Smile Through It: The Hidden Cost of Toxic Positivity

Once, in a foggy town nestled between hills, the grey skies rarely lifted. Rain drizzled more often than not, and people went about their lives beneath heavy clouds. It was, basically, like Manchester.

Tired of the gloom, the town council installed a system of giant projectors. Overnight, the skies turned a brilliant blue, and artificial sunlight bathed the streets. Birdsongs played softly from hidden speakers. Every morning, like clockwork, the sky was cheerful, no matter what the real weather was doing behind the projection.

At first, the townspeople were delighted. Shopkeepers smiled more. Tourists returned. The town seemed happier. But something odd began to happen. The farmers couldn’t tell when it was about to storm. Gardeners overwatered their plants, thinking there hadn’t been enough rain. The rivers quietly swelled from unseen downpours. Beneath the sunny illusion, the real weather was building into something dangerous.

And no one noticed until the flooding began. Because when the signal we rely on to understand our environment is always sunny, we lose the ability to respond to the storm.

In organisations, the same can happen emotionally. We’re often encouraged (and encourage each other) to put on a brave smile, stay upbeat, and keep the energy positive. And while optimism has its place, relentless cheerfulness can come at a cost.

This article explores what happens when we value positivity over authenticity, and what organisational psychology tells us about the hidden impact of emotional masking and when that positivity becomes toxic.

A Smile You Can Hear

My first job in a contact centre was back in the nineties, and I still remember day one of training.

We were introduced to the AS400 system – a clunky piece of software that acted as a stock manager, CRM, and point-of-sale tool all in one.

The system was clunky. Its black screen with yellow, red, and green text looked like Ceefax or Teletext – and it responded to function keys about as quickly as my TV did when I played Bamboozle. Nearly thirty years on, I still recall learning to replace a sofa with F5:F9:Tab:Tab:[catalogue number]:F9.

On day two, the Customer Services Manager told us: “We want every customer to feel like they’re speaking to someone smiling.”

Throughout the week, the onboarding trainer kept reinforcing the same message. They talked about NLP-inspired communication techniques (psychologists, feel free to roll your eyes here), and repeated the familiar claim that “70% of communication is non-verbal”. This meant, apparently, that we had to dial up our tone, energy, and smiles over the phone to compensate for the “missing” body language. It felt like being a radio DJ, over-emphasising every syllable and smiling for an audience that couldn’t see me.

Like any contact centre, things would go wrong from time to time. Customers’ deliveries might be delayed, flat-packed products might have a screw missing or our trusty system could run slowly. In each case, advisers were expected to keep positive, smile through their voice and maintain positive professionalism. The QA team would mark your call scores down, if you implied that anything was less than perfect.

This was 1996. But nearly thirty years later, this approach might be familiar to many of us in our contact centres and organisations. If a customer is angry, smile and calm them. If a system is frustratingly slow, smile and make small talk. If a process isn’t working, smile and find a workaround.

But when things aren’t going as swimmingly as we pretend, all that enforced cheerfulness can become something more harmful: a form of emotional labour that quietly takes its toll.

What is toxic positivity?

In a previous article, the discussion focused on the emotional labour of faking emotions and its psychological impact. Emotional labour is the mental energy utilised during the cognitive dissonance of feeling one emotion but displaying something incongruent with that emotion.

While emotional labour involves managing a range of emotions in customer service, toxic positivity is the belief that people should always be positive, even when facing difficult situations. It’s the act of avoiding, suppressing, or rejecting negative emotions or experiences, leaving little room for the acknowledgment of those valid negative emotions.

Toxic positivity isn’t just being upbeat – it’s the pressure to be only upbeat, even when the situation calls for something else. It’s the reflex to respond to difficulty with “It could be worse!”, “Stay positive!”, or “Let’s focus on the good!”, no matter how valid the concern. In organisations, it can sound like “Let’s not dwell on problems,” or “We’re all about solutions here.” It’s well-meaning, but it leaves little room for honesty, nuance, or emotional safety.

When positivity becomes a performative (something enforced rather than felt) it stops being motivational and starts becoming dismissive. It tells people, however subtly, that uncomfortable emotions aren’t welcome. And in environments like contact centres, where stress, frustration and system issues are part of the daily reality, that pressure to always appear cheerful can quietly invalidate real experiences. Research published in New Scientist indicates that forced optimism and the suppression of negative emotions can backfire, leading to increased stress and emotional strain.

