The meeting room fills with people discussing a decision that makes no sense. The flaws are obvious—the timeline won’t work, the budget calculations miss a critical factor, the proposed approach contradicts data everyone received last week. Yet silence settles over the table. Eyes dart toward the meeting leader, then back down to laptops. Nobody speaks.
Except there’s someone who knows exactly what needs to be said. The words form perfectly in their mind. The evidence sits ready. The correction is straightforward and irrefutable. But the hand doesn’t raise. The mouth doesn’t open. The moment passes, and the flawed decision moves forward unopposed.
Later, in a hallway conversation, someone mentions the same concerns privately. “Yeah, I thought that too,” comes the response. Multiple people noticed the problem. Several could have spoken up. None did. And now everyone will spend the next three months dealing with consequences that could have been avoided by thirty seconds of courage.
This pattern repeats constantly across workplaces, classrooms, community meetings, and family discussions. People who possess accurate information, valid concerns, and legitimate expertise sit silent while preventable mistakes unfold. The question isn’t whether they’re right—often, they objectively are. The question is why being right isn’t enough to overcome the barriers to speaking.
The Documented Cost of Silence
Before examining why people hesitate, it’s worth understanding what this hesitation costs. Research published in the International Journal of Public Health in 2024 examined over 27,000 healthcare workers and found that psychological safety—defined as “the belief that speaking up will not lead to embarrassment, rejection, or punishment”—significantly predicted both employee wellbeing and patient safety outcomes.
The study revealed that when people feel unsafe speaking up, errors go unreported, concerns remain unaddressed, and problems compound until they reach crisis levels. Research from Harvard published in 2024 emphasized that psychological safety is essential to employee wellbeing and retention, especially during times of crisis—when, ironically, it’s likeliest to dwindle.
A 2025 study examining barriers to psychological safety surveyed 138 participants and found that the single most common barrier was “I don’t think it will make a difference anyway,” highlighting how perceptions of futility underpin silence as powerfully as fear of punishment. The research revealed that fears cluster together—particularly around punishment, stigma, and futility—suggesting that addressing one without the others leaves critical gaps.
The pattern extends beyond healthcare. Research published in Healthcare in 2024 noted that speaking up without support from colleagues for solving problems together may occur, but often fails to create change due to professional communication barriers, complex organization structures, power dynamics, or lack of resources.
Understanding why hesitation persists despite its costs requires examining the psychological, social, and structural forces that make silence feel safer than speech.
The 5 Barriers to Speaking Up
1. The Internal Fraud Alert: When Imposter Syndrome Silences Expertise
Someone sits in a meeting surrounded by colleagues with impressive titles, advanced degrees, years of experience. They notice something wrong with the proposal being discussed—a calculation error, a logical inconsistency, a missed consideration. The evidence is clear. But immediately, a voice in their head whispers: “If this were really wrong, wouldn’t someone else have already noticed? Maybe you’re misunderstanding. You’re probably missing something. Don’t embarrass yourself.”
This is imposter syndrome interfering with voice. Research published in 2025 in Middle East Current Psychiatry defines imposter phenomenon (IP) as an internalized sense of intellectual deceit and persistent self-doubt, even with evidence of competence. The phenomenon significantly impacts mental health and career progression by obstructing professional development and reducing job satisfaction.
The prevalence is staggering. A 2024 interview with Dr. Valerie Young, co-founder of Impostor Syndrome Institute, revealed that 82% of people experience imposter feelings to some degree. Research indicates that 71% of U.S. CEOs experience imposter syndrome, demonstrating the phenomenon isn’t exclusive to junior employees or newcomers.
A 2024 study examining imposter syndrome in university students found that individuals experiencing IP struggle to internalize their successes and often attribute achievements to external factors such as luck or good fortune. People scoring high on IP measures are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem.
The mechanism by which imposter syndrome prevents speaking up operates through several paths. First, it creates persistent self-doubt that erodes confidence in one’s own perceptions. Even when someone knows they’re right, imposter syndrome whispers that their knowledge is somehow less legitimate than others’. Second, it intensifies fear of exposure—speaking up feels like risking discovery as a fraud. Third, it causes people to dismiss their own expertise while over-crediting others’.
Research from 2024 noted that searches for imposter syndrome surged 75% in 2024, with 78% of business leaders reporting they’ve experienced it at some point in their careers. This widespread experience suggests that countless valid contributions never surface because the people who could offer them convince themselves they’re unqualified to speak.
The tragic irony is that imposter syndrome often affects precisely those people whose input would be most valuable—people who care deeply about accuracy, who question their own assumptions, who fear making errors. These same qualities that make them valuable contributors also make them vulnerable to silence themselves through excessive self-doubt.
