Over the past decade, many organisations have invested heavily in diversity, equity and inclusion. Done well, this work challenges discrimination, broadens opportunity and enables organisations to benefit from a wider range of perspectives and experiences.

Yet, in some organisations, DEI has acquired an unfortunate reputation. Rather than being associated with fairness, understanding and confidence to contribute, it can be perceived as creating an environment in which people are afraid to say the wrong thing.

Managers may overthink feedback conversations. Colleagues may avoid sensitive topics. Employees may choose silence over the risk of being misunderstood, reported or drawn into a formal process. They feel as though they are walking on eggshells.

This is not an argument against DEI. It is an argument for implementing it well.

Where inclusion initiatives are not supported by clear expectations and practical skills development, organisations can inadvertently create a culture of avoidance. Instead of addressing concerns early and constructively, people may feel that reporting them to HR is the only available response. A misunderstanding, clumsy question or ill-judged comment can then become a formal investigation or disciplinary matter.

When uncertainty creates silence

Psychological safety is the belief that people can speak up, ask questions, admit mistakes and challenge ideas without fear of humiliation or punishment.

In psychologically safe workplaces, people do not have to agree. They do, however, trust that they can raise concerns, test ideas and have difficult conversations without being personally attacked or unfairly judged.

In some organisations, employees experience the opposite. They are unsure where the boundaries lie, how to ask a difficult question, or whether an awkward comment will be read as evidence of bad intent. Managers may worry that honest feedback will be taken as personal criticism, while employees may fear that a difficult conversation could quickly become a complaint, investigation or disciplinary process.

This uncertainty leads to self-censorship. People stop asking questions, challenging assumptions or sharing a different perspective. Managers soften, delay or avoid feedback. Teams retreat into safe, predictable conversations that minimise personal risk.

The consequences are significant. Innovation depends on curiosity, constructive disagreement and the willingness to explore unfamiliar ideas. When people are afraid to contribute openly, organisations lose many of the benefits that diversity and inclusion are intended to create.

When reporting becomes the default response

Every organisation needs clear, confidential and trusted ways for people to raise concerns. Formal reporting processes are essential where behaviour is serious, repeated, discriminatory, targeted or involves a power imbalance. They are also vital where someone does not feel safe or able to address an issue directly. No one should be expected to resolve serious misconduct informally, particularly where doing so could expose them to further harm.

However, not every workplace issue is serious misconduct. Many concerns begin with low-level behaviours: an insensitive joke, an ill-judged or poorly phrased comment, or an assumption that causes unintended offence.

At Pearn Kandola, we describe many of these behaviours as micro-incivilities: everyday actions or comments that can signal, deliberately or unintentionally, that someone does not belong. People can offend or cause harm without intending to do so, and whilst a lack of intent does not remove the impact of their words or actions, people make mistakes and it should be possible to discuss those mistakes.

When employees feel slighted and do not feel able or equipped to address these incidents at the time, reporting to HR can feel like the only option. HR may then be asked to investigate an issue that could probably have been resolved more easily through discussion.

This can be frustrating for everyone involved. The person affected may not receive the immediate recognition or behavioural change they need. The person whose behaviour is questioned may feel shocked or defensive if they have not first had an opportunity to understand its impact. More broadly, others that are aware of what happened may know that a report has been made and an investigation is underway. This can impact on their sense of what can or cannot be said, irrespective of the outcome of the investigation. Over time, employees may associate inclusion with ‘policing’ of what is said. Whether or not this perception reflects every individual case, it shapes behaviour. If people believe that one mistake could quickly escalate into a formal process, they are likely to become more guarded.

The answer is not to discourage reporting or weaken accountability. It is to give people more than one way to respond: trusted formal routes when needed, alongside the skills and permission to address lower-level issues early and respectfully where appropriate.

The conversations that never happen

When people do not address inappropriate behaviour at the time, small concerns can accumulate and frustration builds, relationships deteriorate, and assumptions harden. By the time an issue is raised formally, it may be more entrenched and difficult to resolve.

For example, an employee who notices an exclusionary comment in a meeting may hesitate to address it, not because they think it is acceptable, but because they do not know how to intervene without escalating the situation. The result is that the moment passes, the person affected is left unsupported, and the behaviour remains unchallenged.

Our research has found that 87% of people report doing nothing when they observe inappropriate behaviour. That figure matters because it shows that silence is not a marginal problem. It is often the normal response to uncertainty, fear of confrontation, concern about making matters worse or the belief that someone else should step in.

This is why active-bystander capability is important. Employees need language, confidence and permission to respond constructively when behaviour falls short of organisational expectations.

A timely, respectful conversation can help someone understand the impact of their behaviour and learn from the experience. It can enable the person affected to be heard and respected without making a formal process the only possible response.

Psychological safety is not comfort

Psychological safety is often misunderstood. It does not mean ensuring that nobody ever feels uncomfortable, offended or challenged. It does not mean avoiding disagreement, difficult feedback or accountability. Nor does it mean that people can say anything they like without considering the impact of their words and actions.

Candour is part of what makes for a healthy, psychologically safe culture, and it enables people to question decisions, challenge inappropriate behaviour, admit mistakes, offer difficult feedback and disagree respectfully. Psychological safety is not, therefore, the absence of tension. It is the confidence that tension can be handled constructively, without personal attack, humiliation or a rush to assume the worst of one another. In doing so, respect matters enormously, and politeness helps, but the latter should not come at the expense of honesty. A culture that avoids difficult conversations in the name of harmony may appear calm on the surface while suppressing the dialogue needed for trust, learning and improvement.

Psychological safety is, therefore, an important prerequisite if we are to move towards dealing with behaviour appropriately, without immediately raising a grievance.

Rebuilding confidence to speak openly

The answer is to equip people with the skills, clarity and confidence to manage everyday interpersonal challenges effectively.

Managers need practical support to give feedback, address behaviour in the moment and distinguish between an uncomfortable conversation and an unsafe one. Employees need confidence to raise concerns constructively, receive feedback openly and seek clarification when intent or impact is unclear.

Teams also need shared expectations about:

• what respectful behaviour looks like in practice;
• how to raise a concern early and constructively;
• when an informal conversation may be appropriate;
• when advice, support or formal action is needed; and
• how to acknowledge impact, apologise and repair when they get something wrong.

Creating psychologically safe workplaces is not primarily about writing better policies which, whilst they matter, do not shape culture. It’s the everyday behaviours and interactions and role modelling that shape the culture.

Organisations that foster openness do not leave employees to choose between silence and a formal complaint. They equip people to address smaller issues early and respectfully where it is safe to do so. They develop leaders who can have difficult conversations with confidence, while ensuring that trusted formal routes remain accessible when informal resolution is not appropriate. In this way, the sense of walking on eggshells can be minimised.

If you want to find out more about how we can help you with Psychological Safety, Allyship, Active Bystander and Feedback Skills training, then get in touch.

References:

• Kandola, B. (2025) Building a psychologically safe work environment. Routledge