Too busy to notice and report?

Research shows that some of the people organisations rely on most - highly driven, always-working employees - may be the least likely to notice, question, or report emerging risks. Workaholism is not simply about working long hours; it reflects a compulsive inner drive to work, where self-esteem and life satisfactions are closely tied to work achievement. When prevented from working, workaholics experience discomfort, guilt, and anxiety. They tend to be perfectionist, making it difficult to delegate and can struggle to disengage from work-related thoughts.

Significantly, workaholism is not associated with stronger ethical standards. Workaholics prioritise task completion and personal achievement. This narrow focus can make workaholics actively avoid distractions and disruption, including those that require ethical attention. Our recent multi-study paper (Knoll et al., 2025) shows that, in certain organisational contexts, workaholism can have unanticipated negative consequences for insider-risk detection and reporting.

This matters because many organisational risks, including fraud, safety failures, harassment, and regulatory breaches, are not detected by systems alone. They rely on employees noticing problems and speaking up.

While considerable research has focused on unethical behaviours (“acts of commission”), including: fraud, aggression, or corruption, less attention has been given to situations where workaholism drives people, who have no malicious intent, to engage in acts that are not morally or professionally expected of them (“acts of omission”). 

Organisational risks... are not detected by systems alone. They rely on employees noticing problems and speaking up

Remaining silent when something is wrong is not a neutral act. Over time, silence normalises harm, removing critical information from decision-makers, and allowing small issues to escalate into serious organisational and societal risks. From a security perspective, these omissions are particularly problematic because they are difficult to observe, trace, or correct after the fact. 

Our research shows that workaholism is linked to moral disengagement, a set of social-cognitive mechanisms that allow individuals to suspend moral self-regulation without feeling guilt or self-condemnation. When absorbed in their own work, workaholics are more likely to reframe their reporting inaction in morally acceptable ways. They may justify silence by emphasising the importance of their own tasks (“my work is critical”), minimise potential harm (“it’s probably not serious”), or diffuse responsibility (“someone else will deal with it”). These processes allow individuals to maintain a positive self-image while disengaging from ethical concerns. 

Importantly, these processes do not involve bad intentions. Moral disengagement enables ordinary, committed employees to overlook risks, while still seeing themselves as responsible and ethical professionals.

Choosing not to speak is an active moral choice. Speaking up is equally moral: it is an attempt to prevent harm, improve systems, or protect others. In our study, we examined both sides of this process: silence (withholding concerns) and moral voice (the intention to speak-up about wrongdoing).

Critically, we found it was not the workload or long hours that affects ethical decision-making but the compulsive cognitive and emotional attachment to work that disrupted employees' moral self-regulation. When people are so absorbed in their tasks that they feel anxious if they stop, it can interfere with their ability to notice risks or act on ethical concerns. Although long hours aren’t the direct cause, they can facilitate inefficient processes or pressures that make this compulsive focus more likely. From a risk perspective, this helps explain why some of the most committed and involved employees may also be the least likely to raise concerns.

These effects were amplified in workplaces characterised by a culture of self-interest: environments that reward narrow performance goals while neglecting broader ethical responsibilities. In such contexts, workaholic tendencies are reinforced, rather than constrained. Employees receive implicit signals that focusing on personal targets is valued more than attending to ethical issues. Moral disengagement becomes easier, silence more defensible, and speaking up less likely.

Being “too busy to notice” is not an individual flaw; it represents a security vulnerability.

For organisations, these patterns can reshape organisational norms, creating cultures where ethical inattention is expected. From a security standpoint, it reveals a systemic vulnerability, rather than individual failures. We highlight a counterintuitive risk group: employees who are highly committed, anxious when not working, and cognitively absorbed by their tasks. These individuals may require closer ethical and managerial attention, not because they are malicious, but because their work focus makes moral disengagement more likely.

In response organisations can: 

• Reward effective work outcomes rather than the number of hours spent at the desk. Excessive hours often indicate inefficient processes and can reinforce compulsive attachment to work. Improving systems allows employees the cognitive space to notice risks and engage with ethical concerns.
• Actively recognise and protect those who raise concerns. Building a reporting culture requires making moral voice visible, legitimate, and valued, rather than treating it as a distraction from “real work”. 
• Pay attention to organisational cultures that prioritise self-interest or single bottom-line goals. Such environments do not merely tolerate silence; they actively enable it.

Being “too busy to notice” is not an individual flaw; it represents a security vulnerability. When dedication disrupts moral self-regulation, silence becomes normal, and critical warnings are missed. This weakens a critical line of defence: employees noticing potential risks and speaking up about them. Understanding how moral disengagement operates can help organisations identify and address these hidden vulnerabilities before harm occurs.