Upward Communication

While it’s common to think of communication in the workplace as flowing from the top down, the messages that travel upward, from employees to managers and executives, are just as essential. Upward communication includes everything from sharing feedback and reporting problems to suggesting new ideas or raising concerns. This section unpacks the four key functions of upward communication and explores how it shapes decision-making, innovation, and organizational trust. We’ll also look at why employees sometimes choose silence over speaking up, and what happens when that silence turns into dissent. Understanding this communication flow helps leaders and team members create healthier, more responsive work environments.

Upward Communication

Upward communication consists of messages that start at the bottom of the hierarchy and are transmitted up the hierarchy to the highest rungs. Upward communication can be considered a bottom-up approach to organizational communication. Randy Hirokawa (1979) noted that upward communication serves four essential functions in the modern organization:

As a side note, we must stress the importance of research examining sex differences in upward communication (Stewart, Stewart, Friedley, & Cooper, 1996). The researchers noted that females who provide more upward communication are more likely to advance and be promoted than those who do not. In a world where women are still underrepresented in many organizations, mastering upward communication can be crucial for female workers. Now that we’ve examined some of the basic reasons for upward communication in organizations, we will explore the types of upward communication, problems associated with upward communication, and effective methods for upward communication.

Types of Upward Communication

Employees communicate upward in an organization in various ways, but one of the most widely used frameworks is that of Katz and Kahn (1966). They identified four main types of upward communication based on the message sent. Later, Tourish and Robson (2006) added a fifth type, focused on critical feedback, which is essential for keeping organizations accountable and responsive.

Let’s break these five types down in simple terms:

1. Information About Yourself (the Subordinate)

This includes both personal and professional information. You might share personal updates with your supervisor to build rapport, like discussing your family, health, or outside interests. You might also share professional information about your performance or work challenges. Example: Maybe you’ve been doing well and want to let your supervisor know about your success on a recent project. Or maybe you’re falling behind on a task and need to ask for help or an extension. Either way, this type of communication helps your supervisor understand your needs, progress, and limits.

2. Information About Coworkers and Their Challenges

Sometimes, employees notice things their supervisors don’t, especially regarding team dynamics or coworkers struggling. Because supervisors often juggle many responsibilities, they can’t track every issue. That’s why they rely on employees to speak up if something important happens. Example: You may notice a coworker consistently missing deadlines or behaving differently. Communicating this to supervisors can help them step in before the situation worsens. Of course, this should be done professionally, not as gossip, but as a way to support the team and address problems early.

3. Information About Organizational Policies and Procedures

This type of upward communication involves employees providing feedback about an organization’s rules, policies, or systems. For example, if your company has a confusing or inefficient time-tracking system, and employees constantly lose time or make errors because of it, sharing that feedback with a supervisor can lead to changes that improve the workflow for everyone.

This communication is essential because policies don’t always work as intended in real-life situations. Employees use the systems every day, so they’re in the best position to speak up when something’s not working well.

4. Information About the Task

Here, the focus is on specific tasks or job-related duties. This may include updates, questions, progress reports, or concerns about the work’s progress. Example: Imagine you’re assigned to complete a job but are missing critical materials, or a customer’s expectations have changed mid-project. Communicating this to your supervisor promptly helps them adjust expectations, provide support, or resolve the issue before it escalates.

Keeping the lines open about what’s happening on the job helps supervisors manage resources, deadlines, and quality control.

5. Critical Upward Communication (Tourish & Robson, 2006)

The fifth category, added later, is when employees share criticism or concerns about the organization. This can include disagreement with leadership decisions, company direction, or workplace culture. Example: Maybe you notice a safety policy that seems outdated or unfair. Or perhaps decisions are being made without input from the people affected. Speaking up in these cases takes courage, especially when there’s a risk of backlash—but it’s essential for maintaining workplaces that are ethical, efficient, and fair. Critical upward communication helps organizations grow and avoid problems. However, employees often hesitate to voice criticism out of fear of being seen as difficult. Leaders must create an environment where feedback is welcomed, not punished.

Employee Silence

When we think about communication in the workplace, we typically focus on verbal interactions, meetings, emails, and feedback. However, silence is also a form of communication, and it can convey just as powerful a message. Richard Johannesen (1974) was one of the first scholars to note that silence plays a crucial role in human communication. Later, researchers Elizabeth Morrison and Frances Milliken (2000) explored how silence works specifically in the workplace. They defined employee silence as situations where employees withhold ideas, concerns, or feedback, on purpose or without fully realizing it, even though that information might be helpful to their supervisors or organization.

Why do employees stay silent? According to Morrison and Milliken, one key reason is the behavior of managers. They found that silence often results from:

1. A manager’s fear of negative feedback, and

2. A set of unspoken beliefs about how things “should” work in the organization (2000, p. 705).

Here’s a simple example: Imagine you’re working in a pizza shop and you suggest to your manager that rearranging the ingredient layout could speed up the process. If the manager shuts you down, ignores your input, or gives you a dirty look, are you likely to speak up again? Probably not.

