Employees Who Disagree Are Called Dangerous for Russian Business

According to Cornerstone, more than 70% of organizations hear about 'psychological safety' for the first time, while approximately 60% of managers admit they do not always express disagreement with their superiors. Vladislav Bykhanov, General Director of Cornerstone, explained why employee silence and a narrow group of idea generators hinder innovation. He emphasized that psychological safety does not mean constant praise but rather the freedom to disagree, report problems, and ask difficult questions without fear of punishment. The company highlights that 80–90% of new proposals often come from a small group of employees, indicating a lack of diverse input. Editorial notes clarify that the data are based on Cornerstone's own observations, with no disclosed methodology or sample size, making it impossible to assess representativeness. The article concludes that companies seeking innovation must first ensure an environment where open disagreement is safe, as suppressed feedback prevents critical issues and improvements from reaching leadership.

Otabek YusupovFirst published on tafs uz 26 October 2026 at 05:403 min read

The key facts

More than 70% of organizations hear the term 'psychological safety' for the first time, while 100% of Cornerstone survey participants are aware of information security.
Approximately 60% of managers admit they do not always express disagreement with their superiors.
A key warning sign is when 80–90% of new proposals come from a small group of employees.

Employee silence as a risk to business

Russian businesses are accustomed to focusing on information security but much less frequently assess whether employees feel safe expressing unpleasant truths to management or asking difficult questions. Vladislav Bykhanov, General Director of Cornerstone, told Gazeta.Ru about this.According to the company's observations, in more than 70% of organizations, the term 'psychological safety' is heard for the first time, whereas 100% of the survey participants are aware of information security.

What is psychological safety

According to Bykhanov, psychological safety is not a situation where the manager praises everyone. It refers to the ability to openly disagree, report problems, and ask difficult questions without fear of punishment. When such an opportunity is absent, employees begin to adapt to the manager: at meetings, everyone nods, problems are raised at the last moment,and the same people propose ideas. 'Companies may regularly perform technical maintenance on vehicles and equipment but hardly think about the 'technical maintenance' of their own organizational environment,' he noted.

Data and signs of the problem

According to Cornerstone data, about 60% of managers admit that they themselves do not always express disagreement with their superiors. Another alarming sign is when 80–90% of new proposals come from a small group of employees. The company notes that employee silence is nearly impossible to quantify: the organization sees only expressed ideas but does not know how many solutions could have been improved.

'Organizational broth' and the boundaries of the concept

Innovation cannot be demanded by decree: for a person to propose an idea or disagree with a manager, they need a certain level of trust. At Cornerstone, this is called 'organizational broth'—an environment where the manager is ready to hear alternative opinions, and mistakes are not seen as grounds for punishment. At the same time, psychological safety is not equivalent to 'employee happiness': a person may feel comfortable but still fear telling their manager, 'You are wrong.' 'A strong team is not one where no one argues. Before demanding new ideas from employees, it is worth checking the state of the environment in which these ideas should emerge,' Bykhanov concluded.

Context and data limitations

Gazeta.Ru also mentions an earlier publication in which a psychologist explained how to understand if you are being bullied at work.The editorial team notes that the figures provided are based on observations by Cornerstone itself, and the methodology and sample size in the publication are not disclosed; therefore, it is impossible to assess the representativeness of the data based on the published materials.

Why this matters

For companies requiring innovation from employees, these data point to a practical benchmark: before expecting new ideas, it is worth checking whether a person can openly disagree with a manager without risking punishment. A direct consequence of the presented facts is that a narrow circle of proposal authors (80–90% of ideas from a small group) and managers' own admissions of not freely expressing disagreement can serve as measurable indicators that the environment suppresses feedback, meaning some problems and improvements simply do not reach management.