The Psychologising of Dissent
Here’s the problem with trying to talk publicly about psychological safety in workplaces:
The second you speak too plainly about it, people immediately start trying to assess your emotional state instead of the legitimacy of what you’re saying.
Which is, ironically, the entire fucking problem.
I’ve sat on writing this article for months because I knew exactly how it would be interpreted.
Personal grievance. Burnout. Difficulty with criticism. An inability to cope with workplace pressure. A bad experience being overgeneralised into broader social commentary.
Many workplaces have adopted the language of psychological safety without developing the psychological maturity required to sustain it.
And I think the disconnect matters more than people realise.
Because psychological safety is no longer just a fluffy HR concept wheeled out during staff wellbeing weeks and laminated onto office walls beside stock image posters about resilience. It now sits inside Australian Work Health and Safety legislation as part of an employer’s obligation to manage psychosocial hazards in the workplace.
That’s a profound cultural shift.
Because what legislation is beginning to recognise is something many workers have understood intuitively for years. That chronic ambiguity, unmanaged workload, inconsistent leadership responses, lack of support, public humiliation, suppression of concerns, bullying, emotional isolation and psychologically unsafe workplace cultures, are not personality issues.
They are workplace risks.
And yet despite the language evolving, many leadership cultures still fundamentally operate through outdated hierarchies built on ego protection, emotional immaturity, political survival and deeply internalised beliefs about authority.
Which means the second someone raises a legitimate systems concern plainly, the workplace often stops investigating the concern itself and starts investigating the person raising it.
Not:
“Is this structurally valid?”
But:
“Why are they frustrated?”
“Why are they emotional?”
“Are they coping?”
“Are they resistant?”
“Are they the problem?”
That distinction is the entire article.
Because I’ve now watched this pattern repeat enough times across enough workplaces to realise it is not incidental. It is structural.
One of the clearest examples I can give came during the presentation of a major planning proposal. Within roughly thirty seconds of beginning, leadership interrupted to explain why the proposal wasn’t addressing several concerns.
Every single concern they raised was addressed on the second slide.
Because the issue wasn’t actually the content yet. Leadership had already emotionally concluded the work was flawed before information acquisition had properly occurred.
And that’s the first major fracture point in psychologically unsafe workplaces:
leaders who listen to confirm instinct instead of to acquire understanding.
A psychologically safe workplace cannot exist where leadership experiences temporary uncertainty, challenge or critique as a threat to authority itself.
That’s emotional self-protection wearing a lanyard.
And before someone attempts to reduce this to a simplistic critique of male leadership, it’s worth acknowledging something far more psychologically complicated.
Some of the least psychologically safe leadership I have experienced has come from women who were themselves shaped by older patriarchal leadership cultures.
Women taught that professionalism meant emotional suppression.
That challenge signalled disrespect.
That authority had to be constantly defended to remain legitimate.
Women who survive patriarchal leadership systems sometimes end up reproducing them.
However, the relationship between internalised misogyny, authority and psychologically unsafe workplace culture is probably an article in itself.
But, the point is, once you start seeing the pattern you realise something else:
Psychologically unsafe systems have a remarkable tendency to psychologise dissent.
At one point during my own experience, feedback on a draft professional document was framed to me as resembling the work of a “manic person.”
Not unclear.
Not underdeveloped.
Not structurally ineffective.
Now pause there for a second because this is important.
The problem isn’t simply that the language was inappropriate. The problem is what the language reveals psychologically about the culture underneath it.
The moment professional disagreement becomes psychologised, the conversation quietly shifts from “Is the concern legitimate?” to “What does this say about the person raising it?”
And when I calmly explained that psychologising professional disagreement was itself psychologically unsafe and deeply unprofessional feedback practice, the response was not reflective inquiry.
I was informed this was likely “the first critical feedback” I had received in my career.
Which was fascinating, given I have spent thirteen years across education systems actively seeking feedback, adapting to it, integrating it and improving because of it. As most good educators do. Lifelong learning is not just something we teach. It’s supposed to be a disposition we embody.
But that’s the thing about ego-driven leadership cultures.
The issue is rarely the feedback itself.
The issue is whether the people in leadership are psychologically capable of surviving the feedback without collapsing into ego defence.
So concerns become reframed as attitude problems.
Escalation becomes aggression.
Boundary setting becomes emotional instability.
Professional clarity becomes “difficulty with authority.”
At one point, after repeated attempts to seek support and direction through appropriate channels had failed, I eventually removed the emotional cushioning from my language and said plainly: 'I need support now and I cannot continue asking without receiving it'.
The response was not:
“How have we allowed this to escalate to this point?”
The response was:
“Your email was frustrated and aggressive.”
Again, notice the inversion.
The organisational failure itself became secondary to the emotional discomfort caused by having it named directly.
And this is where modern psychological safety conversations start collapsing entirely.
Because many workplaces still fundamentally misunderstand what psychological safety actually is.
Psychological safety is not the absence of discomfort.
It is not leaders being protected from challenge.
It is not staff communicating exclusively in emotionally softened corporate dialects to preserve hierarchy.
It is not endless emotional self-editing so that operational reality can be raised without threatening authority.
Hierarchy exists for operational clarity and escalation toward solutions. Not emotional governance.
Psychological safety is the ability to raise reality without triggering institutional retaliation, social punishment, professional reframing or ego defence.
And the irony is that the people most likely to identify systemic risk early are often the exact people workplaces begin quietly reframing as difficult once they stop cushioning truth emotionally enough for leadership comfort.
Not because they are wrong.
Because psychologically immature systems cannot distinguish between critique of the work, and critique of self.
Source: The Psychologising of Dissent
areudirty
titsay
romaincrisis
tangentwithtanner
