This article is the first in a series of three People Strategy pieces written by Christine Virardi, Elite Recruiter & Founder of HRLadderBox in iGaming, Sportsbook, and Fin & Tech.
Let me start with something most leaders already know, but rarely admit.
When a problem finally becomes expensive, public, or regulatory, it’s almost never a surprise. By the time an organisation is forced to act, it has usually been living with early warning signs for quite some time.
A short-term fix was put in place to keep things moving, and left there.
A recurring issue that was raised in meetings, noted, and pushed to “next quarter.”
A dependency everyone knows is fragile, but fixing it would disrupt delivery.
None of this happens suddenly. What happens suddenly is the moment when ignoring it is no longer an option.
This isn’t really a culture problem
When these situations surface, they are often described as a “culture issue” (sometimes also framed as a people problem). That explanation is convenient but incomplete.
This is not primarily about culture. It’s about decision-making under uncertainty.
Organisations rarely fail because they don’t see problems. They fail because they delay action when information is incomplete, uncomfortable, or politically inconvenient. People wait for certainty. They wait for proof. They wait until the signal is loud enough that acting feels defensible.
Decades of organisational research show that most corporate failures are preceded by long periods of known but unaddressed risk. This pattern is known as the normalisation of deviance: small exceptions become accepted practice because nothing bad has happened yet. ¹
In iGaming, that waiting period is not neutral. It compounds cost, regulatory exposure, and reputational risk.
Why people learn to hold back
From an HR perspective, the question isn’t why problems exist; every organisation has them. The real question is why capable, intelligent people don’t push harder the first time something feels wrong. From my perspective, most of the time, it isn’t fear or lack of confidence.
It’s learned behaviour.
People pay close attention to what actually happens when they raise concerns. They notice whether action follows, or whether an issue circulates all the time. They notice whether ownership becomes clearer, or more ambiguous.
They notice whether raising the issue is affecting their careers.
After a few repetitions, behaviour adapts.
Concerns are softened.
Escalation is delayed.
Feedback becomes informal.
People “see how it plays out.”
From the outside, this can look like disengagement. In reality, it’s pattern recognition.
This aligns closely with research on psychological safety, most notably by Amy Edmondson, which shows that people don’t stop speaking up because they don’t care. They stop because experience taught them that speaking up carried more cost than benefit.
Leadership is always setting the rules
Culture is not built in values decks or Best Place to Work badges. It’s built by watching what happens when things get uncomfortable.
People observe how leaders respond when information is incomplete and timelines are tight. They notice whether the first reaction is curiosity or defensiveness. They see who gains credibility in difficult moments and who loses it.
Every response sends a signal and these signals shape behaviour far more powerfully than any formal initiative ever will.
HR is not neutral in this
HR plays a central role in how quickly risk surfaces and how effectively organisations respond.
Research consistently shows that early risk signals are raised more reliably when people believe doing so is safe, valued, and rewarded. ²
In practice, that means creating systems and strategies where:
- Performance management treat early risk identification, escalation, and corrective action as core leadership behaviours. Measuring response speed, not just final outcomes.
- Escalation mechanisms that are clear and formalised across the board: named ownership, fast decision authority, where possible, and post-issue reviews that focus on resolution, not blame.
- Promotion criteria that are advancing leaders based on how they handle failure, accountability and recovery not only results achieved under ideal conditions.
These are not “soft” measures. They are risk controls.
Why this matters so much in iGaming
In iGaming, speed of response depends on people and the environment that signals when it is safe to act.
Risk doesn’t fail organisations. Waiting does.
And waiting tends to emerge when capable people learn that early escalation carries more cost than benefit.
Sources
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SiGMA News editorial team.
Join the world’s biggest iGaming community with SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown. Subscribe HERE for weekly updates, insider insights, and exclusive subscriber-only offers.
