
Crying at work - career damaging or just human?
Anecdotally, it's not unusual to have a bit of a sniffle at work. Several people got in touch with the BBC to say they had let it all out. Clara, 48, from Lancaster, said she had become emotional when she was a young graduate getting a "blasting", and years later "in frustration". "I've also cried after receiving bad news from home and left work immediately."Emma, meanwhile, felt she had to keep her emotions under wraps because she worked in "a tough male-dominated environment" and would give herself a hard time for "showing emotion or 'weakness'."Although some research has suggested women are more likely than men to cry, plenty of men told us they had also shed tears in front of colleagues. Guy Clayton, a doctor, said he had often cried "with patients, colleagues and families over the years, when I've shared their sadness".A 38-year-old from London who works in finance said he had become emotional at work when dealing with personal issues and felt it showed "a professional dedication" to still turn up.
'Strength, not a liability'
So is crying a strength or a weakness? Executive coach and success mentor Shereen Hoban says it's old-fashioned to think weeping at work is unacceptable."We've moved beyond the old-school idea that professionalism means leaving emotion at the door," she says. "In today's world, emotional intelligence is a strength, not a liability."
Career coach Georgia Blackburn says it's not unusual for people at work to be upset, so firms need to know how to handle and support staff who are feeling a bit fragile.Ultimately, she says it will mean workers get more done."An employer that truly listens, shows compassion and understanding, is so much more likely to keep their staff motivated and happier in the long run," she says.
That's been the case for Amanda in Stockport who contacted the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2.She cried at a job interview at the University of Manchester 17 years ago, just after her father had been diagnosed with cancer.She got the job and is still there. "I cried every day for about nine months until my dad sadly passed away. It just made me realise what an amazing person I work for, and what an amazing place I work at, where that was OK."
'Bring back crying'
Fashion designer Amy Powney was having a bit of a rough time at the end of last year.She was having an "intense" time leaving a job, and it coincided with traumatic things happening in her life.Amy, who founded sustainable fashion brand Akyn earlier this year, also felt pressure to be a "poster child" for ethical fashion."My to-do list at that time was: feed the kids, pick them up from school, sort that nursery thing out, design the next collection, make sure the staff are OK, sort out that VAT return... and then save the world," she told BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour."I went through this period of time where I just could not stop crying and I was doing it in public places, I was doing it on stage."She thinks that showing emotion at work has been "demonised" and is unapologetic about breaking down."I just think bring back the crying, bring back the emotions," she says."Women in leadership should be able to show their emotion. I think it's a superpower. I think it's a strength."
Men v women, staff v bosses
But not everybody thinks that way. Some people are still a teensy bit judgemental, says Ann Francke, chief executive at the Chartered Management Institute (CMI).Women who weep are seen as "too emotional" while men who mope can be shamed for being soft and vulnerable, she says.Junior staff can get away with it more than their bosses, but this shouldn't necessarily be the case, she adds."When a senior leader cries, it can be seen as shocking or even inappropriate. But when handled with authenticity, it can also be powerful. It shows that leaders are human and care deeply about what they do," she says.
But if you want to climb the greasy pole, it could be best to keep a stiff upper lip, at least in some organisations, says executive coach Shereen Hoban.Crying could affect your promotion prospects, she says. "Let's be honest. There's still a bias in some workplaces that sees composure as strength and emotion as instability."But she says some organisations see things differently, and value leaders who are "real, self-aware, and able to navigate complexity, including their own emotions".She adds that if you break down once at work it "won't ruin your career", and that what matters more is the bigger picture:"Your performance, your presence, and how you bounce back or move forward with intention," she says.
