Speaking Up at Work: The Price for Rocking the Boat |
Speaking up helps organizations innovate and fix errors, but fear of retaliation often keeps employees silent.
Confidence and self-efficacy increase a person's willingness to speak up.
Crucial conversations require training and psychological safety.
To speak up at work is an act of courage that just might cost you.
Such sharing may take the form of whistleblowing, defined as “the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect action” (Near & Miceli, 1986, p. 4).
However, more frequently, speaking up looks more like sharing an opinion, questioning a decision, or countering an argument. Such disclosures, according to research, when thoughtfully received, help organizations course-correct and innovate, filling the knowledge void between management and staff. Yet despite the purported benefits, these types of conversations are often shut down before the ideas take flight (Yang et al., 2025).
Who Speaks Up and Who Doesn’t
As social beings with the power to impact our environment, we form opinions and generate ideas, inward thoughts, that if projected outward, could promote positive change, yet internal and external forces may stifle sharing.
Consciously or unconsciously, our actions are influenced by implicit theories, or our established beliefs about people, places, and events. For example, two implicit theories that can mute conversations at work are that employees shouldn’t voice concerns unless they have a solution and that challenging the boss will negatively impact career trajectory (Detert and Edmondson, 2011).
Employees’ level of self-confidence and self-efficacy also influence their willingness to share. Whereas self-confidence is a more universal construct, reflecting employees’ perception of their capabilities and self-worth across domains, self-efficacy is situational and task-oriented.
The famed psychologist, Albert Bandura (1977), identified four arenas where self-efficacy is developed or influenced: Performance tasks, in which skills are practiced; vicarious experiences, wherein firsthand observations serve as models of execution and success; verbal persuasion, in the form of outside encouragement; and psychological states, such as stress, anxiety, and hopelessness.
Employees with low self-confidence are less likely to share ideas and voice consent, and those with limited self-efficacy regarding a specific topic and exchange are more likely to withdraw from the conversation as a self-preservation strategy (Tian et al., 2025; Wawersik et al., 2023). Whereas self-confidence is more complex and harder to develop, self-efficacy around voice heightens each time employees are encouraged to contribute ideas (Bandura, 1977).
Another mitigating factor that hampers some employees’ propensity to speak up is their craving for power and recognition. Such positioning charges them to practice strategic conformity, or publicly bolstering management’s agenda, not because they agree, but in hopes of being rewarded with promotions and influence. This is particularly evident in quid pro quo work cultures (Dvorak et. al., 2024).
Conversely, employees with high levels of self-confidence and self-efficacy readily speak up. These employees tend to be highly trained and accomplished experts in their field who have earned the respect and admiration of colleagues (Ahern, 2018). Confident in their expertise and committed to their speciality, they expand the conversation by sharing innovative ideas and offering counter-narratives. Possessing a high degree of moral courage, such employees readily blow the whistle on harmful, unethical, and illegal behaviors despite the threat of incurring reputational damage and the loss of professional opportunities, both of which research supports are likely consequences for disclosure (Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran, 2005; Özdemir, 2013; Perron et al., 2020).
The Cost of Rocking the Boat
Employees enjoy a range of privileges and safety nets, depending on their social, cultural, and financial positioning; thus, self-silencing is understandable. Implicit theories surrounding the dangers of rocking the boat often outweigh the desire to share, and unfortunately, the pitfalls and treachery of these suppositions are reflected in the research.
For example, employees who demonstrate a promotive voice, amplifying the leader’s agenda, are viewed as more competent and effective at their jobs and thus more likely to receive rewards and promotions. Whereas employees who use a prohibitive voice, offering innovative ideas that disrupt the status quo or counter narratives that push back on management’s decisions, are labeled as troublesome (Burris, 2012; Chamberlin et al., 2017).
When seeking endorsement for new projects, employees who rock the boat are less likely to garner support for their ideas and often receive harsher performance reviews, negatively impacting raises and opportunities for advancement (Burris, 2012). Thus, creativity is muted, and a culture of compliance ensues.
Cultures that Promote Employee Voice and Innovation
Employees who feel valued by their organization, empowered to do meaningful work, and view their institutional culture as psychologically safe are more likely to thoughtfully contribute their ideas and talents, collectively growing a stronger and more productive work culture (Grant, 2021; McCausland, 2023)
Amy Edmondson (2019), a Harvard Business School professor, defines psychological safety as “a climate in which people are comfortable expressing and being themselves. More specifically, when people have psychological safety at work, they feel comfortable sharing concerns and mistakes without fear of embarrassment or retribution. They are confident that they can speak up and won't be humiliated, ignored, or blamed.”
