Speaking up about problems: what line managers can change
In Zurich’s financial services, insurance, tech companies and European headquarters of international groups, an operational problem may remain known to a few people without reaching the manager able to act. The management question is specific: which behaviours of the direct supervisor encourage employees to raise difficulties and suggest improvements?
What the literature establishes
Amy C. Edmondson (1999, Administrative Science Quarterly) identifies an association between team psychological safety and learning behaviours, including discussing mistakes and asking for help. Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. It should therefore not be confused with constant comfort or an absence of demanding standards.
Managerial openness beyond the invitation
James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris (2007, Academy of Management Journal) show that managerial openness is associated with employees expressing suggestions intended to improve organisational functioning. Their analyses support a mediating role for psychological safety in this relationship. For employees, the question is therefore not simply whether they may speak, but what risk they take by doing so.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that an open-door policy is enough to bring problems to the surface. These studies do not justify equating a stated invitation with openness as employees actually perceive it, or treating every contribution as useful. Listening to an objection does not require accepting the proposal: it requires being able to explain how it was handled without dismissing the person. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot establish
These field studies are not randomised trials demonstrating that a particular managerial response, on its own, causes more concerns to be raised. Their settings also provide no basis for assuming an identical effect in Zurich companies. Finally, an increase in reported problems may reflect greater freedom to speak rather than deteriorating work; the raw count remains ambiguous.
A practical check in Zurich
For SHR — Swiss Human Resources’ “Management de proximité” programme, one possible exercise is to track operational difficulties raised within a Zurich team over four weeks, without replacing regulatory reporting channels. In an access-restricted register containing only necessary information, record the date, issue and response, then calculate the proportion of concerns receiving a reasoned response within five working days: an action agreed, a review assigned or a refusal explained. This deadline is a protocol choice, not a research-established threshold, and the indicator checks follow-through rather than psychological safety itself. In finance, insurance, tech or a European headquarters, this check can thus focus on an observable practice: what happens to a difficulty after someone raises it. 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