvard researchers found that the more ambiguous the threat, the less likely it was to be flagged. In one case study, a malfunctioning electronics component caused subtle issues—but because the signs were complex and unprecedented, employees hesitated. The delay in escalation eventually cost the company a major client.
Even in high-risk industries, like oil and gas, a survey of 436 employees showed that vague signs—such as unusual vibrations or inconsistent readings—often went unreported. “The clearer the threat, the quicker the response,” the researchers found. But when signals were weak or debatable, workers stayed quiet.
Why ambiguous threats are overlooked
The research identifies three main reasons why ambiguous threats are difficult to tackle:
- Complexity: Ambiguous threats often have unclear or multifaceted causes, making them hard to diagnose.
- Unpredictability: The consequences are uncertain, so employees struggle to gauge urgency.
- Lack of Precedent: Without past examples, employees have little guidance on how to respond.
Traditional workplace structures also play a role. Employees are conditioned to see decision-making as a leadership responsibility, so they defer to managers rather than raising concerns themselves.
This dynamic is problematic, as even capable leaders can overlook subtle warning signs that employees—who interact with processes daily—might notice first.
Building a culture of vigilance
The researchers propose a three-tiered solution: change the culture, train the managers, and empower the employees.
At the organizational level, companies must create a “preoccupation with failure” mindset. Toyota, for instance, encourages line workers to stop production at the first sign of an issue. Small alerts, not just full-blown failures, are taken seriously.
At the leadership level, managers should prepare staff for uncertainty through stress testing, simulations, and open feedback channels. Netflix’s “Chaos Monkey,” which randomly disrupts services to test resilience, is a prime example of training teams to think proactively.
At the employee level, companies should foster a culture of intellectual honesty. At NVIDIA, employees are expected to speak up and challenge leadership without fear of backlash—something the study found lacking in most traditional environments.
The research concludes that organizations thriving in uncertain environments do not wait for clarity. Instead, they act on even faint signals of trouble. “The key is ensuring vigilance is not confined to leadership but shared across all levels,” the authors wrote.
