When employees share new ideas and bring up concerns or problems, organizations innovate and perform better. Employees are often the first to see problems on the frontlines, so their input can really improve managerial decision making

Yet, managers do not constantly encourage employees’ ideas. In fact, they can even actively ignore employee concerns and act in ways that hinder employees from speaking up at all.

This presents a paradox: Why don’t managers promote voice and ideas from below while it is beneficial to them and their organizations?

Much current research on the topic suggests that managers are often stuck in their own ways of operating and identify so strongly with the status quo that they are nervous of listening to contrary input from below. We illustrate that managers often fail to create speak-up cultures not only because they are self-focused or care only about their own egos and ideas, but because their organizations put them in improbable positions

We found that managers face two discrete hurdles: They are not empowered to work on input from below, and they seem compelled to choose a short-term outlook to work.

Take the example of Jyothi, a production manager, who is committed to the organization and wants to do well for it. Jyothi understands that some of her employees, who are familiar to the production lines than her, likely have good ideas that can enhance workflow on the shop floor. But, in Jyothi’s organization, managers are not empowered to perform any changes without going through a tedious central approving rule at HQ. She also feels disincentivized to take time to try improvements, since she is only remunerated on short-term successes like meeting the next deadline or target.

Now, Jyothi can surely promote her employees to speak up with ideas. But she knows that if she does, they would expect her to act quickly on those ideas, which is something she cannot do. She also recognizes that realizing new practices or changes, though helpful in the longer term, would lead to interruptions in the production flow in the short-term. With end-of-quarter production targets looming, Jyothi would be hard-pressed to find time to initiate conversations about change.

In our data, we found many managers who faced a comparable situation to Jyothi’s. They oftentimes work in environments that do not provide them with any autonomy to change things. They experience centralized decision structures, in which authority lies at the tip of the hierarchy, and they are merely “go-betweens.” Furthermore even when they are empowered to act, they still confront commands to show success in the short-term rather than look out for long-term sustainability. Under such circumstances, even the best-intentioned managers are likely to avoid soliciting employee ideas and might even smother them.

We tend to criticize managers when they fail to create speak-up cultures. We say that their ego or fear of change stops them from encouraging voice from employees. But our findings indicate that it is irrational to ask managers to solicit and foster ideas and input from employees when they are not empowered themselves and are urged to focus on short-term outcomes.

It is important for organizations to explore the extent to which their practices (e.g., micromanagement by the top management) are impinging on managers’ spirit of autonomy on the job. It is also critical to understand how rampant short-termism can reduce the extent to which ideas from below trickle-up to the chief and get implemented. Nurturing long-term opinions and opening up opportunities for managers to step-away from the direct demands of the work can further ensure that managers promote creativity and innovation within their teams. Allotting more resources and influence to those managers who display long-term orientation can obtain heightened benefits.