In Zurich, is an open door enough to get problems reported?
In Zurich’s financial services, insurance, technology businesses and European headquarters of international groups, an operational problem may pass through several management levels before it is addressed. The managerial question is precise: what should a line manager do to encourage an employee to report a difficulty rather than remain silent?
What the literature establishes
Amy Edmondson (1999, Administrative Science Quarterly) identifies an association between team psychological safety and learning behaviours, including discussing mistakes and seeking help. Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. It means neither constant comfort nor an absence of demanding standards: it concerns the ability to ask a question or acknowledge a difficulty without fearing interpersonal repercussions.
Managerial openness beyond the declaration
James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris (2007, Academy of Management Journal) show that managerial openness is associated with employees expressing suggestions or concerns intended to improve organisational functioning. Their analyses support a mediating role for psychological safety in this relationship. Saying “my door is open” is therefore not, on its own, evidence that employees consider speaking up safe.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that a good manager must welcome every proposal and avoid disagreement. These findings do not justify that conclusion: making an objection safe to express does not require agreeing with it. The useful distinction is between critically examining information and discrediting the person who brings it forward. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
These field studies are not randomised trials of a management method in Zurich businesses. They support relationships between team climate, managerial behaviour and employee voice, without guaranteeing that a particular welcoming response will have the same effect everywhere. A low number of reported concerns also remains ambiguous: it may reflect few problems, but it may also reflect reluctance to make them visible.
A practical check in Zurich
To put SHR’s “Management de proximité” programme into practice, a Zurich team could test a four-week tracking process for reported difficulties, without replacing mandatory compliance or whistleblowing channels. For each non-sensitive operational difficulty, the manager records the date, the response and the agreed next step, in accordance with internal confidentiality rules. The proposed indicator is the proportion of reports receiving a reasoned response that is actually communicated to the person who raised the issue within a time limit agreed by the team in advance. This record checks follow-through, not psychological safety itself; it provides a concrete basis for examining what happens to uncomfortable information. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Zurich in the canton of Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Frontline Management in Zurich
- frontline management
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich