Raising a problem: what managerial openness actually changes
A manager can claim to be available without learning what is undermining the team’s work. For the “Management de proximité” programme offered by SHR — Swiss Human Resources, the precise question is this: how can raising a problem become less risky for the person who raises it?
What the literature establishes
Amy Edmondson (1999, Administrative Science Quarterly) identifies an association between team psychological safety and learning behaviours. Psychological safety means a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, including admitting an error or asking for help. It means neither constant comfort nor lower standards.
Openness is judged through interactions
James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris (2007, Academy of Management Journal) show that managerial openness is associated with employees speaking up to improve organisational functioning. Their analyses support a mechanism operating through perceived psychological safety. A general invitation to speak therefore cannot replace examining how the manager actually responds when a difficulty is raised.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that a good manager must endorse every concern or eliminate all confrontation. That would confuse the opportunity to speak with an entitlement to have one’s position accepted. Welcoming an objection, examining the facts and explaining a refusal remain compatible with high standards. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
These field studies do not demonstrate that a welcoming phrase alone will produce more useful reports across all sectors. They also address different levels of analysis: a shared team belief and individual employees’ voice cannot be measured interchangeably. Finally, a low number of reported problems may reflect either well-controlled operations or reluctance to speak.
A practical check in Sion
In Sion and its surrounding economic area, an exercise proposed within the “Management de proximité” programme would track concerns raised about matters such as a hydropower maintenance instruction, a healthcare handover, a vineyard operation or guest reception in Alpine tourism. For two weeks, record each concern without sensitive personal data and check whether it receives an explicit response within five working days: an assigned action, a reasoned refusal or a review with a deadline. The measure would be the proportion receiving such a response among reports whose response deadline has elapsed, with both numerator and denominator displayed. This check would document follow-through on employee voice, not psychological safety itself, and would never replace urgent reporting procedures. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Frontline Management in Sion
- frontline management
- Sion
- research
- training sion