When leaders insist on positivity at all costs, they create brittle systems unable to confront reality. Unsplash+
In his book Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No Morehistorian Alexei Yurchak introduced the concept of “hypernormalization.” This describes a phenomenon in which an entire population accepts an officially sanctioned version of truth that fundamentally contradicts their lived reality. This emerged during the post-Stalin, pre-Perestroika Soviet era and was, in effect, gaslighting at a societal scale. A similar dynamic has taken hold inside many contemporary organizations, from Uber to Theranos, BrewDog to Careem, where the unrelenting, top-down insistence on happiness and positivity bears little resemblance to employees’ actual experiences in the workplace.
A series of scandals, whistleblowing cases and public testimonies by employees at these companies illustrate what can go wrong when bosses oversell the good times and their positivity turns toxic. At Uber, for example, a sexual harassment case highlighted the stark discrepancy between the company’s espoused values and the behavior of senior leadership. At BrewDog, an open letter from former employees shed light on a stressful and fear-driven workplace culture that contradicted the utopian vision of the company and its operations promoted by its founders on social media.
The core issue with organizations that demand positivity, either as a core tenet of their internal culture or as an essential mode of interacting with their customers, is that it creates a false illusion. Whatever its origins, over time, the enforced positivity becomes misguided, brittle and artificial. Employees are required to see, hear and speak no evil, while their emotional labor is translated into inauthentic performance. Doubts, frustrations and legitimate concerns are suppressed because they fail to align with the preferred narrative of how things are “supposed” to feel.
Which is not to say such traits disappear. Instead, they become part of what psychologist Carl Jung called “the Shadow,” the accumulated, disowned aspects of self and system waiting for an outlet, often surfacing in ways that are corrosive and destabilizing. Far from building resilience and cohesion, then, forced optimism erodes any sense of psychological safetyleaving employees fatigued, cynical and disengaged. Performing and projecting positivity that bears no resemblance to reality is both draining and demoralizing.
Amazon has long marketed itself as an upbeat company, the bringer of joy, with its ubiquitous smile logo. What its administrative personnel have witnessed in recent years, though, tells a very different story. For all the wellness programs, Mental Health America awards, and counseling opportunities made available to employees and their households, there has been a groundswell of discontent as people have adapted to post-pandemic realities. The company’s mandate requiring employees to return to the office three days per week was far from popular. Many employees had adapted well to working from home, appreciating the flexibility and work-life balance remote work afforded them. They remained unconvinced by leadership’s arguments about the benefits of physical proximity and face-to-face interaction with colleagues. Tensions escalated when rumors circulated that Amazon was preparing to extend the policy to a required five in-office days by 2025.
Insights from TeamBlind’s poll of 2,585 verified Amazon employees illustrate the disconnect: 91 percent reported dissatisfaction with the return-to-office mandate, and 73 percent said they were considering leaving the company because of the change. A far from positive reaction saw some employees taking to the streets in protest, echoing earlier walkouts during the 2023 mass layoffs. More cuts followed, as Amazon pursued both bureaucratic efficiency and its rollout of generative A.I.
Yet even in the Amazon case, employees felt able, if only partially, to voice their frustrations publicly. As Megan Reitz and John Higgins highlight in Speak Out, Listen Upleaders are often unaware of how their own status and the workplace cultures they create discourage dissent, closing down discussion. Where negativity is stigmatized, there is little opportunity for challenge, debate, risk escalation or alternative thinking. Many find that when they do speak up—and certainly when they whistle blow—they are subsequently ostracized not only by senior leaders but by colleagues they were once close to as well. This pattern has repeatedly surfaced in scandals involving Uber, Theranos and Boeing.
None of this is to suggest that constant criticism or unfettered negativity produces healthy cultures, and can be as toxic as forced positivity. For all the advocacy of psychological safety in recent years, there is a need for nuance and balance—it does not mean an absence of discomfort. As Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic argues in Don’t Be Yourselfperformance pressure, friction and critical feedback all have their place and can be adapted to suit interactions with different employees. Effective leaders know when to deploy positivity as motivation and when to lean into constructive tension. After all, creative friction has fueled some of the world’s most significant breakthroughs. Without it, many transformative ideas would have never survived.
The challenge—and the opportunity—is finding a middle ground between toxic positivity and unchecked venting. Healthy cultures make room for candor, dissent and complexity. They treat discomfort as information, not insubordination. They recognize that negativity, when expressed constructively, is not a threat but a necessary catalyst for progress.
Steven D’Souza is the author of Shadows at Work: Harness your dark side and unlock your leadership potential. He is an educator, speaker, executive coach and author.