2. The Power Gradient: When Hierarchy Makes Truth Feel Irrelevant
The organizational chart shows clear lines of authority. The senior vice president makes a statement. The director nods in agreement. The managers follow suit. And the individual contributor—who actually does the work and knows the statement is factually incorrect—sits silent.
This isn’t about lacking courage. It’s about accurately assessing that organizational hierarchies create unequal consequences for speech. A 2025 study on barriers to psychological safety identified steep power gradients as among the most significant team-level and organization-level barriers to speaking up.
The research revealed recurring concerns about relationship risk and uncertainty about where boundaries and expectations lie. Many participants described concerns that it’s not within their remit or scope to speak up, fear of treading on someone’s toes, or worry about overstepping the mark. These anxieties link directly to role-clarity concerns and organizational hierarchy.
Research published in Healthcare in 2024 examining psychological safety in healthcare teams found that power dynamics represent significant barriers to speaking up and raising concerns. Healthcare professionals often face fear of retribution and power differentials that discourage voice, even when patient safety is at stake.
A 2025 study on psychological safety in South African workplaces examining remote and hybrid workers noted that reduced face-to-face contact raises concerns about maintaining working relationships and two-way communication. When hierarchies become opaque or distant, speaking up becomes even more fraught with uncertainty about appropriate boundaries.
The power gradient creates what researchers identify as “scope confusion”—uncertainty about whether raising concerns falls within one’s role. Research from 2025 found that everyone who raised scope confusion also worried they “should already know” the answer, linking self-doubt to role-clarity anxieties.
This manifests practically in countless ways. Junior employees don’t correct senior leaders’ factual errors. Individual contributors don’t question department heads’ strategic decisions. Newer team members don’t challenge established processes, even when those processes demonstrably fail.
The calculation isn’t irrational. Speaking truth to power can genuinely carry professional consequences—being labeled difficult, losing favor, being excluded from opportunities, or even facing retaliation. When organizational culture reinforces that authority matters more than accuracy, people learn that being right is less valuable than being agreeable.
3. The Futility Forecast: When Past Experience Predicts Nothing Changes
Someone has tried before. They raised a concern in the last meeting, and it was acknowledged with a polite nod, then ignored. They submitted a detailed memo about a problem, and it disappeared into an inbox never to be mentioned again. They spoke up about a safety issue, and nothing changed except they became known as “the person who complains.”
Eventually, a pattern emerges: speaking up takes energy, creates exposure, and produces no results. So why bother?
The 2025 research on barriers to psychological safety found that “I don’t think it will make a difference anyway” was the single most common barrier to speaking up. This perception of futility underpins silence as powerfully as fear of punishment.
The study identified a “Cynical-Conformist” archetype—people marked by disbelief that speaking up will lead to change, reinforced by conformity pressures. Qualitative themes revealed recurring concerns about cultural norms of silence and past disappointments. These individuals are tired of organizational cultures where dissent feels taboo or where processes and practices are easily undermined by social proof that questioning is frowned upon.
A 10-week longitudinal study published in 2025 examining employee voice and silence revealed positive reciprocal relationships between voice and psychological climate. When people speak up and see positive results, they’re more likely to speak up again. Conversely, when voice produces no response or negative consequences, silence increases.
The research emphasized that speaking up without support from colleagues for solving problems together may nonetheless occur, but often fails to create meaningful change. When organizations lack mechanisms to translate voice into action, even well-intentioned speaking up becomes performative rather than productive.
This creates what researchers call “learned silence.” A 2024 study on psychological safety noted that when workplace cultures don’t value or respond to employee input, individuals learn that silence is the rational response. The energy required to speak up, combined with the risk and the lack of results, makes staying quiet the most logical choice.
The futility perception becomes particularly entrenched when organizational leaders claim to value feedback but demonstrate through their actions that they don’t. Open-door policies that lead nowhere, suggestion boxes that go unreviewed, town halls where questions receive non-answers—these create environments where speaking up feels like shouting into a void.
4. The Relationship Risk: When Correctness Threatens Connection
The team has developed consensus around a direction. Everyone seems aligned, engaged, even enthusiastic. Except the direction is built on a faulty premise. Someone in the room knows this with certainty. But pointing it out means disrupting the harmony, potentially making colleagues defensive, possibly being seen as negative or combative.
So the choice becomes: be right, or maintain relationships? For many people, especially in contexts where social bonds matter for daily functioning and long-term success, relationships win.
Research from 2025 examining barriers to speaking up identified relationship risk as a recurring concern. The qualitative data revealed that people fear damaging working relationships, being seen as difficult to work with, or creating interpersonal conflict by challenging group consensus or authority figures.
The study distinguished between “Fear-Averse” individuals who focus heavily on punishment and trust concerns, and “Competence-Anxious” individuals who face relationship risks alongside uncertainty and scope concerns. Both groups identified potential damage to workplace relationships as significant barriers to voice.
