Nice Is Not the Same as Safe

Many people describe situations in which everything appears “nice,” yet nothing feels secure. Interactions are polite. Words are measured. No one raises their voice. And yet, people leave feeling guarded, diminished, or uncertain about where they stand. Research on workplace and relational dynamics shows that politeness and psychological safety are not the same thing, and may in some contexts operate independently of one another (Kahn, 2017; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). What is often missing is not kindness, but safety.

Politeness as a social norm, not a guarantee

Social and organisational psychology distinguishes between surface-level civility and psychological safety. Politeness refers to adherence to social norms — being courteous, agreeable, and non-confrontational. Psychological safety, by contrast, refers to the felt sense that one can speak, clarify, disagree, or make mistakes without fear of negative consequences (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

Empirical research suggests that environments can be highly polite while remaining psychologically unsafe, particularly in hierarchical or evaluative contexts (Kahn, 2017; Williams & Dempsey, 2018). In such settings:

• disagreement is subtly discouraged

• questions are interpreted as challenges

• clarity is experienced as risk rather than contribution

The result is often compliance without trust.

When “niceness” becomes a constraint

Studies of power and communication show that politeness can function as a regulatory mechanism, especially when expectations remain implicit (Ashforth et al., 2016). Rather than creating openness, niceness may signal the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

In these contexts, people learn — often implicitly — that:

• raising concerns disrupts harmony

• naming ambiguity creates discomfort

• directness may be interpreted as hostility

Research indicates that individuals who are conscientious, relationally attuned, or motivated to maintain harmony are particularly likely to adapt themselves to these unspoken rules (Petrides et al., 2016; Williams & Dempsey, 2018). Over time, self-censorship becomes normalised.

The emotional consequences of polite unsafety

Psychological research shows that sustained self-monitoring in socially constrained environments is associated with increased anxiety, reduced sense of agency, and emotional exhaustion (Prilleltensky, 2014; Kahn, 2017).

Clinically, people often describe:

• carefully editing what they say

• softening language pre-emptively

• feeling relief only after interactions end

• doubting whether their discomfort is justified

Research on epistemic trust suggests that when individuals do not feel safe to express uncertainty or difference, they begin to doubt the legitimacy of their own perspectives (Fonagy & Allison, 2014). Importantly, this doubt emerges not from overt hostility, but from the absence of relational containment.

Why safety is often misread as conflict

Several studies indicate that psychological safety is frequently misinterpreted as a threat to authority or cohesion, particularly in institutions that prioritise control, reputation, or efficiency (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).

In such contexts:

• silence is rewarded

• agreement is mistaken for alignment

• discomfort is displaced rather than addressed

As a result, individuals may be praised for being “easy to work with” while quietly absorbing relational strain. Research on institutional dynamics shows that this pattern disproportionately affects women and minoritised professionals, who are often expected to perform emotional labour while remaining non-disruptive (Williams & Dempsey, 2018; Freyd, 2018).

Safety as a relational property

Psychological safety is not a personality trait. Research consistently frames it as a relational and contextual property — something that emerges (or fails to emerge) between people, rather than within them (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Kahn, 2017).

This means that feeling unsafe in a “nice” environment does not indicate oversensitivity or lack of resilience. It may reflect a mismatch between surface civility and deeper relational conditions. Noticing this distinction can be psychologically protective.

A note on discernment

From a clinical perspective, the task is not to reject niceness, but to differentiate it from safety. You do not need to confront every polite interaction. You do not need to expose yourself to risk prematurely.

It may be enough to ask: Do I feel able to be clearer here without consequence?

Research suggests that this form of discernment — distinguishing comfort from containment — is central to preserving self-trust in complex relational environments (Fonagy & Allison, 2014; Prilleltensky, 2014).