When Everyone Knows, But Nobody Speaks
Power, silence and the responsibility to create safer workplaces.
What happens when the person everyone is afraid to challenge is also the person everyone is expected to admire?
What happens when someone’s reputation, influence or commercial value becomes more important than the concerns being raised about their behaviour?
And perhaps most importantly:
What happens when people see something that makes them uncomfortable, but nobody feels able to speak?
These are uncomfortable questions.
But they are questions every organisation should be willing to ask.
A recent high-profile court case has brought renewed attention to the abuse of power, the vulnerability of those facing influential individuals and the wider responsibility of organisations to create environments where concerns can be raised safely.
At the same time, changes to UK workplace harassment legislation have placed greater emphasis on employers taking preventative action rather than simply responding when something goes wrong.
Together, these developments raise an important question.
Are our workplaces genuinely safe places to speak up, or have we simply become good at writing policies that say they are?
Because beyond the headlines lies a much wider conversation about organisational culture.
Not about celebrity.
Not about one industry.
And not simply about whether the correct procedures exist.
It’s about whether people feel safe enough to raise concerns, whether those concerns will be taken seriously and whether leaders are prepared to act, regardless of who is involved.
When Power Changes the Rules
Every workplace has power structures.
Some are formal.
Managers have authority over employees.
Senior leaders make decisions about careers, promotions and opportunities.
Others are less obvious.
A highly successful colleague.
A major client.
A respected professional.
A charismatic founder.
Someone whose reputation brings money, influence or prestige to an organisation.
These individuals may not have direct managerial responsibility, but they can still hold considerable power.
And where there is a significant imbalance of power, people may find it harder to challenge inappropriate behaviour.
An employee might worry about losing their job.
A junior colleague might fear damaging their career.
Someone working on a temporary contract may be concerned about future opportunities.
Others may simply believe that nobody will take their concerns seriously.
Power becomes particularly dangerous when people begin to believe that the rules apply differently depending on who you are.
A healthy organisational culture recognises that status, seniority and success should never determine whether concerns are investigated or standards are upheld.
The Difference Between Knowing and Suspecting
The title of this article raises a difficult question.
When everyone knows, but nobody speaks, who is responsible?
In reality, workplace situations are rarely that straightforward.
People may hear rumours without knowing whether they are true.
They may witness behaviour that makes them uncomfortable but struggle to understand its significance.
They may notice patterns that only become concerning when considered alongside other information.
And sometimes, people may have genuine concerns but feel uncertain about how to raise them.
It would be unfair to assume that everyone who works alongside someone later found responsible for serious misconduct must have known what was happening.
But organisations do have a responsibility to create environments where concerns can be raised and properly assessed.
Employees should not be expected to investigate allegations themselves or establish that wrongdoing has occurred before seeking guidance.
A concern does not have to be proven before it deserves to be heard.
The responsibility for assessing it should sit with appropriately trained people following fair, confidential and established procedures.
Why Do People Stay Silent?
Silence is not always agreement.
And it is not always indifference.
There are many reasons someone may hesitate to speak.
They may fear retaliation.
They may worry about being labelled difficult.
They may be concerned that colleagues will not believe them.
They may depend on the individual professionally or financially.
They may have experienced previous situations where raising concerns achieved nothing.
Or they may be unsure whether what they have witnessed is serious enough to report.
Sometimes the barriers are subtle.
An employee raises a concern and is told:
“That’s just how they are.”
“They don’t mean anything by it.”
“Try not to take it personally.”
“We don’t want to create a problem.”
Individually, these comments may sound dismissive rather than openly threatening.
Collectively, they can send a powerful message.
Speaking up may be more difficult than staying quiet.
Over time, that message can influence an entire workplace culture.
When Does Looking Away Become Enabling?
This is perhaps one of the most challenging questions for organisations.
There is an important difference between someone who does not recognise a concern and someone who deliberately ignores credible information.
