“I Want You to Know, but I Don’t Want You to Do Anything”
How leaders should respond when an employee raises a psychosocial concern but asks them not to act.
A visibly uncomfortable employee approaches their manager.
They explain that something has been happening at work. They may be repeatedly undermined, excluded from important information, struggling with unreasonable demands or spoken to in a way that has left them anxious about coming to work.
Then they add:
“I want you to know what is happening, but I don’t want you to do anything about it.”
It is one of the most difficult statements a manager or leader can hear.
On the surface, it may sound like a clear request: listen, keep the information confidential and take no further action.
It is rarely that simple.
The employee may not want to make a formal complaint. They may not want an investigation. They may be concerned that the other person will discover they have spoken to someone.
However, they have still chosen to disclose the concern to a person in authority.
That matters.
What might the employee really be saying?
An employee who makes this type of disclosure may be experiencing excessive demands, inadequate support, exclusion, workplace conflict, aggressive behaviour or repeated conduct that is affecting their wellbeing and capacity to work.
They want someone in authority to understand what is happening, but they do not want to become “the complainant”.
They may fear that raising the issue will make the behaviour worse. They may worry about being labelled difficult, damaging their career or losing important workplace relationships.
They may not trust the organisation’s complaint process, particularly if they have seen previous concerns handled poorly.
They may also feel exhausted by the prospect of statements, interviews, meetings and formal correspondence.
Sometimes, the employee wants the situation to change but fears the organisational response almost as much as the original problem.
When an employee says, “I don’t want you to do anything”, they may mean:
I am not ready for a formal process.
I do not want to lose control of what happens next.
I am afraid this will become bigger than I can manage.
I want to know whether I can trust you.
I need support, but I do not know what safe support looks like.
The statement is therefore not simply an instruction.
It is also information about the employee’s experience of risk, their trust in the organisation and their concerns about what may happen next.
An informal conversation can still reveal a workplace risk
One of the mistakes leaders can make is assuming that nothing has formally happened because the employee has not submitted a written complaint.
Psychosocial concerns do not become relevant only when a grievance form is completed, or a formal allegation is made.
An ordinary conversation with a manager may reveal concerns about:
excessive job demands
poor support
unclear roles
harmful workplace interactions
bullying or aggression
exclusion
unresolved workplace conflict.
Workplace Health and Safety Queensland identifies discussions with supervisors as one of the ways workers may report or raise psychosocial hazards. It also encourages early reporting so hazards can be managed before they cause harm.
Under Queensland’s Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011, a psychosocial hazard may arise from the design or management of work, the work environment, workplace interactions or workplace behaviours. A person conducting a business or undertaking must manage psychosocial risks and consider relevant matters such as the duration, frequency and severity of exposure, the interaction between hazards, job demands and the systems through which work is managed and supported.
The absence of a formal complaint does not necessarily mean the absence of a workplace risk.
A worker may decide not to pursue a grievance. The organisation must still consider whether the information reveals a reasonably foreseeable psychosocial hazard and whether further assessment or action may be required.
This does not mean every disclosure must lead to an investigation.
It means the leader needs enough information to make a considered, proportionate and defensible decision.
Why the early response matters
Psychosocial concerns can appear less urgent than physical safety issues because their effects are not always immediately visible.
The consequences can nevertheless be significant.
Safe Work Australia recorded 17,600 serious workers’ compensation claims for mental health conditions in its preliminary data for 2023 to 2024. Mental health conditions accounted for 12 per cent of all serious claims. Over the preceding decade, the number of serious claims for mental health conditions increased by 10,900 claims, or 161.1 per cent.
These figures do not suggest that every difficult workplace conversation will result in psychological injury.
They demonstrate why organisations should not wait until an issue becomes severe, formal or medically documented before considering whether action is required.
An early and proportionate response may prevent a concern from developing into prolonged conflict, extended absence, resignation, formal proceedings or psychological harm.
The leader’s task: neither promise nor panic
A manager receiving this disclosure may feel caught between two responsibilities.
The first is to respect the employee’s wishes and preserve the trust that allowed the conversation to occur.
The second is to respond appropriately to information suggesting that a workplace risk may exist.
A manager may be tempted to reassure the employee by saying:
“Of course. This will stay completely between us.”
That response may feel compassionate in the moment.
It may also be a promise the manager cannot responsibly keep.