A 2024 concept analysis published in Nursing examining psychological safety in healthcare contexts noted that strong interpersonal relationships are both an antecedent to and consequence of psychological safety. Without existing relational trust, speaking up feels more risky. Yet speaking up is necessary to build the kind of relationships where honesty is welcomed rather than punished.
This creates a paradox: healthy relationships should be able to withstand disagreement and correction. But many workplace relationships haven’t developed the resilience to handle challenges to consensus. People accurately perceive that being the dissenting voice can mark them as outsiders, trouble-makers, or threats to team cohesion.
Research on inclusive leadership published in 2025 examined how leadership behaviors influence willingness to voice concerns. The study found that when leaders demonstrate inclusiveness, psychological safety increases, which in turn predicts more employee voice. However, when leaders respond defensively to challenges or when team norms prioritize harmony over accuracy, relationship concerns appropriately silence dissent.
The calculation becomes particularly fraught in workplaces where social capital determines opportunities. Being right about a specific issue matters less than maintaining the relationships that lead to project assignments, promotions, and professional advancement. When correctness threatens connection, many people choose connection and hope the consequences of the error won’t be too severe.
5. The Perfectionism Trap: When “Right” Doesn’t Feel Right Enough
Someone notices a problem and formulates a response. The core insight is sound. The evidence is solid. But before speaking, the internal editor activates: “Wait, but what if someone asks about this edge case? Did you consider the implications for that other project? Maybe you should research this more before saying anything. What if there’s a better way to phrase this?”
Minutes pass. The meeting moves forward. The moment to speak disappears. The person with the accurate insight stays silent, not because they’re wrong, but because they couldn’t achieve perfect certainty before contributing.
Research on imposter syndrome published in 2025 notes that perfectionism is one of the core aspects of the impostor phenomenon. The 2023 Novel Assessment of Impostor Phenomenon (IPA) specifically includes perfectionism alongside doubts about achievement, perceived discrepancies, and avoidance behaviors.
Dr. Valerie Young’s research identified five types of imposter syndrome, with “the perfectionist” focusing on how something is done—where even a single minor flaw is considered failure. This perfectionism extends to voice: people hold themselves to impossibly high standards before allowing themselves to speak, while observing that others contribute freely without similar constraints.
A 2024 study examining imposter syndrome and perfectionism found significant relationships between IP and both self-oriented and socially-prescribed perfectionism. The research suggested that perfectionistic standards—whether internally generated or perceived as externally imposed—contribute to reluctance to engage in behaviors like speaking up that involve exposure to evaluation.
The perfectionism trap operates through several mechanisms. First, it creates unrealistic standards for what constitutes “good enough” to share. While others speak based on partial information or hunches, the perfectionist feels they need comprehensive analysis and bulletproof arguments. Second, it turns speaking up into a high-stakes performance rather than a normal contribution to dialogue. Third, it conflates being questioned or challenged with being wrong, making any potential pushback feel like catastrophic failure.
Research from StatPearls on imposter phenomenon describes the “imposter cycle”—when facing achievement-related tasks, people with IP either over-prepare (working much harder than necessary to ensure perfection) or procrastinate (avoiding the task until last-minute, then attributing success to frantic effort). Both patterns prevent normal, proportionate engagement with speaking up.
The tragic outcome is that perfectionism often silences precisely the people whose contributions would most improve decision-making—those who think carefully, consider multiple angles, and care deeply about accuracy. While less careful thinkers speak freely without second-guessing, perfectionists remain silent, waiting for a certainty that will never arrive.
The Compounding Effect of Multiple Barriers
Rarely does a single barrier operate in isolation. More commonly, several reinforce each other, creating formidable obstacles to voice. Someone might simultaneously experience imposter syndrome (questioning their own expertise), face power gradients (worrying about challenging authority), perceive futility (based on past experience where speaking up changed nothing), worry about relationship risk (not wanting to seem difficult), and trap themselves in perfectionism (feeling their contribution isn’t polished enough).
The 2025 research on psychological safety barriers used the Jaccard index to reveal that fears often cluster together. Fear of punishment, stigma, and futility particularly co-occur, suggesting that experiencing one barrier often means experiencing several simultaneously.
The research emphasized that every barrier listed appeared in someone’s top three, demonstrating that silence is multifaceted and deeply personal. This explains why universal solutions rarely work—what prevents one person from speaking might be completely different from what prevents another, even in the same meeting about the same issue.
A 2024 study examining psychological safety across contexts found that psychological safety acts as a social resource that interacts with material and human resources. When resource constraints are high—when teams are understaffed, overworked, or lacking necessary tools—psychological safety becomes even more critical for enabling people to speak up about problems and gaps.