There is also a difference between an employee who feels powerless to intervene and a leader who has the authority and responsibility to act.
Not everyone has the same information, influence or professional obligations.
But when concerns are repeatedly minimised, complaints are discouraged or influential individuals are protected from appropriate scrutiny, an organisation may create conditions in which harmful behaviour can continue.
Enabling does not always involve actively defending misconduct.
It can involve failing to follow established procedures.
Allowing inappropriate behaviour to become normalised.
Treating concerns as inconvenient.
Or placing greater emphasis on protecting the organisation’s reputation than understanding what has happened.
A workplace cannot claim to take safety seriously if its response depends on who has been accused.
That principle should apply whether the individual is a new employee, a senior executive, a major client or the organisation’s most commercially valuable person.
A Policy Is Not the Same as a Safe Workplace
Most organisations have policies covering conduct, safeguarding, harassment, bullying and reporting concerns.
These are essential.
But their existence does not automatically mean employees feel protected.
A policy may explain how to report inappropriate behaviour.
It does not necessarily tell us whether someone feels confident enough to use it.
An organisation may provide annual safeguarding training.
That does not necessarily tell us whether employees understand how to respond when the person causing concern is their manager.
A business may promote its commitment to respect.
That does not necessarily tell us how it responds when a complaint involves a high-performing employee.
The real test comes when applying the policy is uncomfortable.
When a difficult decision has to be made.
When an influential individual is involved.
When an organisation must choose between an easy response and an appropriate one.
Workplace culture is revealed not only by the standards an organisation publishes, but by the standards it is prepared to uphold.
The Law Is Changing: Prevention Matters More Than Ever
This conversation has become particularly timely for UK employers.
From 30 October 2026, the legal duty to prevent sexual harassment has been strengthened.
Employers are now required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their workers.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also updated its guidance, including practical considerations around harassment involving third parties such as clients, customers, contractors and service users.
This matters because inappropriate behaviour does not always come from within an organisation.
It may involve someone who purchases its services.
Someone who provides funding.
Someone whose business is commercially important.
Or someone who holds considerable influence over the organisation.
The updated guidance encourages employers to consider where risks arise, undertake appropriate assessments, provide relevant training and ensure preventative measures are effective.
The exact steps required will depend on the organisation and the risks involved.
But the underlying message is clear.
Employers should not wait for serious harm to occur before examining whether their people are adequately protected.
This is not simply a matter of updating a policy document.
It requires organisations to consider how their procedures operate in practice, whether employees understand them and whether the culture supports people who raise concerns.
What Does Psychological Safety Really Mean?
Psychological safety is sometimes misunderstood as an environment where nobody feels uncomfortable.
But creating a psychologically safer workplace does not mean avoiding difficult conversations.
It means people should be able to ask questions, acknowledge uncertainty and raise concerns without unreasonable fear of humiliation or retaliation.
It means leaders respond thoughtfully rather than defensively.
It means employees know where to seek support.
And it means concerns are handled fairly, with appropriate confidentiality and consideration for everyone involved.
This does not mean every allegation will be substantiated.
Nor does it remove the importance of a fair process.
It means that reporting a concern should not itself become a source of punishment or intimidation.
People need confidence in both the process and the people responsible for managing it.
The Responsibility of Leadership
Leaders set the tone for what becomes acceptable.
Not simply through speeches or written statements.
Through their everyday decisions.
What happens when someone challenges a senior colleague?
How are complaints about influential individuals handled?
Are managers willing to acknowledge mistakes?
Do employees have access to reporting routes outside their immediate management structure?
Are concerns recorded, reviewed and escalated appropriately?
And does the organisation learn from situations where people did not feel able to speak?
These questions should be considered before a serious incident occurs.
Because leadership responsibility is not limited to responding when something goes wrong.
It includes creating the conditions in which people can raise concerns before problems escalate.
Training People to Recognise, Respond and Report
This is where meaningful workplace learning becomes important.
