Audio By Vocalize
About 20 or 30 years ago, career progression was more of a communal affair. At work, colleagues knew that you were applying for a new role. Some of them could even help review your CV, and others could even help you with mock interviews. When the offer came through, the office celebrated, even if it meant losing you. Your win was everyone’s win.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen today. Like in many other affairs, change has not spared career growth. Job applications are now done in silence. Interviews happen in secret, and offers are accepted discreetly. A colleague leaves, and no one knows where they are going or why they are going. It is complicated.
But there has to be a source of every experience, and in a world that is changing so fast, these new experiences are fading the old ones. Emilia Wietrak and others, in their research ‘Trust and psychological safety: An evidence review’, note that trust is an essential ingredient for healthy and sustainable organisations.
Psychological safety, on the other hand, refers to how people perceive potential threats or even rewards when they take interpersonal risks at work. In a psychologically safe work environment, as Wietrak’s research found, people tend to be less defensive and focus more on accomplishing team goals and preventing problems, instead of just protecting themselves.
The true goal of work should be growing and winning together. But many workplaces today do not cultivate psychological safety. Employees operate in environments marked by intense competition, fragile trust, and unspoken fear. In such spaces, information feels like power and, as we all know, power is not shared lightly.
R Patil’s research ‘The power of psychological safety: Investigating its impact on team learning, team efficacy, and team productivity’, published in The Open Psychology Journal, shows that low psychological safety environments can lead to silence, disengagement, and reduced collaboration. Yet we expect the same workplaces to be innovative and team-friendly.
Colleagues are no longer just teammates; they are potential competitors. They use silence as a survival strategy. A disclosed job application may be interpreted as disloyalty. A career conversation may be weaponised. Instead of support, employees anticipate sabotage, gossip, or subtle exclusion.
However, sometimes secrecy is not selfishness. Often, it is learned behaviour. Some employees have been punished for being open; passed over for opportunities after expressing ambition, labelled “not committed” for exploring options, or quietly sidelined after announcing plans to grow. Over time, people internalise one rule: Self-preservation. Career silence becomes a form of self-preservation in psychologically unsafe workplaces.
Could this be a result of the data protection laws, which are increasingly safeguarding employee privacy and dignity? Organisations are also increasingly cautious about what they ask, record, or disclose. But even so, should career growth be limited by these laws? In my opinion, as an HR practitioner, I say no, and this is why.
In most cases, career secrecy comes at a cost to the individual, the employer, and the future of work as a whole. At an individual level, employees lose informal mentorship and peer support. They have to navigate career transitions alone, without feedback or encouragement. Wins feel muted, sometimes lonely.
Work becomes transactional rather than relational. Professional identities are guarded, not grown collectively. Over time, this can breed disengagement, cynicism, and emotional withdrawal. A silent workforce may be compliant, but it is rarely inspired.
For organisations, the implications are even more serious. When people stop talking, leaders lose early signals of disengagement or flight risk. Succession planning weakens. Organisational learning stalls. Culture becomes performative rather than lived. A workplace where employees leave quietly is not a stable one; it is a disconnected one. High retention without trust is not loyalty; it is inertia.
If this trend continues unchecked, the future of work risks becoming efficient but emotionally thin. We may gain systems, policies, and productivity, but lose humanity. The workplace was never meant to be merely a contract. It has always been a social institution: A place of growth, identity, belonging, and shared journeys. When career progression becomes taboo, we erode that social fabric.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
About 20 or 30 years ago, career progression was more of a communal affair. At work, colleagues knew that you were applying for a new role. Some of them could even help review your CV, and others could even help you with mock interviews. When the offer came through, the office celebrated, even if it meant losing you. Your win was everyone’s win.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen today. Like in many other affairs, change has not spared career growth. Job applications are now done in silence. Interviews happen in secret, and offers are accepted discreetly. A colleague leaves, and no one knows where they are going or why they are going. It is complicated.
But there has to be a source of every experience, and in a world that is changing so fast, these new experiences are fading the old ones. Emilia Wietrak and others, in their research ‘Trust and psychological safety: An evidence review’, note that trust is an essential ingredient for healthy and sustainable organisations.
Psychological safety, on the other hand, refers to how people perceive potential threats or even rewards when they take interpersonal risks at work. In a psychologically safe work environment, as Wietrak’s research found, people tend to be less defensive and focus more on accomplishing team goals and preventing problems, instead of just protecting themselves.
The true goal of work should be growing and winning together. But many workplaces today do not cultivate psychological safety. Employees operate in environments marked by intense competition, fragile trust, and unspoken fear. In such spaces, information feels like power and, as we all know, power is not shared lightly.
R Patil’s research ‘The power of psychological safety: Investigating its impact on team learning, team efficacy, and team productivity’, published in The Open Psychology Journal, shows that low psychological safety environments can lead to silence, disengagement, and reduced collaboration. Yet we expect the same workplaces to be innovative and team-friendly.
Colleagues are no longer just teammates; they are potential competitors. They use silence as a survival strategy. A disclosed job application may be interpreted as disloyalty. A career conversation may be weaponised. Instead of support, employees anticipate sabotage, gossip, or subtle exclusion.
However, sometimes secrecy is not selfishness. Often, it is learned behaviour. Some employees have been punished for being open; passed over for opportunities after expressing ambition, labelled “not committed” for exploring options, or quietly sidelined after announcing plans to grow. Over time, people internalise one rule: Self-preservation. Career silence becomes a form of self-preservation in psychologically unsafe workplaces.
Could this be a result of the data protection laws, which are increasingly safeguarding employee privacy and dignity? Organisations are also increasingly cautious about what they ask, record, or disclose. But even so, should career growth be limited by these laws? In my opinion, as an HR practitioner, I say no, and this is why.
In most cases, career secrecy comes at a cost to the individual, the employer, and the future of work as a whole. At an individual level, employees lose informal mentorship and peer support. They have to navigate career transitions alone, without feedback or encouragement. Wins feel muted, sometimes lonely.
Work becomes transactional rather than relational. Professional identities are guarded, not grown collectively. Over time, this can breed disengagement, cynicism, and emotional withdrawal. A silent workforce may be compliant, but it is rarely inspired.
For organisations, the implications are even more serious. When people stop talking, leaders lose early signals of disengagement or flight risk. Succession planning weakens. Organisational learning stalls. Culture becomes performative rather than lived. A workplace where employees leave quietly is not a stable one; it is a disconnected one. High retention without trust is not loyalty; it is inertia.
If this trend continues unchecked, the future of work risks becoming efficient but emotionally thin. We may gain systems, policies, and productivity, but lose humanity. The workplace was never meant to be merely a contract. It has always been a social institution: A place of growth, identity, belonging, and shared journeys. When career progression becomes taboo, we erode that social fabric.
Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp
By Nyambura Muhoro