Creating a psychologically safe culture that encourages employees to share new ideas, offer counter narratives, voice dissent, and speak up against unethical, harmful, or illegal behavior requires a multifaceted approach.
First, managers must be provided with training and support on how to engage in crucial conversations, defined as “a discussion between two or more people in which they hold (1) opposing opinions about a (2) high-stakes issue and where (3) emotions run strong” (Grenny et al., 2021, p. 3). These conversations, though uncomfortable at times, are the spaces in which the most important and rewarding work transpires. Yet, due to a lack of training, many leaders shy away from crucial conversations and shut down impactful dialogue before that "aha" moment emerges, leaving employees feeling frustrated and dismissed (Shipton et al., 2024).
Second, deliberate spaces must be created to engage in crucial conversations. This means forgoing meetings spent on announcements and protocols, information easily communicated through email, and instead using those gatherings for open discourse surrounding ideas, opportunities, and roadblocks the community is currently navigating. To do that work, leaders must earn employees' trust, practice transparency, model vulnerability, and provide autonomy for working towards new solutions (Denti & Hemlin, 2012; Yang et al., 2025).
Lastly, organizations must critically reflect upon whose voices are amplified. As Smith and colleagues (2026) wisely assert, leaders “often tune out boat-rockers and listen to bootlickers, penalizing challenge voicers while empowering supportive voicers … Empowering the so-called yes-people with authority to execute initiatives hurts leaders’ performance by potentially undermining team innovation” (pp. 138-139).
When institutions view employees who rock the boat not as quarrelsome colleagues but as canaries in the coal mine offering a finely tuned lens, innovation and belonging amplify, building a more creative, productive, and mission-driven organization, rather than a fortress on a hill protected by fear, compliance, and complacency.
Ahern, K. (2018). Institutional betrayal and gaslighting: Why whistle-blowers are so traumatized. The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 32(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPN.0000000000000306
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851–875. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0562
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & Lepine, J. A. (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 11–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12185
Dvorak, F., Fischbacher, U., & Schmelz, K. (2024). Strategic conformity or anti-conformity to avoid punishment and attract reward. The Economic Journal, 135(666), 556–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueae085
Denti, L., & Hemlin, S. (2012). Leadership and innovation in organizations: A systematic review of factors that mediate or moderate the relationship. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(3), 1240007. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919612400075
Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 461–488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.61967925
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
Grant, A. M. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don’t know. Penguin Publishing Group.
Grenny, J., Patterson, K., McMillan, R., Switzler, A., & Gregory, E. (2021). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
McCausland, T. (2023). Creating psychological safety in the workplace. Research-Technology Management, 66(2), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2023.2164439
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: An examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 277–297.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.
Özdemir, M. (2013). The relationship of organizational corruption with organizational dissent and whistleblowing in Turkish schools. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 42(1).
Perron, A., Rudge, T., & Gagnon, M. (2020). Hypervisible nurses: Effects of circulating ignorance and knowledge on acts of whistleblowing in health. Ans. Advances in Nursing Science, 43(2), 114–131.
Shipton, H., Kougiannou, N., Do, H., Minbashian, A., Pautz, N., & King, D. (2024). Organisational voice and employee-focused voice: Two distinct voice forms and their effects on burnout and innovative behavior. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(1), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12518
Smith, T. A., Dennerlein, T., Courtright, S. H., Kirkman, B. L., & Zhang, P. (2026). Why do bootlickers get empowered more than boat-rockers? The effects of voice and helping on empowering leadership through threat and goal congruence perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 111(1), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001303
Tian, X., Chae, H., & Song, D. (2025). Leader prohibitive voice shapes employee voice through psychological safety moderated by self-efficacy and generational differences. Sci Rep 15, 31469. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-17500-5
Wawersik, D. M., Boutin Jr, E. R., Gore, T. & Palaganas, J. C.(2023). Individual characteristics that promote or prevent psychological safety and error reporting in healthcare: A Systematic Review, Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 59-70, DOI: 10.2147/JHL.S369242
Yang, J., Wang, Y., Huang, H., et al. (2025). How can inclusive leadership motivate employee voice? A cross-level study from psychological capital and internal social capital perspective. BMC Psychology, 13, 1249. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03565-4