9th July 2026
What does it take for an employee to speak up, challenging old ways and putting forward fresh ideas? Many argue that psychological safety is the key, but even in organizations with ‘speak up’ initiatives, staff reportedly struggle to raise their voice.
So says Megan Reitz, professor of Leadership at Hult Ashridge Executive Education, speaking at our annual Global Summit. Offering a compelling explanation for why this is, Reitz asserts that the challenge for employees is not simply one of courage; it is one of habit, power, perception, and language.
Reitz explains:
"What we say, what we don't say, who we listen to, who influences us, and who doesn't, defines our lives in our teams and organizations."
These hidden forces – driven by communication and trust – can shape company cultures at large while remaining largely unnoticed or underestimated.
So, what makes a culture of ‘speaking up’ so difficult to attain?
1. Speaking up is uncomfortable
One of the most persistent misconceptions about psychological safety is that it enables comfort. In reality, Reitz asserts, psychologically safe teams are often having the most uncomfortable conversations. They challenge each other, disagree, and surface difficult truths.
The problem is that speaking up carries risk. Employees weigh the potential consequences of raising concerns and challenging authority.
Reitz shared a telling example from her early research. A senior leader complained that junior employees were not speaking up enough. When she asked employees why, their response was immediate: "Last time somebody spoke up round here, they disappeared."
The lesson is clear. Organizations often focus on helping people become more confident in speaking up while neglecting a more important question: why does speaking up require so much bravery in the first place?
Psychological safety is not built simply by encouraging confidence. It is created by reducing the real or perceived risk associated with speaking up.
2. Speaking up may not change anything
Silence is not always driven by fear, however, Reitz clarifies. People quickly learn from experience and if previous suggestions, concerns or challenges have been ignored, the perceived value of speaking up diminishes.
Reitz warned that many organizations inadvertently create this dynamic if leaders invite feedback but fail to follow up on the comments afterwards. Meanwhile, for employees, the quality of the response matters more than the invitation to speak up itself.
For leaders designing culture interventions, it is vital to know that speaking up is only half the equation. Active listening – and subsequent action plan – is the other half.
3. We all think we're better listeners than we are
One of the issues that Reitz surfaces is the gap between how we perceive ourselves and how others view us.
Employees consistently report that senior leaders are less open to listening than they believe themselves to be. Meanwhile, almost everyone rates their own listening skills highly.
"We rate ourselves on our intent," Reitz explains. "We rate others on their behavior."
This creates a significant obstacle to culture change since awareness of the problem is dependent on seniority.
Reitz refers to this as advantage blindness, or an ‘optimism bubble’. Those with status, influence, or organizational power may genuinely believe they are approachable while overestimating how freely people speak around them and how effectively they themselves listen.
For organisations, this means that psychological safety cannot be measured solely by leadership intent. It must be understood through employee experience.
“One of the biggest things that holds up habit change is that we’re always waiting for someone else to do it, and they’re thinking exactly the same.”
4. Speaking up requires language skills
In global businesses, a sense a safety is often secondary to speaking proficiency since many employees work in a second or third language. An employee may have important insights that remain unspoken due to a lack of linguistic confidence, especially if they have found their language skills to be a barrier in the past. One senior manager in Reitz’s research admitted:
“I find it difficult to understand (and hence listen to) people who speak heavily accented English, particularly if their English is also poor.”
In these cases, even without intending to, Reitz argues that a leader may exacerbate the problem:
"If somebody does speak up and they don't do it very well because they're anxious, the signals that you [as a leader] send in the next couple of seconds determine whether they'll do it again."
Language, therefore, is not simply a communication tool, it is an enabler of voice. To build a speak-up culture requires investment in those communication capabilities that make participation possible.
The solution: Creating ‘spaciousness’
If psychological safety has a language problem, it also has a time problem.
Modern organizations operate at relentless speed; calendars are full, meetings are back-to-back, and attention is fragmented. In these conditions, meaningful dialogue can become rare.
Reitz's proposed solution is what she calls ‘spaciousness’ – the deliberate creation of space for reflection. Spaciousness is about creating the conditions in which people can think, listen, and contribute effectively.
‘Spaciousness’ drives leaders to become more conscious of how they show up, and organizations to create environments where diverse voices can be heard. This involves leaders taking steps of reduce fear, demonstrate impact, challenge personal bias, and equip people with the language skills needed to speak up confidently.
After all, having a voice is not just about having something to say. It is about having the confidence, capability, and opportunity to say it.
“How you show up [as a leader] affects the voices of people around you. This is a profound responsibility.”
Interested in learning more about how to unlock the power of language learning?
