You've Told Your Team to Speak Up. But Are You Actually Listening?

We’ve spent years encouraging people to speak up on site. But what happens next? Who gets heard? You can always tell who really holds influence on site. It is not written on the organization chart and is rarely announced out loud. It shows up in the small, everyday moments: who gets interrupted and who does not, whose questions are taken seriously and whose are brushed aside. In environments where safety and performance depend on people speaking up, these moments matter far more than most leaders realize.

We tend to believe that in technical, high-risk industries, decisions are driven by data, expertise and clear processes. That is the ideal. In practice, however, influence often follows a different set of rules that are unwritten, informal and embedded in everyday behavior. These rules determine not just who gets heard, but how their contribution is interpreted.

The Informal Hierarchy Behind Every Decision

Every site operates with two hierarchies. The first is formal: roles, responsibilities and reporting lines. The second is informal: a network of credibility, familiarity and social permission. It is this second hierarchy that frequently carries more weight in real-time decision-making. Some individuals are instinctively deferred to, even when they are not the most senior person in the room. Others, despite holding the appropriate title or expertise, find themselves needing to work harder to land the same point.

This is not necessarily deliberate. People are drawn to what feels familiar: shared backgrounds, similar communication styles, common reference points. Over time, this familiarity can evolve into a form of protection. Certain voices are trusted more quickly, challenged less often and backed more readily. Others are subject to greater scrutiny, even when saying the same thing.

Who Gets to Interrupt, Question and Escalate

These dynamics become particularly visible in how people are allowed to participate. In any site discussion or high-pressure meeting, there are unspoken rules around interruption, challenge and escalation.

Some individuals can interrupt freely, and it is seen as engagement or decisiveness. Others do the same and are labeled ‘disruptive’. Some can question decisions directly. Others are expected to soften their language or defer. One person raises a concern and is praised for diligence. Another raises the same concern and is perceived as overcomplicating the situation.

Over time, people learn these patterns. They adjust not because they lack confidence or capability, but because they understand the social cost of speaking in a way that does not align with the norm.

Tone and Style as Gatekeepers of Influence

Tone and communication style play a significant role in how messages are received. Organizations often claim to value diverse perspectives, yet far fewer consider whether they genuinely accept different ways of expressing those perspectives.

Directness may be interpreted as clarity in one individual and aggression in another. Conciseness may be seen as efficiency for some and abruptness for others. Passion may signal commitment or be dismissed as emotional, depending on who is speaking.

These judgments act as gatekeepers of influence. They determine whether a message is received, questioned or dismissed before its content is fully considered. For those who do not naturally fit the dominant style, the burden shifts from contributing ideas to carefully managing how those ideas are delivered.

When Speaking Up Is a Safety Issue

In a chemical or industrial environment, this is not merely a question of inclusion or fairness. It is a matter of safety. When individuals hesitate to speak up, soften their concerns or choose not to escalate because of how they expect to be perceived, the system is already under strain. Safety relies on timely, unfiltered communication. If only certain voices are consistently heard, then the organization is operating with a partial view of reality.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question for leaders: who have you made it easiest to listen to?

In a previous column, I explored how proximity to power shapes behavior – how people align themselves with influential figures and, at times, overlook behaviors to remain in favor. The dynamics described here are an extension of that same pattern. They are less visible, less likely to be formally addressed and yet they directly affect how decisions are made on site.

If organizations are serious about safety and performance, they must examine these unwritten rules. Who is consistently heard? Who is interrupted? Whose tone is accepted, and whose is scrutinized? These are not peripheral issues. They sit at the heart of how effectively a team operates. Ultimately, people do not decide whether to speak based solely on what they know. They decide based on what they believe will be heard.