In professional and organisational settings, the word “aggressive” is often applied in response to tone rather than conduct. What is described as aggression in these moments seldom concerns hostility; instead, it reflects an emotional defence mechanism in which discomfort is projected onto the speaker. Through processes of displacement and projection, the listener redirects their unease rather than examining its source. subsequent labelling of their expression as “aggressive” functions less as an objective observation and more as a psychological strategy to preserve equilibrium and reaffirm dominant notions of professionalism (Hochschild, 1983; Ahmed, 2004).
The experience of being labelled “aggressive” for one’s tone is disproportionately reported by women, particularly those from Afro-Caribbean, West Asian, and other global majority backgrounds (Sue et al., 2007; Lewis, 2016). In professional spaces, where detachment is often equated with credibility, expressions of conviction or moral clarity can be perceived as transgressive. Gendered expectations intersect with racialised norms to dictate which emotions are deemed acceptable and whose confidence is considered threatening and a disruption to prevailing emotional norms (Hochschild, 1983; Ahmed, 2004; hooks, 1989).
That discomfort is often linked to cognitive dissonance: the mental tension between how people see themselves (“I’m fair, open-minded, not biased”) and the reality that they may carry unexamined assumptions or privilege. To preserve a coherent self-image, the mind seeks to relieve that tension, escaping reflection, and skipping to projection. (Cramer, 1998).
In psychological terms, emotional displacement occurs when unease, guilt, or fear are redirected away from their true source and projected onto another person. The discomfort is displaced outwardly: “I’m not uneasy because I feel challenged; I’m uneasy because they’re being aggressive.” By pathologising the speaker’s tone, the listener avoids engaging with their own internal conflict. What presents as professional feedback often serves as a defensive manoeuvre, a form of emotional redirection that shifts responsibility away from introspection and towards the person who dared to speak.
Social and affective psychology shed light on this reflex. The human brain, particularly the amygdala, which detects potential threat, responds not only to physical danger but also to perceived social threat (Phelps et al., 2000), especially when norms or hierarchies feel unsettled.
When a confident, assertive woman from a racialised or global majority group expresses conviction, implicit biases can amplify this response (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). Research consistently finds that expressions of passion or firmness from this demographic are more likely to be interpreted as anger or hostility (Lewis, 2016; Brescoll & Uhlmann, 2008), even when identical in tone to those made by white colleagues. This phenomenon, known as affective bias, reflects an unconscious misreading of emotional intent, a learned response that equates apathy with professionalism and passion with volatility.
The Myth of Professional Neutrality
Workplaces shaped by Western hierarchical norms often uphold “neutrality” as the hallmark of professionalism. Yet neutrality is not universal; it is cultural (Ahmed, 2004; Nkomo, 2011). It reflects a historically narrow and colonial definition of emotional control, one that privileges certain bodies and voices while marginalising others.
Within this framework, emotional expression, particularly from women of global majority backgrounds, is often read through a distorted lens. Conviction becomes “confrontation.” Emotion becomes “instability.” Confidence becomes “threat.” These interpretations are less about individual behaviour and more about emotional legitimacy, whose feelings are considered credible and whose are deemed excessive.
Tone policing, therefore, is not merely a social habit; it is an institutionalised emotional hierarchy. It protects the comfort of some by displacing discomfort onto others.
Reclaiming Emotional Agency
Recognising this pattern is both psychologically and personally protective. To name what is happening, to think, “This is not my shame to carry”, interrupts the cycle of projection. It restores emotional agency and prevents the internalisation of another person’s discomfort. A helpful reframe might be: My clarity is not aggression. Their ease is not my responsibility. This is boundary-setting. It is the ability to remain grounded in your own emotional truth, without absorbing another’s unprocessed feelings.
At its core, this dynamic is not about tone, it is about power. Labelling assertive colleagues from global majority backgrounds as “aggressive” serves to maintain existing hierarchies of comfort and authority. It reinforces who is allowed to be expressive and who must remain contained.
Viewed through a psychological lens, what unsettles others is the challenge your authenticity poses to their emotional expectations. Your emotion is not a threat; it is information. Your conviction is not aggression; it is clarity.
Reclaiming your right to express fully, without apology, is to uphold dignity. It is the psychological act of refusing to carry someone else’s displaced discomfort, and the emotional freedom that comes from standing wholly in your own power.
- The Psychology of Displacement and Projection – by Olya K-Mehri - November 1, 2025