When Clarity Feels Like a Threat

Many people report that the moment they become clearer — about expectations, boundaries, or meaning — something in the interaction shifts. The tone cools. Responses become defensive or evasive. The person who was previously agreeable now appears unsettled or critical. Research across organisational psychology and psychotherapy suggests that clarity is not universally experienced as helpful. In some relational contexts, it is perceived as destabilising or even threatening (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). This can be confusing, particularly for people who associate clarity with care, responsibility, or respect.

Clarity and power

Research on power and communication consistently shows that clarity redistributes control. When expectations, meanings, or boundaries are made explicit, opportunities for ambiguity — and therefore for unilateral interpretation — are reduced (Ashforth et al., 2016).

In hierarchical or asymmetric relationships, ambiguity often benefits the more powerful party. Studies indicate that unclear norms and shifting expectations allow evaluation to remain flexible and accountability uneven (Williams & Dempsey, 2018). From this perspective, clarity does not simply convey information. It alters the relational field.

Why clarity can provoke defensiveness

Psychological research suggests that defensiveness often emerges not in response to aggression, but in response to perceived threat to identity, authority, or coherence (Kahn, 2017).

When clarity is introduced into an ambiguous system, it can:

• expose inconsistencies

• limit interpretive freedom

• require reciprocal accountability

Studies of sensemaking show that individuals who rely on ambiguity to manage uncertainty may respond to clarity with withdrawal, minimisation, or reframing, rather than engagement (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). This helps explain why clear communication is sometimes met with discomfort rather than relief.

Clarity versus tone

Importantly, research indicates that negative reactions to clarity are often attributed to tone rather than content. Directness may be reframed as abruptness, confidence as arrogance, or precision as rigidity (Williams & Dempsey, 2018).

Empirical work on gender and authority shows that women and minoritised professionals are particularly likely to receive feedback about how they speak when they increase clarity, rather than about what they say (Williams & Dempsey, 2018; Freyd, 2018).

In these contexts, tone becomes a proxy for regulating clarity.

The psychological impact of punished clarity

Repeated experiences of clarity being met with resistance can lead individuals to self-censor or dilute their communication. Research links this pattern to increased self-monitoring, reduced epistemic confidence, and heightened relational anxiety (Fonagy & Allison, 2014; Petrides et al., 2016).

Clinically, people often describe:

• softening statements pre-emptively

• adding disclaimers to reduce impact

• avoiding specificity

• questioning whether clarity is “worth the trouble”

Over time, this can contribute to the erosion of epistemic trust — the belief that one’s perspective can be expressed and received as meaningful (Fonagy et al., 2017).

When clarity reveals the limits of the relationship

Psychological safety research suggests that clarity functions as a diagnostic signal. In environments that are genuinely safe, clarity is metabolised collaboratively. In unsafe environments, it is deflected, personalised, or punished (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Kahn, 2017).

From this standpoint, the problem is not clarity itself, but what clarity reveals:

• whose comfort is prioritised

• who bears the burden of adjustment

• how meaning is controlled

Recognising this can help relocate distress from the self to the relational context.

A note on restraint

From a clinical perspective, the task is not to become clearer at all costs. Nor is it to retreat into silence.

Research suggests that discernment — knowing when clarity will be metabolised and when it will be resisted — is psychologically protective (Prilleltensky, 2014; Fonagy & Allison, 2014).

You are not required to make every context intelligible. You are not obliged to clarify yourself endlessly. Sometimes, noticing that clarity feels threatening here is information enough.