Managers should avoid promising absolute confidentiality before they understand the nature and seriousness of the concern.
There may be circumstances in which limited information needs to be shared to assess an immediate safety issue, address a broader organisational risk or protect other workers. Information should be handled carefully and disclosed only where reasonably necessary.
Workplace Health and Safety Queensland advises organisations responding to a psychosocial issue or complaint to act promptly, ensure immediate safety, treat the matter seriously, maintain confidentiality, support the parties, communicate the process and outcomes, and keep appropriate records.
The manager should be transparent about the limits of what can be promised from the beginning.
That does not mean disregarding the employee’s wishes or immediately commencing a formal process.
The first task is to understand the concern sufficiently to decide what response may be required.
The manager may need to explore:
whether anyone is at immediate risk
whether the behaviour or working condition is continuing
how frequently it has occurred
how it is affecting the employee
whether other workers may also be affected
whether the issue appears isolated or forms part of a broader pattern
what may happen if no action is taken
what the employee fears will happen if the organisation responds
what outcome the employee considers helpful.
The employee’s wishes should remain central to the discussion. They should be consulted, kept informed and involved as much as reasonably possible.
Under Queensland’s Work Health and Safety Act 2011, a person conducting a business or undertaking must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult workers who are or are likely to be directly affected by a work health and safety matter.
Consultation requires relevant information to be shared, workers to be given a reasonable opportunity to express their views and contribute to decision-making, those views to be considered, and workers to be advised of the outcome in a timely way.
However, consultation does not necessarily mean that one employee can determine the organisation’s entire response.
Doing something does not mean doing everything
Inaction can initially appear to be the safest or most respectful option.
It may protect the employee’s identity and avoid an uncomfortable process.
However, doing nothing is still a decision.
The employee may remain exposed to the same behaviour or working conditions. Other workers may also be affected. The situation may become more entrenched and more difficult to resolve.
There is also a risk of missing a pattern.
One manager may receive a quiet disclosure about excessive workloads.
Another may hear that an employee is being repeatedly excluded or undermined.
A third may be told about aggressive leadership behaviour but asked not to take the matter further.
Individually, each conversation may appear contained.
Together, they may indicate that the organisation’s systems, leadership practices or risk controls are not working effectively.
The appropriate response should reflect the seriousness, frequency and potential consequences of the concern.
Initial action might involve:
clarifying roles and expectations
reviewing workloads and work allocation
strengthening supervision or leadership support
monitoring a particular work area or team
providing conflict coaching
conducting a psychosocial risk review
facilitating a supported conversation
changing reporting arrangements
addressing a broader organisational control
commencing a formal process where the circumstances require it.
The key is not to confuse action with automatic escalation.
The organisation does not have to default to either doing nothing or launching an investigation.
A measured response can protect dignity while still addressing risk.
A practical response for leaders
A leader can be transparent without being harsh.
They might say:
“Thank you for telling me. I understand that you do not want this to become a formal complaint or a larger process. I will take your wishes and your concerns about what may happen next seriously.
“I will keep this as private as I reasonably can. However, I cannot promise that nothing will happen until I understand whether there is an immediate or broader workplace risk.
“Let us work through what has been happening and the available options together. I will explain any steps that may need to be taken and involve you as much as reasonably possible.”
This response acknowledges the employee’s trust.
It avoids making an unrealistic promise of absolute confidentiality.
It explains that the leader has responsibilities.
It does not assume that a formal complaint is the only available pathway.
Most importantly, it keeps the employee involved.
That matters because the organisational response can itself become a source of further harm.
An employee who makes a careful disclosure and then loses all visibility or control may feel exposed, betrayed or punished for speaking.
A well-managed response should therefore be timely, fair, proportionate and sensitive to the effect of the process on everyone involved.
When independent support may be appropriate
These situations are often difficult because they do not fit neatly into one organisational category.
The matter may involve workplace conflict, leadership behaviour, workload, damaged trust, team dynamics and psychosocial risk, without meeting the threshold for a formal complaint.
Independent support may be particularly useful where:
credible indicators of risk are present, but no formal complaint has been made
the concern does not fit neatly within an existing procedure
the employee does not trust the internal process
the leader or HR team has become involved in the conflict
interpersonal, leadership and organisational factors are interacting
several separate concerns may indicate a broader pattern
a formal process has concluded, but workplace relationships remain damaged
leaders are uncertain which intervention is appropriate.
