A friend described a leaving drinks conversation. Near the end of the evening, the person departing — finally free to speak — offered two words to describe the company they were leaving behind.
Ostrich culture.
It is one of those descriptions that, once you hear it, you cannot unhear. Uncomfortable truths suppressed. Accountability inconsistently applied. Everyone aware of the problems. Nobody saying them out loud.
What struck me was not the words themselves. It is that it took someone leaving to say them.
A Rational Response to Irrational Incentives
Ostrich culture is not a courage problem. The instinct is to diagnose it as a failure of individuals — not enough brave voices, too much self-preservation, a shortage of people willing to speak truth to power. The fix, under this framing, is to ask for more courage. Run a workshop. Set a norm. Tell people it is safe to speak up.
It is not a courage problem. It is an incentive problem.
People in organisations are rational. They observe what happens when uncomfortable truths get raised. They notice who gets promoted and who gets sidelined. They watch how accountability is applied — and more importantly, to whom. They also watch what happens to the problems that get surfaced: whether anything changed, or whether the issue was heard, acknowledged, and quietly shelved. The personal risk is real. The sense of futility compounds it.
If the organisation has shown — consistently, over time, through dozens of small signals — that surfacing problems is more costly than staying quiet, or no more likely to produce change, then silence is not cowardice. It is the logical response to the environment.
The culture did not intend this. It evolved this way. But intention does not matter. What matters is what the system rewards.
The Mechanism: Inconsistent Accountability
Of all the signals that teach people to stay quiet, inconsistent accountability is the most corrosive.
When the rules apply to some people and not others — when a missed deadline is a serious matter for one person and shrugged off for another, when certain topics are discussable in certain rooms but not in others — people learn something precise and lasting: truth-telling is risky, and the risk is not evenly distributed.
That single signal, absorbed by everyone in the organisation, is enough to produce a culture where the things that most need saying are exactly the things that do not get said.
The paradox is that leaders in this environment often genuinely believe they have an open culture. They have set the norm. They have said the words. What they have not done is examine the cumulative effect of how accountability is actually applied — not in policy, but in practice, day by day, decision by decision.
What the Leaving Party Tells You
Here is the diagnostic that most organisations miss: if your honest feedback lives primarily in people who have already left, you do not have a feedback problem. You have a structural problem.
The farewell drinks are a lagging indicator. By the time someone can say it clearly, the cost of saying it has dropped to zero — because they are leaving. That is precisely the moment it becomes safe. Which tells you something important about every moment before it.
The question worth sitting with is not why did they only say this now? It is what did we do, over the preceding months or years, to make it unsayable before?
That question is harder. It requires looking at patterns rather than incidents. It requires taking seriously the possibility that the culture shaped the silence — not individual timidity.
Making the Unsayable Sayable
There are no shortcuts here. But there are three things that move the needle.
Examine what accountability looks like in practice, not in policy. The gap between your stated values and how accountability is actually applied is visible to everyone in your organisation. If certain behaviours are overlooked for certain people, closing that gap is the highest-leverage thing you can do. Not the next engagement survey. Not the next off-site. Close the gap.
Reward the signal, not just the message. When someone surfaces an uncomfortable truth, the organisation’s response in the next 48 hours determines whether anyone does it again. If the person who raised the issue ends up managing the fallout alone — or becomes the story rather than the problem — that is the signal people remember. Acknowledge the act of raising it. Separate the messenger from the issue.
Ask better questions. General invitations to speak up produce general answers. Is there anything you are not saying in our team meetings that you wish you could? is harder to deflect. Ask it in the contexts where silence is most likely: one-on-ones, skip-levels, the end of a difficult project.
The Cost of Not Knowing
Every organisation has things that are known but not said. The question is not whether they exist. It is whether you find out while you can still do something — or after the person who knew has already left.
The two words at those leaving drinks were not a surprise to the people who heard them. What was surprising was how long it had taken to say them out loud.
That gap — between what is known and what is said — is where most organisational dysfunction lives. Closing it is not a culture initiative. It is a leadership responsibility.
Leave a Reply