Three Types of Employee Silence

Van Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) identified three common types of silence at work:

• Acquiescent Silence: This happens when employees have given up. They feel like nothing they say will matter, so they stop offering suggestions. It’s a sign of disengagement or burnout.

• Defensive Silence: This is about self-protection. Employees stay quiet because they fear speaking up could lead to retaliation, criticism, or damaged relationships.

• Prosocial Silence: This type might seem more positive. It’s when employees hold back information to protect others, maintain harmony, or avoid unnecessary conflict. In some cases, people also remain quiet to protect the company, for example, by not disclosing proprietary information.

What Happens When People Stay Silent?

Silence might seem safer, but research shows it can have significant downsides for individuals and organizations. In one study, Tangirala and Ramanujam (2008) found that employees who felt silenced also perceived their workplace as unfair. They were less connected to their organization and less committed to their jobs. Another study by Jason Wrench (2012) found that acquiescent and defensive silence were linked to lower motivation and job satisfaction. Conversely, prosocial silence was related to higher motivation and satisfaction, likely because the silence came from a place of care rather than fear or frustration. These findings show that how and why employees stay silent matter. Silence can signal a problem in the workplace culture, and if it becomes a habit, it can damage morale, trust, and productivity. Creating a work environment where employees feel safe, heard, and respected is key to breaking the silence and building better communication.

Employee silence is a stifling behavior that negatively affects workplace communication and interaction. Let’s focus on the other end of the communication spectrum and discuss how employees articulate dissent.

Organizational Dissent

Communication isn’t always about agreement. Sometimes, employees must speak up about something they believe is wrong, unfair, or not working. This is known as organizational dissent. Communication scholar Jeffrey Kassing (1997) described organizational dissent as a two-part process:

1. An employee feels disconnected from something about their organization (like its values, decisions, or behavior), and

2. The employee expresses disagreement or concern about that issue.

Kassing later defined dissent as a specific type of employee voice, where a worker shares opinions that challenge the status quo in the workplace (Kassing, 1998). This is similar to what Tourish and Robson (2006) referred to as critical upward communication, which occurs when feedback flows from employees to supervisors, particularly when that feedback involves critique. While the right to speak freely is a core value in American culture, things get more complicated in the workplace. Employees must weigh the risks of speaking up. Will they be taken seriously or seen as troublemakers? Will they help improve the situation, or face pushback for challenging authority? Kassing (1998) explained that people think carefully about how they’ll be perceived before speaking out and whether the potential benefits of dissent outweigh the risks.

In his later work, Kassing (2011) identified three main types of organizational dissent:

• Articulated (or Upward) Dissent: Shared directly with someone in a position of authority, like a supervisor.

• Latent (or Lateral) Dissent: Shared informally with coworkers, but not with leadership.

• Displaced Dissent: Shared outside the organization, such as venting to friends or family.

These different forms of dissent reveal the complexity of workplace communication, especially when power dynamics are involved. Sometimes, people speak up openly. Other times, they express their frustration in less direct or private ways.

Articulated/upward dissent “involves expressing dissent within organizations to audiences that can effectively influence organizational adjustment. It occurs when employees believe they will be perceived as constructive and that their dissent will not lead to retaliation” (Kassing, 1998, pp. 191-192).  Kassing (2002) further noted that there are five types of dissent strategies subordinates can employ: direct-factual appeal, solution presentation, repetition, circumvention, and threatening resignation.

The first articulated dissent strategy is direct-factual appeal, when “people provide factual information based on their own work experience and their understanding of company policies and practices when they express their disagreement to their supervisors” (Kassing, 2005, p. 233). The second articulated dissent strategy is solution presentation, when a subordinate offers a solution to a workplace problem while raising concerns about the problem itself. The third articulated dissent strategy is repetition, or when a subordinate raises the same issue repeatedly. The idea behind repetition is that if a problem is brought up repeatedly, the supervisor may eventually be more inclined to take action.

The fourth articulated dissent strategy is circumvention, when a subordinate bypasses their immediate supervisor and goes directly to someone higher up the hierarchy to get some action taken. While circumventing one’s immediate supervisor can be very dangerous, there are times when it is necessary. For example, many organizations have procedures for reporting sexual harassment. The most common first step in sexual harassment procedures is to report any harassing behavior to your immediate supervisor, but what if your immediate supervisor is the one harassing you? Many organizations recognize that supervisor harassment can be a problem, so they designate a person within the organization as the “go-to” person for incidents of harassment. In these cases, individuals lower in the hierarchy can circumvent their supervisors and report the harassment to someone higher up.

The last articulated dissent strategy is to threaten resignation. This strategy is simple: do what I want or quit. Of course, this strategy is only effective if the dissenting is ready to resign. Never use a threatening resignation as a bluffing tactic because your supervisor may decide to call your bluff.

