Hey Friend,

After my last email about emotional integrity, I got a lot of gratitude emails AND a really important question:

This is such an important and necessary layer to the conversation, and I'm so glad it was asked! If you are a person who is neurodiverse or expected to code-switch in your workplace, scroll down below my signature for a note I wrote directly to you. For everyone else...

One of the biggest gaps in conversations about emotional culture is that not everyone is given the same grace for the same behavior.

• A white leader raising their voice might be seen as passionate, whereas a Black leader might be labeled as angry or aggressive for the same behavior
• A woman speaking directly or assertively might be seen as emotional or difficult, whereas a man showing the same behavior is often seen as confident or decisive.
• A neurodivergent person expressing distress might be seen as unprofessional or too much
• Someone masking, code-switching, or staying calm under pressure might be praised even if it comes at a real internal cost.

Many people, especially folks from historically excluded or currently marginalized identities, are navigating these realities every day, so when we talk about emotional honesty and emotional integrity, we HAVE to acknowledge that the risks of emotional expression are not evenly distributed.

When "we" say things like, "Just be honest," "Bring your full self to work," or "You're only responsible for your own behavior," or "Express yourself however you want, and it will be received fairly," it's important to understand that this is not neutral advice.

This is where I want to refine and add on to what I shared last week.

Emotional integrity is not about a specific tone, personality, learning orientation, or communication style. I don't want people to "be calm" at all costs, to "be polished" at the expense of authenticity, to become robots who parrot "professionalism," or to conform to the dominant culture's version of "acceptable." Absolutely not.

Emotional integrity at work is about:

• Alignment between emotions, values, and behaviors
• Taking responsibility for impact
• Expressing emotions that are both authentic and workable in a shared environment

This can look very different depending on the person. For example:

For one person, integrity might look like naming frustration out loud and directly. For another, it might look like asking for space before responding. For someone else, it might look like communicating needs in a structured or pre-agreed way.

The goal is not sameness. The goal is shared agreements and mutual understanding. And this is where culture comes in.

If a workplace expects emotional integrity, it also has a responsibility to create conditions where different people can practice it. We have to look at the system (surprise surprise).

This means getting really intentional about:

• Naming and interrupting bias in how emotions are interpreted
• Expanding what “professional” emotional expression looks like
• Creating multiple pathways for communication (not just in-the-moment verbal processing)
• Training leaders and staff to distinguish between harmful behavior and different expression styles

But those things unto themselves aren't enough. We still need boundaries, accountability, clarity about impact, and shared standards because, without those, teams become unsafe in a different way.

The challenge becomes: How can we expand the ways emotions can be expressed while remaining crystal clear about what crosses a line (harm, intimidation, derailing, etc.)?

This isn't easy work because we don't usually do a great job of defining these things, and we too often live in subjective grey area. Of course, "doing harm" is unacceptable, but what does harm REALLY mean? Of course, we need to take responsibility for impact, but what if we don’t agree on what constitutes reasonable impact, or how much responsibility someone should carry for how their behavior is received?

This is where leaders and culture need to get much more explicit.

When expectations are vague, everything becomes personal, emotional, and open to interpretation. But when teams take the time to define their norms—how we give feedback, how we handle big emotions, what respectful expression looks like, what is non-negotiable—we create shared language, shared expectations, and shared accountability.

That type of clarity doesn’t just help people “perform better,” it helps them make informed choices and say, "Yes, this is a culture I can show up in," or "Nope, this isn't the right fit for me."

We’re not here to force people into environments, conditions, or behaviors that don’t work for them.

We’re here to build cultures that are clear enough, human enough, and intentional enough for people to opt in or out without harming or being asked to erase themselves. I'd argue that that, unto itself, is a form of emotional integrity on the part of leaders and organizations.

***

The last thing I want to say (again) is that accountability is a really important part of this conversation. And accountability is not about getting people in trouble. But it does mean helping people course-correct, grow, and stay aligned with the team's culture and shared agreements.

Sometimes that means supporting someone in adjusting how they express or act on their emotions so they can be more effective and in right relationship with others. And sometimes, it means recognizing that the norms themselves are incomplete, biased, or exclusionary and need to be examined and evolved.

The work is not choosing one over the other, but learning how to do both at the same time.

Here are a few ideas for how to put this into practice without reinforcing harm or bias:

1. Start with shared agreements, not personal preference. Anchor feedback in what the team has explicitly said matters (values, norms, ways of working), not your individual comfort or style.
2. Name behavior and impact, not identity or intent. Focus on what happened and how it affected others or the work, rather than labeling the person or making assumptions about why they did it.
3. Check your bias and your interpretations before you check someone else. Ask yourself: Would I respond the same way if someone else did this? If not, pause and recalibrate.
4. Create multiple “right ways” to show up. Be clear about what is non-negotiable, while allowing flexibility in how people communicate, process, or express emotion.
5. Invite dialogue, not just compliance. Accountability should be a conversation: “Here’s what I noticed and the impact. How did it feel from your side? What would help you show up differently next time?”
6. Be willing to examine the system, not just the individual. If the same patterns keep happening, ask: Is this about one person, or is something in our culture, expectations, or structure setting people up to fail?
7. Set people up for success from the beginning (hiring + onboarding). Be explicit about how your team approaches communication, feedback, emotional expression, and accountability in every touchpoint of the hiring process. Define what “respect,” “professionalism,” and “impact” mean here so accountability later feels fair and not surprising.
8. Build your capacity to sit with discomfort. Equitable accountability often feels uncomfortable. You might worry about being perceived as biased, too harsh, too soft, or getting it wrong, but this work requires courage AND flexibility. You will encounter people who process, express, and navigate emotions differently than you do. That doesn’t automatically make them wrong or you right. The work is learning to stay grounded, curious, and clear on shared expectations, even when it feels unfamiliar or uncomfortable.

***

To bring this back to the original question about neurodivergence and navigating different levels of safety at work...

Emotional integrity isn’t about sameness. It’s about alignment within difference.

None of this is easy. It requires leadership skills, cultural awareness, lots of practice, and often getting it wrong before we get it right. And, in 2026, this is some of the most important work I see happening in organizations right now.

How we handle emotions is deeply connected to trust, equity, belonging, psychological safety, and whether people can actually belong. When this works, people don’t have to choose between being real and being responsible. They get to be both. And that matters.

I'm here if you need support!
​
With gratitude,
Marissa