Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s public crying triggered a national debate about whether or not it’s appropriate to cry at work. He is far from the only one. Just the other day we saw new UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves make headlines when she had to wipe away tears during questioning in the House of Commons. Each of these instances illustrates a well-known, pernicious stigma against any display of emotion in the workplace. In short, they challenge the age-old notions of professionalism through emotional stoicism.
Crying in professional settings has been observed across many leadership roles in Australia. Former Prime Ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd both cried on national television during watershed moments in their political careers. Gillard famously broke into tears when launching the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Rudd’s farewell from parliament also brought tears. Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser and Malcolm Turnbull all exhibited high affect while in office. Their displays made it so that people asked themselves if it’s okay to cry at work.
Rachel Reeves’s recent encounter has opened up conversations about the stigma surrounding crying in the workplace, and our culture’s attitude towards women who cry. As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said at the time, Reeves’ tears had been “nothing to do with politics.” At the same time, her spokesperson highlighted that the tears were “a personal matter.” This politically advantageous situation is a unique collision of private feelings and public optics—especially when it comes to women leaders.
According to Carly Dober, an expert on emotional norms in workplaces, leaders have a key role in keeping workplaces reaffirming. They govern the perception of emotions within their organizations. She encourages that the next time you see someone expressing an emotion, you should “check your bias.” Dober further explained that crying can serve as a method of self-soothing, stating, “Crying is neutral. It’s a body’s way of self-soothing.” Taking this view will help us be more empathetic to how emotions might be expressed in high-stakes settings.
Nearly all – about 80 percent – of Australia’s top 500 companies have adopted employee assistance programs (EAP) to their benefit. These programs directly address the mental health crisis and improve employee mental well-being. These programs are steps toward a bigger shift, a recognition that emotional health at work matters as much as physical health. Yet social norms continue to impose great pressure on people to be stoic, and particularly on leaders to exhibit poise. Dober points out that there is an “outdated expectation that leaders must be strong — and that strong means unemotional.” This idea can limit space for authentic emotional expression and contribute to a workplace culture where staff are required to hide their emotions.
The range of reactions to Rachel Reeves’ tears led to much debate over gender dynamics in the professional workplace. Some experts argue that women often face harsher scrutiny when displaying emotions, with perceptions that they lack the emotional intelligence required for senior roles. Dober suggests that it is essential to shift the focus from gender to the underlying circumstances that lead to emotional expressions: “Ask instead: what are the triggers — regardless of gender — that have brought somebody to this state?”
Research shows that this stigma against crying at work. This stigma against crying can have damaging effects on employees. As one expert noted, “What we don’t want is people who have these emotions to feel like they’ve absolutely got to bottle them up, otherwise it’s going to be a detriment to them in their career.” This pressure to bottle up emotions not only harms mental health, but can affect relationships at work and home.
