When talking about mental health at work, it’s common to associate the problem with excessive tasks, unattainable goals or constant pressure. But there is a less obvious and equally powerful factor that has been highlighted by experts: the way leaders communicate on a daily basis.
It’s not just about tough talk or explicit demands. These are often short sentences, seemingly neutral comments, or automatic responses that trigger feelings of fear, worthlessness, and insecurity. These blind spots in communication function as small emotional shocks which, once accumulated, increase real psychosocial risks.
“Communication is not limited to what is said. What is not said, the tone used and the emotional context also communicate,” explains Arline Davis, mentor of decisive transitions and human development consultant. For her, leaders who interrupt, label or invalidate others end up creating loops of disconnection that profoundly affect the connection with their teams.
Expressions like “it’s obvious”, “we don’t have time for that” or “it’s an exaggeration” illustrate this phenomenon well. To the speaker, this may look like objectivity or focus. To those who hear them, they can be interpreted as contempt, abandonment or humiliation. The result is an environment in which people begin to measure every word, thereby avoiding exposure and reducing their participation.
This mismatch is directly linked to the way each individual perceives the world. Using models from neurolinguistic programming and neuroscience, experts explain that people operate with different cognitive filters. When these differences are not recognized, what should be communication becomes judgment and the judgment, in turn, generates emotional withdrawal.
In mid-sized and large businesses, especially in industries that require high human interaction, such as education, healthcare, technology and consulting, these trends tend to intensify. What begins as relational noise can evolve into anxiety, separation, and loss of collective engagement.
Davis recalls a case in which an organization faced successive emotional illnesses without identifying the cause. The analysis revealed that the communication style of top leaders was overly corrective and dismissive. The introduction of practices based on “sponsorship message” communications that recognize context, legitimize emotions and encourage shared responsibility have transformed the internal climate in just a few months.
According to the expert, confusion reigns when managers claim that they cannot be “psychologists” for their teams. “Understanding people is not about psychologizing relationships, it is about recognizing that no one leaves their emotional needs at the door of the company,” he says.
As the debate around mental health in the workplace becomes increasingly urgent, focusing on the quality of interpersonal communication can be a decisive step towards safer, more productive and more humane environments.
About The Author