The Psychological Cost of Service with a Smile

The impact of toxic positivity isn’t limited to the environment and culture. Studies have found that individuals who habitually avoid acknowledging challenging emotions may experience worsened psychological health over time. The research suggests that accepting negative emotions, rather than dismissing them, is more beneficial for mental well-being of individuals (Feehly, 2024).

This individual impact has a measurable knock-on effect for organisations. Harvard Business Review (2017) reports that the associated impacts from toxic positivity and emotional labour costs the U.S. economy $125 billion to $190 billion annually in healthcare spending and lost productivity. A 2020 study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found that workers experiencing high levels of emotional labour are more likely to take sick leave or absenteeism due to mental health issues such as stress and anxiety. The economic impact of absenteeism can range from £2,000 to £3,000 per employee annually in some sectors.

It’s not just absenteeism that is a concern. Employee turnover (attrition) also impacts organisations’ bottom lines. In the contact centre industry, the turnover rate can be particularly high due to the emotional demands placed on employees. Organisations with higher emotional demands (e.g., customer service, healthcare) may see a 5-10% higher absenteeism rate compared to other industries with less emotional strain (EU-OSHA, 2019).

For contact centres, a ContactBabel (2019) report estimated the average turnover rate in UK at around 30% (compared to a UK average of 17%), a figure partly attributed to emotional labour demands. This turnover represents significant costs in recruitment and training, and is directly linked to higher absenteeism rates, lower job satisfaction, and reduced productivity.

The data are clear: the impact of toxic positivity on individuals and businesses can be immense. With these high costs in mind, it’s easy to see why leaders are so drawn to an always-positive approach.

This is, perhaps, understandable. A leader’s role is complex. They’re tasked with guiding a team through challenges, driving productivity, and maintaining morale. In a world where burnout and mental health challenges are becoming more prevalent, it’s easy to see why many leaders lean into the idea of always staying positive. The pressure to “keep the energy high” or “focus on the bright side” might seem like the easiest way to inspire their teams and foster resilience. After all, the narrative that “positivity breeds success” is appealing. Who doesn’t want to be the upbeat, solution-oriented team that overcomes any obstacle with a smile?

But this default optimism can also come from a place of fear, insecurity, or misplaced ambition. Leaders may believe that by promoting relentless positivity, they can shield their teams from discomfort, protect them from stress, or project an image of control. When the storm clouds gather, the reflex is often to shine a light on the sunshine, hoping that if everyone focuses on the good, the bad will either disappear or seem less important.

At the heart of this inclination to push positivity lies a desire for control. A leader who fosters positivity might feel they’re preventing negativity from spreading like wildfire, believing that, by masking discontent, they can keep the team on track. It’s a quick fix that feels right in the moment, but it often ignores the deeper, more nuanced emotional needs of a workforce.

However, what leaders may not realise is that this focus on positivity, when it becomes enforced, can inadvertently erode trust. Instead of creating a harmonious, productive environment, it can create one of emotional distance, where team members are discouraged from speaking up about real challenges and learn to compartmentalise their feelings. In turn, these unresolved concerns – whether related to workload, resources, or interpersonal dynamics – build up, festering under the surface until they finally explode.

In personality psychology, the dimension of Agreeableness relates to how we create ingroup and outgroup memberships. High-Agreeable people tend to be more consensus building, empathetic and concerned about the wider tribe. Low-Agreeable individuals tend to be more comfortable with conflict and orientate themselves with tasks. Their approach to aggression also tends to be different, too.

Low-Agreeable individuals can be directly aggressive. They are more comfortable with removing the emotion from the argument and discussing the facts. They offer solutions over sympathy.

High-Agreeable individuals tend to be passive aggressive, and avoid direct interaction. However, there is a breaking point. These high-Agreeable individuals might reach a “enough’s enough” state when they are cognitively stressed or exhausted, and have a reversal of character. That explosion can seem like an over-reaction, and takes a toll on the individual – particularly when they revert to type and are concerned about damaging relationships.

For the individual, smiling through pain is destructive to resilience and mental health. For the organisation, it is costly through absence, attrition and disengagement. Culturally, we may be conditioned to continue with the positive, stiff-upper-lip approach, which can create a perfect storm of emotional fatigue, stress and burnout.

So, what is the alternative? Can we be positive whilst recognising the valid negative impacts we all feel at work? Can we be ready for the storm if we’re still faking the weather?

There’s No Bad Weather; Only Bad Clothes

To truly address the costs of toxic positivity, we need to explore an alternative approach. An approach that leans into emotional authenticity rather than forced optimism. But what does emotional authenticity mean in the workplace? Simply put, it’s about creating an environment where employees feel comfortable expressing the full range of their emotions, without fear of being judged or silenced.

