Only 48% of NZ Workers Feel Safe Reporting Wrongdoing

Just 48% of New Zealanders believe they would feel safe reporting serious wrongdoing at work, according to a 2025 survey released by the Office of the Ombudsman. Of those who didn't feel safe, 61% feared losing their job and 41% feared retaliation.

The numbers land on HR at a moment when the reflex answer — more reporting lines, more signoffs, closer monitoring — may be the wrong one. New research from China, published in The China Journal in January, found that stricter discipline and heavier reporting requirements push officials into what the authors call formalism: shirking, feigned compliance and falsification, all "for the purposes of self-preservation."

What does the China study actually show?

Ben Hillman of the Australian National University and co-author Tan Zhao drew on fieldwork in six Chinese provinces. They examined how county and township officials cope with increasingly strict discipline, heavier reporting loads and detailed performance reviews.

The backdrop is Xi Jinping's decade-plus tightening of Communist Party discipline. In a speech published this month, he complained that officials feign obedience and likened the corrupt to "sick trees" that should be pulled out. Discipline authorities punished 983,000 people in 2025, up from 889,000 the year before, according to official figures.

Beijing has made fighting formalism a priority. Hillman and Zhao argue the campaign is failing — and making the problem worse.

Why does this matter to a Kiwi employer?

A one-party state and a New Zealand workplace have little in common. The mechanism carries over: people who expect punishment for bad news learn to produce good-looking reports instead. The falsification happens upstream of any actual wrongdoing.

Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety describes the flip side. Teams learn when members feel safe owning up to mistakes and asking for help.

New Zealand research points the same way. Emma Clarke and colleagues, including Katharina Näswall of the University of Canterbury, studied lawyers at 12 New Zealand law firms. They examined how ethical leaders support wellbeing by making it feel safe to speak up, in a profession where hierarchy often keeps junior staff quiet.

Where does the pressure land?

In China, the squeeze hits local officials expected to deliver central targets with thin resources. In New Zealand organisations, that person is usually the team leader or middle manager — the layer HR most often loads with compliance tasks.

Gallup's State of the Global Workplace 2026 found manager engagement worldwide fell from 27% to 22% in 2025. That's the sharpest annual drop Gallup has recorded, and it dragged overall engagement down to 20%.

What should employers do instead?

The Ombudsman's figures point to fear of consequences as the major barrier. The most useful step, the research suggests, is showing staff that speaking up works. When someone raises a concern, tell people what changed as a result — even if the change is small.

Employers should also audit what managers already produce. Reports and sign-offs that nobody acts on cost time and teach people that paperwork matters more than results. Numbers that are always on target deserve a second look for the same reason.

Where monitoring is used, keep it narrow and state plainly what it's for. If staff can't tell what a tool is for, many will assume the worst.

The Ombudsman's survey shows where many workplaces start; Hillman and Zhao's research shows where heavy-handed fixes can lead. The aim, the evidence suggests, is a workplace where raising bad news early is safe — and is seen to be safe.