Do you have the courage to speak your mind, be it against superiors or larger groups of people who see things differently? Most likely, your answer depends on the situation.

A new study by Arizona State University and the University of Michigan explores the hidden dynamics of self-censorship. This is an important topic for anyone interested in natural followership or collaborationship.

The study shows that self-censorship (the act of censoring what one says or does) is not simply impacted by fear. Rather, it’s a form of strategy. People balance what they want to say with the potential risk of being punished for saying it.

What’s interesting is that the type of punishment appears to matter. “Uniform punishments,” where everyone gets the same penalty for a certain type of offence, tend to produce widespread self-censorship. “Proportional punishments,” on the other hand, where the penalty scales with the severity of the offence, allow for more risk-taking. In such situations, people are more willing to voice their disapproval.

According to Merriam-Webster, bravery is “the quality or state of having or showing mental or moral strength to face danger, fear, or difficulty.” In other words, bravery is having the courage to act despite fearing the consequences.

Bold populations resist self-censorship better.

According to the study, populations with higher “boldness” (i.e. willingness to risk negative consequences) tend to resist self-censorship better than more fearful populations. However, if surveillance intensifies or punishment becomes stricter, even bold participants will gradually conform.

This is why it’s critical that we have the courage to speak up and voice our concerns before those in power gain too much control and start introducing different forms of punishment.

Authority adapts over time

Another important observation from the study is that authoritarian rulers or managers will often adjust their surveillance and punishment over time in response to how much dissent or silence they observe.

What starts as moderate oversight may evolve into stricter control — which, in turn, can shift the balance toward silence rather than open dialogue.

Beware of normalization

Fast changes, in whatever context, are easier to spot than slow, gradual ones. I’ve seen this in organizations where management applies increased control in incremental steps. Whether intentionally or not, they reduce the risk of an organized backlash from employees.

While employees still react negatively to each change, the changes occur at such a pace that people adapt to what they consider “normal” management behaviour.

To make matters worse, if employees stay silent — even before being punished — that silence also becomes the “new normal.”

As a result, it’s not until they speak with friends or family that they may realize the absurdity of what’s happening in their organization. By then, there are generally just two options: adapt or quit.

Again, that’s why it’s important for people to react sooner rather than later when disagreeing with what’s happening. This is where bravery comes into play. Bravery is the strength to speak up or take action for what you believe is right, even when it’s difficult, unpopular, or risky.

To all managers

As I’ve pointed out before, collaborationship can only function in environments where people feel safe enough to voice their opinions — even if it means criticising decisions made by others.

The whole point of building collaborationship is to have a group make better decisions together. A manager who gets upset every time an employee disagrees with them or questions their decisions should not be a manager. Frederic Taylor’s vision of managers as the “know-it-all” has been debunked long ago. The modern manager has one main task - to create an environment where people collaborate brilliantly together.

So what can we learn from this?

From a collaborationship perspective:

In any collaborative setting (team, organization, community), people will choose silence when they perceive that speaking up is risky — even if there’s no explicit punishment. This will kill any attempt to build collaborationship.

“Boldness” is crucial. Having the courage to speak up, even when there are certain risks, is key to reducing self-censorship and maintaining a healthy collaborative environment.

The type of response to dissent matters. If pushback is met with punishment of any form, silence will dominate.

Speak up quickly. Once silence sets in, it’s hard to regain the openness required to build strong collaborationship.

If you’re thinking about psychological safety, participatory decision-making, or co-creative culture design — this is a paper worth reading.

I’d also love to hear if you’ve ever experienced a situation where early dissent made an impact on decisions made in an organisation.

🔗 Read the study here