In many work cultures, especially in industries where customer service is key, there’s a belief that employees must always put on a positive front. However, when the smile is just a mask it’s not just exhausting; it also risks creating a work culture where employees feel isolated in their emotions, unable to share struggles or challenges. This environment can breed feelings of disconnection, where individuals only present their “best selves”- even if that version isn’t an accurate reflection of what’s going on inside.

Emotional decompression is the antidote.

It’s the practice of allowing space for the natural ebb and flow of emotions, especially during challenging times. Leaders who prioritise emotional decompression empower their teams to acknowledge and process their negative feelings before they build up into stress, burnout, or disengagement. This doesn’t mean wallowing in negativity. It’s about recognising that feelings of frustration, disappointment, or sadness are natural and valid responses to difficult circumstances. By creating a safe space for employees to talk about these emotions, organisations can avoid the toxic consequences of bottling them up.

It’s crucial to understand that emotional authenticity doesn’t encourage negativity for its own sake; it encourages balance. Employees aren’t expected to suppress their true emotions just to fit into a mold of perpetual positivity. Instead, they’re encouraged to express themselves authentically, which ultimately leads to more sustainable well-being and a healthier organisational culture.

Just as a high-performing team can celebrate success together, so too can they process setbacks, failures, and difficulties as a unit.

Research shows that this kind of emotional authenticity isn’t just about individual well-being. It also benefits the organisation as a whole. When employees are given permission to speak openly about their emotions, it fosters trust, reduces emotional exhaustion, and builds stronger, more resilient teams. In a study conducted by the University of California (2022), researchers found that workplaces that encouraged emotional honesty experienced lower turnover rates and higher employee satisfaction.

Leaders who model emotional authenticity, particularly during tough times, help reduce the stigma surrounding negative emotions. Instead of pushing through the discomfort with a forced smile, they acknowledge it and validate it. They understand that fostering emotional safety is essential to long-term success. Because only when employees feel safe enough to be vulnerable can they truly thrive.

Leaders set the tone for the rest of the organisation, and when they lead with empathy, self-awareness, and transparency, they create a culture where employees feel safe to show up as their whole selves. This doesn’t mean oversharing or burdening employees with personal challenges, but it does mean that leaders should be honest about their own emotions and the difficulties they’re facing.

By modelling emotional vulnerability, leaders encourage their teams to do the same. This emotional transparency can be as simple as acknowledging when things aren’t going well. Saying, “I know we’re facing some challenges right now, and it’s okay to feel frustrated or worried about them” – and providing the tools to manage those feelings effectively – can be key in building a culture where employees are more likely to stay engaged, feel valued, and remain loyal to the organisation.

It’s a win-win: by encouraging emotional authenticity, leaders can create a culture where positivity is still present, but it’s grounded in realism and supported by genuine connection.

Conclusion: Positivity with Integrity

Toxic positivity doesn’t begin with bad intentions. It often comes from a place of care and a desire to motivate, to protect, and to keep morale high. But when positivity becomes a script, rather than a sincere reflection of experience, it can do more harm than good. It muffles the warning signs. It discourages honesty. It leaves people smiling while sinking.

Emotionally healthy workplaces don’t deny discomfort – they make space for it. They balance hope with honesty. They allow leaders and employees alike to show up as full human beings, not highlight reels. Positivity, when grounded in truth, becomes something much more powerful: trust.

Trust that your voice matters, even when it wavers. Trust that struggle doesn’t make you weak. Trust that saying “this is hard” won’t be met with a dismissive “but stay positive!”; it’s met with support, solidarity, and meaningful change.

So, let’s aim for cultures where positivity has integrity. Where the sun shines, but we still carry umbrellas when we need to. Where we don’t pretend away the rain, but meet it with honesty, courage, and the right kind of gear.

Because there’s no bad weather. Only bad clothes.

References

Bastian, B., Kuppens, P., Hornsey, M. J., Park, J., Koval, P., & Uchida, Y. (2012). Emotion suppression and culture: Implications for well-being. Emotion, 12(5), 1032–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029629

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48(4), 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.4.384

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). (2019). Work-related stress. https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/work-related-stress

Feehly, C. (2024). Why excessive positivity is bad for your health and mental well-being. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26234940-200-why-excessive-positivity-is-bad-for-your-health-and-mental-well-being/

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040678

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 1–42.

University of California. (2022, May 3). Awe walks boost emotional well-being. https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/awe-walks-boost-emotional-well-being