.jpg)
You launched an idea program. You told employees their voices matter. You set up the submission form, maybe even ran a kickoff meeting. And then, over the next few weeks, something quietly went wrong. The ideas trickled in, you didn't quite know what to do with all of them, and the people who submitted them never heard back.
Now nobody submits ideas anymore. And honestly, you can't blame them.
This pattern is so common it has a name: the suggestion box black hole. Ideas go in, nothing comes out. Research from Gallup consistently shows that fewer than one in three employees feel their opinions count at work. That's not a motivation problem. It's a systems problem.
Here's the honest diagnosis of why it happens, and what actually fixes it.
Why do most organizations ignore employee ideas?
The short answer is that ignoring ideas is rarely intentional. It happens for structural reasons that organizations don't notice until the damage is already done.
The first reason is volume without process. When you open the floor to ideas without a clear triage system, you get 200 submissions and no obvious owner. Ideas pile up in a spreadsheet or inbox, everyone assumes someone else is handling it, and weeks pass. By the time anyone circles back, the people who submitted have mentally written off the program.
The second reason is that feedback loops are broken. Most organizations have no formal mechanism to tell someone what happened to their idea. Even a simple "we reviewed this and here's why it won't move forward right now" is enough to preserve trust. The silence is what kills engagement, not the rejection.
The third reason is middle management friction. When an idea requires cross-functional action or threatens someone's territory, it quietly dies at the department level. The idea never reaches anyone with the authority to act on it. The person who submitted it assumes the whole program is theatre.
The fourth reason is misaligned scope. When employees don't know what kinds of ideas you're actually looking for, they either submit obvious suggestions everyone already thinks about or hold back their best thinking because they assume it's too ambitious. Clarity about scope matters more than most organizations realize.
What does research say about idea programs that actually work?
The organizations that sustain strong idea programs share a few consistent behaviors. They close the feedback loop on every submission, even the ones they don't act on. They set clear response time commitments and hold to them. They make the evaluation criteria visible so employees understand why some ideas move forward and others don't. And critically, they celebrate implementation, not just submission.
Toyota's suggestion system, one of the longest-running in the world, implemented over 90% of the ideas it received. The catch is that Toyota deliberately scoped its program toward small operational improvements where frontline workers had genuine expertise and clear authority to act. The high implementation rate wasn't luck. It was design.
The organizations with the worst idea programs do the opposite. They invite grand strategic ideas from people who have no context on strategic constraints, receive ideas they can't act on, and then go quiet. Repeat this twice and your employees will never submit again.
How long does it take before employees stop trusting an idea program?
Faster than most managers expect. If people don't see any visible response or action within 30 days of submission, trust in the program drops sharply. After two ignored cycles, participation typically falls 60 to 80% from peak levels and rarely recovers without a significant structural reset.
This is why the first campaign of any idea program is disproportionately important. If you demonstrate that ideas get reviewed, decisions get communicated, and at least some things get implemented, you build a foundation of trust that sustains future participation. If you fumble the first cycle, you spend the next year fighting skepticism.
Is the problem the employees or the process?
Almost always the process. Employees hold back ideas for entirely rational reasons. They've seen ideas ignored before. They don't want to be the person who suggested something and was publicly dismissed. They're not sure if their idea is "good enough" to bother submitting. They don't trust that management actually wants to hear what they think.
None of these are attitude problems. They're responses to previous experiences with broken systems. When you fix the system, engagement tends to follow. When you try to motivate people without fixing the system, you get short-term spikes and long-term cynicism.
The most common mistake is responding to low engagement by adding incentives (prizes, leaderboards, recognition) without fixing the underlying feedback and triage process. Incentives can lift submission rates briefly. They don't fix the black hole. People stop submitting again as soon as the incentive campaign ends.
What's the minimum viable response to every idea?
Every submitted idea deserves three things: acknowledgment that it was received, a clear timeline for when a decision will be made, and an actual decision with a brief explanation. That's it. You don't have to implement every idea. You do have to close the loop.
The explanation doesn't need to be long. "We reviewed this and it overlaps with a project already in flight, so we're passing for now" is enough. "This is a great operational insight and we've forwarded it to the relevant team lead" is enough. "We love this and it's now in our Q3 planning" is obviously ideal. What's not acceptable is silence.
Organizations that build this discipline into their process, with a defined review cadence and a commitment to respond within a specific window, consistently outperform those that don't on every engagement metric.
How do you fix an idea program that has already lost credibility?
The hardest situation is inheriting or resetting a program that employees have already written off. Here the challenge isn't operational, it's reputational. You need visible proof that this time is different before you'll get meaningful participation.
The most effective reset strategy is to start with a tightly scoped challenge on a topic where leadership has genuine appetite to act. Pick a problem that's real, where employee input would actually change decisions, and where you can commit to implementing at least one idea within 60 days of the campaign closing. Then tell the whole story publicly: here's the challenge, here are the ideas that came in, here's what we decided and why, here's what we're doing about it.
That one visible cycle does more to rebuild trust than any amount of communication about how the program has improved. You're not asking employees to believe your intentions. You're showing them results.
If you want a structured way to run this kind of reset campaign, the 10-day idea challenge framework is designed specifically to move from question to decision fast enough to demonstrate the program is real.
What role does psychological safety play?
A significant one that often gets overlooked in conversations about tools and processes. Employees are more willing to share ideas when they believe they won't be penalized for suggesting something that contradicts current practice, challenges their manager's decisions, or turns out to be wrong.
This is especially important for frontline workers in manufacturing and operational roles. If the last person who pointed out a process problem got publicly corrected or had the suggestion quietly dismissed, everyone else in that team noticed. The informal signal sent by how management handles uncomfortable ideas shapes participation more than any formal program design.
If you're working on getting frontline workers specifically to share ideas, the guide on why frontline workers hold back covers the psychological safety piece in more detail.
The simplest diagnostic you can run today
Before you overhaul anything, run this quick check. Look at the last 20 ideas submitted to your program and answer three questions. How many received a response within 14 days? How many received a final decision with an explanation? How many were implemented, in full or in part?
If the numbers are low, you have a process gap, not an engagement gap. Fix the process first. The innovation program diagnostic is a useful tool if you want a more structured read on where specifically things are breaking down.
The good news is that this is fixable. Organizations that commit to closing every loop, even with a simple "not now and here's why," typically see submission rates recover within two to three months. Employees want to contribute. They just need evidence that it's worth their time.
Related Guides
- Why Your Suggestion Box Is Collecting Dust (And What Actually Works Instead)
- Why Is My Innovation Program Stuck? A 20-Question Diagnostic
- How to Get Frontline Workers to Share Ideas
- How to Give Feedback That Builds Trust (Even When the Answer Is No)
- Your First Idea Challenge: From Question to Decision in 10 Days