What to do if you become tearful at work
Give yourself permission to step back and take a momentYou don't need to hide your emotions, it often shows you care deeply about your job – that's not a bad thingBut you should feel supported, so maybe talk to a trusted colleague, take a short break or ask for support from your manager or HRManagers and colleagues need to acknowledge when their staff are crying – offer a tissue to them, don't pretend it's not happeningProvided by the CMI

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Angela Rayner to put 'BANTER POLICE' in your office: Watch what you say by the water cooler! Workers' rights Bill pressures firms to spy on 'inappropriate' conversations
has been accused of plotting to censor workplace banter by deploying a network of spies in businesses across the country. Under new laws drawn up by the Deputy Prime Minister, firms will be pressured into bankrolling 'diversity officers', whose jobs would include protecting staff from the content of overheard conversations. Last night, the Tories warned that the so-called 'banter police' would have a 'chilling effect' on businesses already struggling under the weight of high taxes and excess regulation under Labour. Under Ms Rayner's Employment Rights Bill, employers must try to protect their staff from harassment by third parties. It means, for example, that a worker could take an employer to tribunal if they feel jokes or banter they overhear was offensive on grounds such as race, sex or religion if their bosses didn't do 'all they could' to prevent it. That is likely to lead to firms taking on more diversity officers to monitor what people are saying to help them prove they had taken sufficient steps to protect their workers. The Bill fails to stipulate any ring fence allowing the expression of opinions on political, moral, religious or social matters – which the Tories said they would have insisted upon. Ms Rayner's legislation also paves the way to greater unionisation in the workplace, which companies fear will take Britain back to the dark days of the 1970s, making it more burdensome to employ workers and leaving the firms vulnerable to ruinous strikes. The Bill requires bosses to give trade union representatives time off for matters 'relating to equality in the workplace' – further adding to costs, and to the number of potential busybodies monitoring speech. Ms Rayner's political opponents point out that she has received thousands of pounds in donations from unions which will benefit from the legislation. Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith said: 'Employers are already bleeding out because of Labour's war on business, and this will make matters much worse. Pressuring private firms to hire diversity officers to pursue woke agendas has so far gone under the radar – but it will be the final nail in the coffin for many. 'Innocent office banter will be spied on by wokerati thought police. These banter tsars will have a chilling effect in workplaces. 'We can already see in Rayner's own Whitehall department how taxpayers are footing the bill for this divisive political agenda. With her personally bankrolled by the unions, this is clearly a grubby deal that feathers both nests.' The number of employment tribunal claims relating to 'banter' in the workplace rose by 45 per cent in 2021 alone, and bosses fear the new legislations will cause this to spiral even faster. The changes would be a boon for outfits such as Inclusive Employers, which offers 'banter workplace training'. It states: 'Banter, when unchecked, can escalate into harmful behaviour, including bullying, harassment, and discrimination... Harmless banter can quickly cross the line and lead to more serious issues.' The new laws will also roll back moves by the last Conservative government to stop Whitehall spending taxpayers' money on 'diversity, equality and inclusion' initiatives. Central to the plans are the repeal of Tory trade union laws which will reduce the threshold for strike action and make union funding of the Labour Party automatic. It will also end zero-hours contracts, strengthen redundancy and flexible working rights and allow companies to be taken to employment tribunals even if the employees concerned do not want to sue. The laws will make it far easier for unions to infiltrate workplaces and to operate even if just 2 per cent of the staff join. The Bill says: 'Introducing explicit protections from third-party harassment will ensure that victims can be confident that they have recourse to legal redress if their employer has not taken all reasonable steps to protect them'. A government spokesman said: 'The Employment Rights Bill will not affect anyone's right to lawful free speech, which this Government stands firmly behind. 'Upsetting remarks do not fall within the definition of harassment. 'We are strengthening workplace protections to tackle harassment and protect employees from intimidating and hostile abuse as well as sexual harassment.' A government source added: 'Courts and tribunals will continue to be required to balance rights on the facts of each case, including the rights to free expression.'


Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Will Jeff Bezos buy Vogue magazine as a wedding present for new bride Lauren?