The study revealed that psychological safety in 2019 (before the pandemic) predicted better outcomes in 2021 (during the pandemic), suggesting that established patterns of safety or silence persist across contexts and become particularly consequential during periods of stress or change.
Moving Toward Genuine Psychological Safety
Understanding why people hesitate to speak up even when right doesn’t automatically solve the problem. But it shifts the question from “Why don’t people just speak up?” to “What systemic changes would make speaking up feel safer and more effective?”
Research from Harvard published in 2024 examining 27,000 healthcare workers found strong correlations between psychological safety and protection against stress, burnout, and turnover. The study contradicted attitudes that frame psychological safety as a “nice to have” luxury, demonstrating it’s as essential as material resources for employee welfare and retention.
Creating environments where people speak up requires multiple interventions operating simultaneously:
Leadership modeling: A 2025 protocol for systematic review examining leadership’s role in fostering psychological safety noted that leaders set the tone for team culture, model desired behaviors, and create conditions that enable or hinder interpersonal risk-taking. When leaders acknowledge their own mistakes, ask genuine questions, and respond non-defensively to challenges, they signal that voice is valued.
Visible responsiveness: The 2025 study on employee voice found that psychological climate for voice improved when people saw their contributions lead to actual changes. Organizations must not only encourage speaking up but demonstrate that voice leads to action. This breaks the futility cycle.
Flattening power gradients: Research on barriers to psychological safety emphasized that reducing power gradients, clarifying scope, and providing social proof that voice leads to action are essential context-sensitive strategies. Organizations can create structures that distribute authority more broadly and establish clear mechanisms for anyone to raise concerns.
Normalizing imperfection: Research on imposter syndrome interventions suggests that acknowledging learning curves, celebrating “good enough,” and making visible the normal struggle that accompanies growth can reduce perfectionism barriers. When environments expect perfection, people stay silent. When environments expect learning, people contribute.
Building trust incrementally: The 2024 concept analysis of psychological safety noted that psychological safety requires structure/system factors, interpersonal factors, and individual factors working together. Trust builds through repeated positive experiences where speaking up is met with respect, engagement, and action rather than punishment, dismissal, or silence.
The Individual Navigation
While organizational change is essential, individuals navigating environments without strong psychological safety face practical questions about when and how to speak up despite barriers.
Research examining imposter syndrome suggests several individual strategies: keeping records of accomplishments to counter self-doubt, sharing feelings with trusted others to reality-check perceptions, reframing thoughts from “I’m a fraud” to “I’m learning,” and recognizing that making mistakes is part of growth rather than evidence of inadequacy.
For those facing power gradients, strategic voice might involve: finding allies at multiple organizational levels, framing concerns in terms of shared goals rather than criticism, choosing timing carefully to maximize receptiveness, documenting concerns in writing to create record, and being willing to escalate when safety or ethics are at stake.
When dealing with perceived futility, options include: asking explicitly how input will be used before offering it, focusing energy on contexts where responsiveness is more likely, building coalitions to amplify individual voice, and recognizing when exit is more viable than continued attempt to create change in resistant systems.
For relationship concerns, approaches might include: building relational trust through positive interactions before raising difficult issues, framing disagreement as commitment to collective success, separating challenge to ideas from challenge to people, and modeling the ability to both disagree and maintain respect.
Against perfectionism, strategies include: setting time limits for preparation before speaking, practicing “good enough” contributions in low-stakes contexts, recognizing that clarity often emerges through dialogue rather than perfect pre-formulation, and reframing speaking up as collaborative thinking rather than finished presentation.
The Responsibility to Create Safety
Ultimately, the burden shouldn’t fall on individuals to overcome all barriers to speaking up in hostile or indifferent environments. Organizations, teams, and leaders bear responsibility for creating contexts where voice is genuinely safe and effective.
The 2025 research on barriers to psychological safety concluded that psychological safety cannot be built through a single intervention or training module. It requires context-sensitive, multi-layered strategies addressing both systemic and interpersonal dimensions.
When people hesitate to speak up despite being right, the first question shouldn’t be “What’s wrong with them?” It should be “What in this environment makes silence seem safer than speech?” The answer to that question reveals not individual weakness but organizational dysfunction that affects everyone’s capacity to contribute to better outcomes.
Being right isn’t enough. For rightness to matter, environments must make speaking up psychologically safe, organizationally viable, and personally sustainable. Until then, valuable insights will continue to die in silence while preventable mistakes march forward unopposed.
What barriers to speaking up have been observed in professional or personal contexts? What environmental factors made voice feel safe versus unsafe? Sharing observations might help others recognize patterns worth addressing in their own situations.
If this resonates, consider sharing it with someone who might benefit from understanding that hesitation to speak up isn’t always personal failure—it’s often accurate response to environmental barriers that need systemic solutions.