Why We Stay Quiet About Project Risks at Work, According to John Cutler

In a recent LinkedIn post, John Cutler explores the counterintuitive reasons why individuals often remain silent about potential project failures in professional settings, even when their intuition signals impending issues. Cutler contrasts the low personal cost of speaking up in social situations with the high stakes involved at work, where challenging a plan can carry significant career repercussions.

Cutler begins by highlighting the reversed incentives in a professional context. “At work, those incentives are reversed: the cost of speaking up is high and the cost of failure is normalized, so staying quiet (and “optimistic”) feels safer than challenging a plan,” he writes. This dynamic, according to Cutler, leads to a culture where voicing concerns about feasibility is often suppressed, despite a general human capacity to sense when things are going awry.

The Intuitive Sense of Impending Failure

John Cutler draws a parallel between personal life and work to illustrate how our innate risk assessment abilities function. He uses the relatable example of planning an after-work gathering with friends. When only two people are involved and work is close by, the plan is straightforward. However, as more people, dependencies, and potential delays are introduced – such as one person working across town, another needing to pick up a child, or unpredictable traffic – the likelihood of the plan falling apart becomes intuitively obvious.

“You don’t need a spreadsheet or a Monte Carlo simulation. Your gut already knows that the more moving parts there are, the more likely things will go sideways,” Cutler observes. This natural, almost subconscious, risk assessment is something humans employ effectively in their personal lives without explicit analysis.

Why Workplace Dynamics Inhibit Honesty

The core of Cutler’s argument lies in dissecting why this intuitive risk assessment fails to translate effectively into the workplace. He points out several key differences between social planning and professional project management.

Timeframe and Complexity

Firstly, Cutler notes the disparity in timeframes and the abstract nature of workplace challenges. While a social meetup is planned for a few hours, work projects often span weeks or months. The factors contributing to potential failure in a work context are frequently less tangible and more complex than traffic or game-day congestion.

Shared Mental Models

Another critical factor, according to John Cutler, is the lack of a shared mental model among team members. In the after-work scenario, friends typically have a common understanding of the situation, the potential obstacles, and a shared history of navigating similar challenges. “You are looking at the same map, and have reps navigating situations like this,” he explains.

In contrast, Cutler argues that in many work environments, “Everyone involved has a different mental picture of what’s happening and what might go wrong, so you’re not even looking at the same map.” This divergence in understanding prevents a collective, accurate assessment of risks.

The Cost of Speaking Up

Perhaps the most significant deterrent, as highlighted by John Cutler, is the personal cost associated with voicing dissent in a professional setting. In social circles, expressing doubt about a plan typically carries little risk; if the plan fails, there’s usually another opportunity to reschedule. “No one gets fired for saying ‘this probably won’t work’ in your social life,” Cutler points out.

However, he starkly contrasts this with the workplace, where “saying ‘this probably won’t work’ carries a real cost. Careers and credibility are on the line, and there is no casual do-over next week.” This high-stakes environment incentivizes optimism and discourages the kind of candid feedback that could prevent failure, creating a normalized acceptance of risk that is detrimental to project success.