Why do victims stay silent?

During a series of interviews with staff at a municipal department (responsible for public space maintenance), we uncovered a deeply troubling work environment. Employees reported bullying, discrimination, threats, and even physical violence. Managers remained detached, stayed in their offices, and avoided any confrontation with the teams working across the city. In our confidential conversations, staff were extremely hesitant to share their experiences. Fear ruled. They dreaded retaliation from informal leaders. The result? Years of silence and a deeply rooted culture of keeping quiet.

When misconduct finally comes to light in an organisation, management often reacts with disbelief: “How did we not know about this?”, “Why was this never raised before?” and “We have reporting procedures, why aren’t people using them?” But the real question is not why reports aren’t being made – it’s why victims remain silent. Because as long as the silence continues, change remains impossible. Below, we outline the most important reasons behind this silence. Often it’s a combination of several factors that lead people to keep quiet. After that, we return to the situation at the municipal department.

1. Fear of repercussions

One of the main reasons people stay silent is fear of consequences. Victims worry they won’t be taken seriously, that they’ll be blamed (e.g. for dressing too provocatively), that their careers will suffer, or that perpetrators will retaliate. Many fear the behaviour will get worse if they speak up. Witnesses, too, are often afraid they’ll be targeted next if they raise concerns. Social pressure not to be a ‘difficult’ colleague can also lead to exclusion from the team.

2. Managers fail to intervene

When the line manager engages in inappropriate behaviour, it becomes especially difficult to report. Line managers have direct influence over job satisfaction and career opportunities. If the perpetrator holds a more senior role – such as department head, director or board member – the distance and power imbalance further intensify the silence. Many organisations are hesitant to hold managers accountable, reinforcing a culture of silence. Managers who ignore or downplay the misconduct of others also contribute. The implicit message is that such behaviour is normal or acceptable.

3. Vague or missing reporting structures

Weak reporting systems amplify the silence. If employees don’t know where or how to report misconduct, or doubt the confidentiality of the process, they keep quiet. Even where reporting structures exist, ambiguity about the role of a confidential adviser, how to file a formal complaint, or the function of a complaints committee can discourage action. A lack of visible follow-up on reports increases feelings of powerlessness and deters people from coming forward.

4. Peer pressure and conformity

Informal leaders often exert significant influence within teams, especially when formal leaders ignore team dynamics. They can set behavioural norms behind the scenes. Sometimes this is positive, but they may also be the ones instigating transgressive behaviour. In cases of bullying, informal leaders may target those who express dissent or offer new ideas, silencing them and maintaining the status quo. Bullying acts as a warning: speak up and you could be next.

5. Wide power gap

Power dynamics can also cause employees to feel intimidated, especially in highly hierarchical organisations. When managers are authoritarian or unapproachable, a culture arises that discourages open communication. Victims hesitate to come forward if the perpetrator controls their pay, promotions, or future career prospects. Even when the perpetrator is regarded as ‘indispensable talent’ within the organisation, victims often don’t feel safe enough to speak up.

6. Image protection

Organisations also reinforce the culture of silence by prioritising reputation management and pressuring staff to meet performance targets. In performance-driven environments, addressing transgressive behaviour may be seen as a distraction or threat to productivity. Some organisations go as far as silencing staff to protect their reputation.

7. Lack of social safety

Finally, the absence of social safety is a key factor. In organisations where people fear backlash and where concerns or conflicts are not openly discussed, inappropriate behaviour often remains unacknowledged. Gender stereotypes can also silence victims – for example, men may be discouraged from speaking out. When emotions are consistently marginalised or ignored, victims feel unsupported, and the silence continues.

Causes of the silence at the municipal department

Several of the above factors were at play in the municipal department. Due to illness and unfilled vacancies, teams had operated without managers for extended periods. This allowed informal leaders to build strong power bases. Essentially, mini-kingdoms emerged where these informal leaders took liberties such as ‘borrowing’ materials for personal use or misappropriating items. To keep these secrets hidden and control team members, heavy peer pressure was applied. A culture of bullying and intimidation developed.

Newly appointed managers faced similar difficulties. Informal leaders allowed no outsiders. New managers were bullied out and kept quiet about the issues. They feared that being open about team problems would be seen as a sign of poor leadership. As a result, they retreated to their offices, limited their presence on the shop floor, and typically applied for other roles within 9 to 12 months.

Employees also stayed silent out of fear. They knew they couldn’t count on management. Reporting structures were unclear or unknown. The distance to senior leadership was too great to safely raise concerns. This allowed the situation to persist for years, with severe personal consequences.

How can you discover what’s really going on?

How can you, as a change leader, uncover the truth when silence prevails? Silence makes it especially hard to pinpoint problems. But there are ways to investigate. It starts with research. Staff satisfaction surveys that also explore transgressive behaviour can serve as an early warning system. Follow-up research is often needed to truly understand what’s going on. Both quantitative and qualitative methods offer valuable insights. Quantitative research helps assess the scope of the problem and should be anonymous to encourage honest responses. Qualitative research, such as interviews, provides insight into interpersonal dynamics, power relations, and reasons for the silence. Confidentiality is crucial. Always engage an external, specialised firm to conduct this type of research so employees feel safe to speak openly.

Beyond formal research, exit interviews can offer critical insights. Departing employees are often more honest about misconduct. These interviews should be conducted widely across the organisation, preferably by HR staff who have no hierarchical relationship with the departing employee. Informal signs such as gossip, sudden behavioural changes, or high staff turnover, can also point to deeper issues.

Other useful feedback mechanisms include anonymised reports from confidential advisers, occupational social workers, or HR. These should be shared regularly – not just during incidents – for example, on a quarterly basis. Periodic audits by the internal audit department can also uncover valuable information. Such audits can connect hard data like low productivity, high absenteeism, or high turnover to underlying ‘soft’ issues. These can be important triggers for further investigation.

What matters most is identifying the first clue when you suspect a culture of silence around inappropriate behaviour. Then it becomes vital to collect more stories in a safe way. By gathering these insights, a clearer picture emerges of what’s truly going on and what’s causing the silence. This is an essential first step: only once you understand why people are staying silent can you begin to break the culture and create an open, safe working environment.