Employees need more than a list of prohibited behaviours.
They need opportunities to explore realistic situations.
For example:
What would you do if a colleague told you they felt uncomfortable around a senior manager?
How would you respond if someone disclosed inappropriate behaviour but asked you not to tell anyone?
What if the person causing concern was a valuable client?
What if you witnessed something troubling but were unsure whether it crossed a professional boundary?
What if a colleague dismissed your concern as an overreaction?
These scenarios require judgement, appropriate professional boundaries and an understanding of organisational procedures.
They also require clarity about what employees should not do.
They should not attempt their own investigation.
They should not promise absolute confidentiality when information may need to be shared for safeguarding or legal reasons.
And they should not be expected to confront someone directly where doing so could create further risk.
Good training helps people understand how to respond safely, appropriately and within their responsibilities.
The Role of Trauma-Informed Leadership
One of the most important lessons from cases involving sexual violence and abuse is that people do not all respond to harmful experiences in the same way.
Some people report concerns immediately.
Others take much longer.
Some may struggle to explain what happened.
Others may continue working alongside someone they fear because they believe they have no realistic alternative.
A trauma-informed approach recognises that people’s responses can be complex.
It avoids making assumptions about how someone should behave.
It supports sensitive listening.
It respects individual dignity.
And it recognises the importance of appropriate specialist support.
Being trauma-informed does not mean abandoning fair investigation procedures.
It means ensuring those procedures are conducted with awareness, sensitivity and care.
Five Questions Every Organisation Should Ask
Whatever your sector, these questions are worth discussing with your leadership team.
1. Would an employee feel able to raise a concern about our most senior or influential person?
If the answer is uncertain, consider whether your reporting arrangements provide sufficient independence.
2. Do employees know what to do when something feels wrong but they cannot prove misconduct?
People need to understand the difference between raising a concern and conducting an investigation.
3. Are our managers trained to respond appropriately to disclosures?
A poorly handled initial conversation can undermine someone’s confidence in the entire reporting process.
4. Do we challenge inappropriate behaviour consistently?
Standards should not depend on seniority, popularity, commercial importance or personal relationships.
5. Are we measuring whether people trust our processes, rather than simply whether they know our policies exist?
Employee feedback, appropriate reviews and organisational learning can help identify barriers to speaking up.
These are not always easy questions.
But they are essential ones.
Creating Safer, Stronger Teams
At Lily Impact, we believe that safer workplaces begin with people who are supported to recognise concerns, maintain professional boundaries and respond appropriately when difficult situations arise.
Our Safer, Stronger Teams Train the Trainer Programme brings together six interconnected areas of workplace learning:
Staff Wellbeing & Emotional Resilience
Compassionate Professional Boundaries
Safeguarding with Confidence
Managing Conflict & Difficult Conversations
Restorative Practice in the Workplace
Trauma-Informed Leadership
These subjects are not separate from organisational culture.
They help shape it.
Developing internal trainers can create more opportunities for organisations to reinforce important messages, facilitate thoughtful discussions and support continuing professional learning.
But training is only one part of the picture.
It must be accompanied by clear procedures, appropriate accountability and leadership that is willing to act.
Silence Should Never Be the Safest Option
The latest headlines remind us that abuse of power can have devastating consequences.
But organisations should not need a high-profile criminal case to begin examining their own cultures.
The important questions are already there.
Who feels able to speak?
Who is listened to?
Who is protected?
And who is held accountable?
A safer workplace is not one that promises nothing will ever go wrong.
It is one that takes reasonable steps to prevent harm, encourages concerns to be raised and responds appropriately when they are.
If your organisation is reviewing its approach to safeguarding, professional boundaries, leadership or workplace learning, Lily Impact would welcome a conversation.
Contact us to explore how our training and Safer, Stronger Teams programme could support your organisation.
Because when something is wrong, speaking up should never feel more dangerous than staying silent.