Five Ways Leaders Can Get People To Speak Up

Carolyn Geason-Beissel/MIT SMR | Getty Images

The Research

A team of researchers at Imperial College Business School conducted a field study within a financial institution that included the recording of 43 live meetings team leaders had with their teams. The researchers then analyzed the meeting and the dynamics of attendees to identify which leader behaviors most effectively encouraged or suppressed challenges from employees.

Peek under the hood of any corporate scandal or organizational failure, and you will almost certainly find one person, if not more, who knew that something was awry but failed to raise their concerns to leaders who were in a position to do something about it. Take, for example, an independent report commissioned by Credit Suisse’s board to identify the reasons behind the staggering $5.5 billion loss the company incurred after the collapse of Archegos Capital Management. What the investigators found is that the failure stemmed in part from a “cultural unwillingness” to challenge the bank’s leaders, even as escalating risks became increasingly obvious.1 This storyline of failure isn’t unique. Across industries — including health care, car manufacturing, and aviation — the root cause of many crises can be traced back to environments in which employees felt unable, or unwilling, to voice their concerns.2

Despite the well-known and often disastrous consequences of silence, many leaders remain confused about how to effectively solicit challenges from their teams. Often, leaders are given vague advice to help employees “feel safe” to speak up. While this advice is well-meaning, it does little to help leaders understand what specific and concrete actions they can take to create such feelings. Platitudes about psychological safety do not equip leaders with the practical tools necessary and proven to solicit valuable challenges from teams.

To flesh out this critical gap in understanding, we, along with two colleagues from Imperial College Business School’s Centre for Responsible Leadership and in collaboration with the Financial Services Culture Board, conducted an innovative field study to observe leader-team interactions in a real-world setting. In a carefully designed experiment within a financial institution, team leaders participated in 43 live meetings and (unbeknownst to their teams, who were in attendance) deliberately advocated for an objectively flawed or weak idea. The aim was to observe how team members would react to this “bomb” — whether and how they would challenge it, remain silent, or support it — and, crucially, which leader behaviors worked effectively to encourage or suppress that challenge.

By analyzing more than 1,500 “turns of talk” across these meetings, we uncovered several concrete behaviors that are clearly effective in soliciting challenges from teams, which we discuss in a recent white paper.3 Here, we outline five of the most effective actions that leaders can take to make constructive challenges not just possible but an integral part of organizational culture.

1. Ask better questions.

One of the most common missteps leaders make is asking broad, nonspecific questions like “What do you think?” or “Does anyone have any input?” While these questions might seem open and inviting, our research found that they had just a 51% chance of receiving any dissent. These questions are easy for people to ignore or answer passively, particularly in hierarchical settings where subordinates may feel vulnerable.

More effective questions directly invite disagreement. Instead of asking, “Does anyone agree with this plan?” consider asking, “What could go wrong with this approach?” or, “What are the potential risks we haven’t considered?” Questions like these make clear that the leader is actively seeking alternative and potentially challenging perspectives. This subtle shift frames disagreement as something the leader desires — and people are wired to give leaders what they want. Constructive challenges then become a welcome part of the conversation rather than an act of defiance. Such direct solicitation of dissent increased the likelihood of a challenge to over 60%, demonstrating that leaders need to be deliberate and clear about asking for alternative perspectives.

2. Acknowledge challenges as legitimate.

Simply inviting challenges isn’t enough — leaders also need to respond in a way that encourages further input. Our study found that generic expressions of gratitude, such as “Thanks for your input,” were ineffective at encouraging more challenges. In fact, challenges followed a statement of gratitude only 29% of the time.

What made a positive difference was leaders acknowledging, specifically, the legitimacy of the challenge itself. For example, instead of a vague “Thank you,” when leaders responded with statements like “That’s a valid concern” or “I hadn’t considered that angle,” additional challenges followed 87% of the time.

Acknowledging the legitimacy of the initial challenge not only validates it but also signals to the rest of the team that dissent is valued as a critical part of decision-making. So, as with questioning, when it comes to acknowledgment, specificity matters: It helps the employee better understand the types of inputs the leader desires.

3. Keep meetings interactive and friendly.

Challenging a leader can be intimidating, especially since power imbalances are often pronounced. However, we found that leaders who maintained a friendly and interactive meeting atmosphere — using humor or taking fewer turns to speak themselves, and leaving more of the floor open for their team members to contribute — were more successful at eliciting challenges from teams.

The more casual, interactive environments saw higher levels of team member participation and challenges. Meetings with the most challenges saw contributions from 77% of team members; where there were no challenges from team members, leaders heard from only 60% of them.

This finding indicates that silence speaks volumes. A leader must pay attention when a team clams up: It might be happening because people have views that they feel unable or unwilling to share. By making the environment less intimidating, leaders can reduce the psychological barriers that often prevent employees from voicing dissenting opinions.

4. Give decisions time.

In the rush of day-to-day operations, it can be easy for leaders to push for quick decisions. However, the study found that time constraints significantly reduced the likelihood that a leader would receive challenges from team members during a meeting. In fact, in several cases, poor ideas were approved simply because a meeting ran out of time and left little room for debate or dissent.

Leaders must ensure that enough time is allocated for open discussion. Rushed decisions leave team members feeling that they lack the space or opportunity to fully articulate their concerns, which stifles constructive criticism. Our analysis showed that longer meetings in which team members had the chance to digest and discuss ideas in detail led to more challenges to the leader’s flawed proposal and ultimately improved the decision.

5. Create accountability.

One of the most effective ways to encourage challenges is to create a sense of accountability among team members. We found that when leaders made individuals responsible for the success or failure of an idea, people were much more likely to challenge decisions they disagreed with. This is particularly effective when leaders use phrases like “Which option do you think is the best, A or B?” or “What’s the next step you all would like to take?”

Narrowing the constraints of a decision and asking team members to explicitly state their views helps leaders avoid vague and tentative decision-making: Everyone knows where everyone else stands.

In addition, we found that incorporating a mechanism like voting or requiring team members to commit to a specific course of action increased the likelihood that poor ideas would be overturned. When leaders amplify team members’ accountability for the outcome of a decision, the cost-benefit equation of remaining silent shifts — and incites people to take a stronger stance if they truly disagree with a course of action.

For leaders, cultivating a culture of constructive challenge is not a one-time effort; it requires close attention and sustained commitment. The strategies outlined here — from asking the right questions to creating more accountability — provide specific, actionable, and evidence-based strategies that leaders can apply on a daily basis to signal that they view challenges as not just welcome but expected.

Leaders who consistently practice these techniques will gradually shift the dynamics of their team meetings to make constructive challenges to ideas a habit. Over time, this leads to better decision-making, stronger team cohesion, and, ultimately, more effective leadership.

In a world where the risks of silence can be catastrophic, the ability to foster open, honest dialogue is one of the most important skills a leader can develop. By encouraging dissent and embracing different perspectives, leaders can navigate complexity, mitigate risk, and drive their organizations toward long-term success.