The second type of organizational dissent, latent/lateral dissent, consists of communicative behaviors “that involve complaining to coworkers and voicing criticism openly within organizations” (Kassing, 1998, p. 211).  Kassing (1998) labeled this form of dissent “latent dissent” because the term “suggests that dissent readily exists but is not always observable and that dissent becomes observable when certain conditions exist (i.e., when frustration mounts)” (p. 211). This form of organizational dissent is a form of horizontal or lateral organizational communication, which will be discussed later in the next section.

The final type of dissent is displaced dissent, which occurs when employees feel it could be harmful, so they express dissent to friends and family outside the organization’s boundaries. And occurs outside of the confines of the organization itself. When an employee feels that dissent in the workplace could be harmful, they will often express their dissent to friends and family members. Ultimately, whether an individual decides to express dissent within the organization (upward or laterally) depends on how they view the risks of doing so. If someone fears retaliation, bullying, or ostracism for dissenting, they will be less likely to engage in dissent within the workplace (Waldron & Kassing, 2011).

Problems with Upward Communication

Researchers have identified several significant challenges with upward communication, specifically when employees communicate with their supervisors or managers. One of the most important issues is distortion, which means the message that reaches the boss isn’t always the whole or honest truth. Randy Hirokawa (1979) noted that employees often modify, soften, or filter their statements when speaking to someone higher up. This can leave supervisors with an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of what’s happening. Milliken, Morrison, and Hewlin’s (2003) study found that 85% of people have stayed silent about a work issue even when they believed it was important. That silence might be caused by fear, frustration, or the belief that speaking up wouldn’t make a difference. One of the first researchers to study this phenomenon was Glen Mellinger (1956), who found that when someone doesn’t trust their supervisor, they often conceal their feelings. They might act overly agreeable, avoid the topic, or even become aggressive. As Fredric Jablin later explained, this leads supervisors to guess what their employees think, resulting in confusion and poor decision-making (Jablin, 1979).

There are three main reasons why upward communication can break down (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974):

1. Lack of Trust – Employees who don’t trust their supervisor tend to withhold information or only say what’s necessary.

2. Supervisor Influence – When employees believe their boss controls their future (raises, promotions, job security), some will try to build trust by being open. In contrast, others will stay quiet to avoid rocking the boat. Both approaches can distort communication.

3. Mobility – An employee who wants to climb the ladder may communicate differently than someone who doesn’t. Some may speak up to get noticed, while others may play it safe and only say what they think their boss wants to hear.

In all these cases, the result is the same: leaders aren’t getting the whole picture, which can lead to poor decisions, missed problems, and workplace tension.

Effective Methods for Upward Communication

While there’s no one-size-fits-all solution for improving upward communication in the workplace, researchers have identified four practices that can make a significant difference: building trust, utilizing multiple methods, demonstrating that feedback matters, and reducing barriers between supervisors and employees.

1. Build Trust

The most important way to improve upward communication is to create trust-based relationships. When employees trust their supervisor, they are more likely to speak up honestly. Trust doesn’t happen overnight; it takes time and consistency. However, without it, upward communication tends to break down, and employees often stay silent even when something important needs to be said.

2. Use More Than One Strategy

Randy Hirokawa (1979) suggested that supervisors use multiple tools to gather feedback from employees, including:

• Regular meetings

• Performance reviews

• Attitude surveys

• Suggestion programs

• Grievance procedures

• Open-door policies

• Exit interviews

Each can be helpful, but not every tool works equally well in every situation. A manager needs to think carefully about which methods will be most effective for the type of information they want to receive.

3. Show That Feedback Matters

One of the quickest ways to shut down communication is to ignore employee input. If workers share ideas and never hear back or see no changes, they may stop speaking up. That doesn’t mean every suggestion can or should be implemented. However, managers should acknowledge all feedback and explain decisions when ideas aren’t used. For example, a company with a suggestion box could include a “suggestion response” section in the company newsletter. If an idea does get implemented, recognize the employee who submitted it. That kind of follow-through builds trust and encourages more upward communication in the future.

4. Reduce Physical and Psychological Barriers

Hirokawa (1981) also found that physical distance between managers and employees can limit communication. In many Japanese workplaces, managers regularly spend time on the shop floor talking to employees, and this face-to-face interaction fosters trust and enhances communication. In the U.S., a similar concept called Management by Walking Around (MBWA) was made popular by Bill Hewlett and David Packard back in the 1940s. The idea is simple: leaders should regularly leave their offices to talk with employees, ask questions, and listen.

For MBWA to work, there are three essential conditions:

1. Managers must talk with every employee and be open to honest feedback.

2. Conversations should include casual topics, not just work. A little personal connection can go a long way.

3. Avoid criticism during these interactions. Employees will shut down and avoid contact if managers only point out mistakes.

Too often, managers are overloaded with tasks and don’t have time for regular check-ins. However, consistent, face-to-face interaction is one of the most effective ways to build strong relationships and maintain open communication in both directions.