HR support is valuable and, in many situations, essential. HR consultants may assist with policies, performance management, employment documentation, industrial instruments, disciplinary procedures and formal workplace processes.
Workplace conflict and psychosocial risk support has a different primary focus.
It is particularly relevant where the central issues involve damaged trust, strained working relationships, psychosocial risk, entrenched conflict or uncertainty about how to intervene safely and proportionately.
The question is not whether HR or specialist conflict support is better.
The question is which expertise the situation requires.
This work does not replace HR, legal advice, workplace investigations or internal work health and safety processes. It can sit alongside them.
How I help organisations respond
When an employee raises a concern but does not want formal action, I help the organisation move from uncertainty to a clear and proportionate response.
Depending on the circumstances, this may involve:
clarifying what has been disclosed and what remains uncertain
identifying any immediate, ongoing or broader psychosocial risks
considering the employee’s wishes, the limits of confidentiality and the organisation’s responsibilities
distinguishing between interpersonal conflict, a psychosocial hazard, potential misconduct and a broader organisational issue
identifying the least intrusive response that can reasonably address the risk
preparing the leader for further conversations with the employee
recommending whether the matter is best addressed through management action, conflict coaching, facilitated discussion, mediation, psychosocial risk review or formal escalation
documenting the reasoning and recommended next steps
supporting the organisation to implement the response without unnecessarily escalating the situation.
Where several concerns are emerging, I can also help the organisation step back from the individual accounts and examine the broader work system.
Increasing sick leave, resignations, communication breakdowns, tension between teams and repeated concerns about leadership behaviour may initially appear to be separate employee issues.
Together, they may point to inadequate support, unclear roles, excessive demands, ineffective change management or harmful workplace interactions.
The purpose is not simply to determine who is right or wrong.
It is to understand why the problems are occurring, what is maintaining them and what needs to change.
I draw on conflict resolution, psychological science, psychosocial risk management, and more than 20 years of senior organisational leadership.
I am an AMDRAS-accredited mediator listed on the National Register of Registered Practitioners and an accredited conflict coach. The National Register is administered by the AMDRAS Board and records practitioners accredited under the Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation Standards.
I look beyond whether a policy has technically been breached.
I consider the history and pattern of the conflict, the employee’s experience of risk, power differences, the design and management of the work, the capability of the leader receiving the disclosure and the likely effect of the organisation’s response.
This analysis helps organisations choose clearer responses and practical interventions to reduce escalation, restore workable relationships, and prevent the problem from recurring.
The organisation leaves with:
a clearer understanding of the immediate and broader risks
a defensible response pathway
practical steps the leader can implement
greater clarity about whether formal escalation is required
a response designed to protect the employee, reduce further harm and prevent the issue from becoming more entrenched.
The question that matters
“I don’t want you to do anything” should not be treated simply as an instruction to ignore the concern.
It should be understood as information.
The leader’s task is not merely to ask:
“Do I have the employee’s permission to act?”
The more useful question is:
“What is the least intrusive, most protective and procedurally fair response available to us?”
Sometimes, the response will involve a formal process.
Sometimes, it will involve reviewing workloads, strengthening supervision, changing reporting arrangements, addressing a systemic risk or engaging independent support.
Sometimes, the immediate task is to create enough trust for the employee to remain engaged in the conversation.
Good leadership in this moment is neither automatic escalation nor passive confidentiality.
It is the ability to listen carefully, explain the limits of what can be promised, preserve dignity and take proportionate steps to prevent harm.
The employee may not be ready to make a formal complaint.
Once a psychosocial concern has been raised, however, the organisation must be ready to respond.
If your organisation has received a disclosure like this and is unsure next, a confidential 30-minute triage call with Resolution House Consulting can help clarify immediate risks, identify available response options, and determine the most appropriate, proportionate next step.
Sources and further reading
Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice 2022.
Queensland Government, Work Health and Safety Act 2011, sections 47 and 48.
Queensland Government, Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011, sections 55A to 55D.
Safe Work Australia, Key Work Health and Safety Statistics Australia 2025.
AMDRAS Board, National Register of Registered Practitioners.
Last reviewed: 30 July 2026
Important information: This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. The appropriate response will depend on the circumstances. Organisations may require specialist legal, human resources, work health and safety, investigation or conflict resolution advice.