Fashion 'bible' Vogue could soon be owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, sources say. Staff are convinced the world's fourth-richest man is preparing to buy parent company Conde Nast as a wedding gift for his bride Lauren Sanchez, a former journalist. Many believe it's no coincidence that the new Mrs Bezos is this month's digital Vogue cover star and graces its pages wearing a Dolce & Gabbana wedding gown hand-picked by Dame Anna Wintour. Last month Dame Anna announced she was stepping down as Vogue Editor-in-Chief after 37 years in the role but remains in control of global operations. The Newhouse family, who have owned Conde Nast since 1959 and continue to hold it privately under their media empire Advance Publications, insist their titles are not on the market. And last night, a source close to Mr Bezos said it was 'totally untrue' that he was considering buying Conde Nast. But with a recent swathe of global redundancies and UK staff now operating from an uninspiring WeWork space near Waterloo station – after Vogue's Hanover Square HQ was sold – not everyone is convinced. A source told The Mail on Sunday: 'The rumour that Jeff is going to buy Conde Nast is all anyone's talking about in the fashion industry and inside Vogue. 'Lauren Sanchez is such an unlikely cover star, and the word is that she landed the July issue partly because the Newhouse family want to butter up Bezos. In New York they're slimming down the business which is exactly what companies do before a sale.' The source added: 'Anna is said to be the one brokering the deal so that's why Lauren was put on the cover. Anna has equity in the business so has a lot to gain from a sale.' Mr Bezos is no stranger to publishing. In 2013, he bought The Washington Post for $250 million in cash, ending the Graham family's four-generation ownership. Another source said: 'He's one of the very few people with deep enough pockets. And Lauren is no airhead. She's a sharp cookie. There have been conversations.' Insiders say several clues point to something big in the offing. Natalia Gamero Del Castillo, MD of Vogue's European operations, suddenly 'disappeared' from the office last week, prompting her colleagues to suggest she had either quit or fallen victim to the global redundancy drive. The source added: 'There have been redundancies almost every week in Europe and New York. The UK has had a whole round too. What they're doing is aligning every publication globally so the structure is uniform across all titles. 'Anna was the anomaly, she was the only Editor-in-Chief left. GQ has a Global Editorial Director, Glamour has one, Vanity Fair too. So she had to give up the title. 'I don't think she was thrilled but she accepted it, probably because she knows the company is getting ready to sell. She still has huge influence but she's no longer Editor-in-Chief. That title is gone.' 'They're streamlining everything. Either we're about to go under or we're being sold. But something is up and everyone's talking about Bezos.' Dame Anna, 75, who relinquished her role on June 27, famously inspired the writers of the film The Devil Wears Prada.


Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Even poorest OAPs face paying income tax in new stealth raid on state pension - in Labour plans that could come as early as next year
Labour was last night accused of betrayal after it was revealed that everyone on the full state pension will be forced to pay income tax as early as next year – even if they have no other income. Millions of Britain's poorest pensioners face being dragged into an 'old-age tax trap' as Chancellor Rachel Reeves desperately attempts to fill a growing black hole in the public finances. The extraordinary prospect, which threatens to spark a 'grey revolt' among furious older voters, arises because the personal allowance – the level at which income becomes taxable – is stuck at £12,570 at least until 2028. But the state pension, which pays 12.9 million men and women over the age of 66 up to £11,973 a year, is on track to breach that limit before then because of higher-than-expected growth in wages – especially in the public sector. Under the triple-lock system, the state pension increases by the rate of inflation, annual earnings growth or 2.5 per cent – whichever is the highest. If average earnings continue to grow at their current rate of 5.2 per cent, next year's state pension will rise above the income tax threshold for the first time since it was introduced more than a century ago. This will force pensioners who rely entirely on the state pension to pay the basic tax rate of 20 per cent on any amount above the personal allowance limit. The exact figure will be confirmed later this year. The hardest hit will be those who retired after 2016 and have paid a full 35 years of National Insurance contributions. Last night Dennis Reed, director of Silver Voices, a campaign group for pensioners, accused Labour of a 'mean approach' and betraying the triple lock pledge it made at last year's election. 'If triple lock increases start being taxed it obviously is a betrayal because Labour promised to keep the triple lock at the existing formula for the whole of this Parliament. It's a rather sneaky way round of undermining the triple lock.' It comes days after Ms Reeves was seen openly crying while sitting next to Keir Starmer in the House of Commons. An extraordinary Government U-turn over welfare reform last week, in the face of a Labour backbench rebellion, has blown a £5 billion black hole in the Chancellor's financial plans. Combined with weak economic performance, Ms Reeves may have to impose further punishing tax hikes, possibly as high as £30 billion, later this year. Mr Reed accused the Treasury of an 'anti-pensioner approach'. He said pensions minister Torsten Bell called for the triple lock to be phased out when he ran the Resolution Foundation think-tank. Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride last night told The Mail on Sunday: 'Labour have shown where their priorities lie. Last winter, they deprived millions of vulnerable pensioners of their winter fuel payments. 'Next year they will start taxing people who rely on the state pension as their only income in retirement.' He added: 'At the election last year the Conservatives promised to protect the state pension from being dragged into tax – Labour chose not to match that commitment. 'They claim to be protecting pensioners through the triple lock, but this stealth tax will erode its value.' It is thought the pensioner 'tax trap' could hit Labour at the polls. More than 126,000 older people signed a petition urging Ms Reeves to stop pensioners reliant on the state pension being dragged back into the tax system.