The boss vs the activist: Employee dissent on the clock

Happy Thursday, everyone.

I'm Frank Richardson, an organisational psychologist observing the workplace with curiosity and care. Each week, I share insights to help HR leaders better understand the people behind the processes and build cultures where both individuals and organisations can thrive.

• Someone forwarded this? 💌Subscribe to get it fresh, every Tuesday.

• Missed an issue? 💬Catch up on past essays. 

• Curious what else we’re building? 💡Insane Media lives here. 

• Want your campaign in front of our newsletter’s community? 📌Reach out here.

This week in workplace whiplash 🌀

From rising drug risks to schedule shifts, this week’s headlines show how workers everywhere are testing the limits of health, time, and tolerance at work:

● 📈 Fentanyl Shows Up More in Workplace Drug Tests
Random drug tests across U.S. workplaces are showing a spike in positive fentanyl results, raising HR alarms about worker safety, drug policies, and screening gaps.
👉 Wall Street Journal

● 📊 Workers Want 4-Day Weeks — But Are Employers Listening?
A new survey reveals 69% of Americans believe their job could be done in a four-day workweek, with millennials leading the charge. Plus, 52% say they’re working harder than a year ago.
👉 New York Post

● ⏰ China Tries to Rein In ‘996’ Work Culture
Officials move to curb extreme overtime, spotlighting long-hours risks for health, compliance, and employer brand.
👉 Reuters 

Whether it’s drugs, overwork, or demands for time back, workers are speaking through their choices. Silence them, and you’ll get disruption instead.

I once had a coworker who campaigned so hard for a climate pledge that it hijacked every meeting. At first, people admired the passion. But after the third weekly check-in dissolved into a debate about the canteen’s recycling bins, patience wore thin. The line between healthy activism and workplace disruption got blurry, fast.

Today, more companies are drawing that line for employees, and they are drawing it with a thick marker.

⏰  When Activism Meets a Deadline

According to The Wall Street Journal, companies like Google, Microsoft, and JPMorgan are disciplining staff over internal protests, from sit-ins to politically charged Slack threads. The new corporate mantra is blunt: the office is for work, not politics.

The most visible flashpoint came at Microsoft, where four employees staged a sit-in at company president Brad Smith’s office over the company’s ties to Israel. Within 24 hours, two were dismissed, with the remaining two let go soon after. The response was swift, and signalled that activism inside corporate walls now comes with a sharply limited shelf life.

And it isn’t just tech. Financial firms are tightening the reins on internal speech and employee platforms. For example, JPMorgan disabled internal comments on a website after employees criticised return-to-office policies.

What was once tolerated as “employee passion” is increasingly seen as brand risk, and leaders are moving quickly to put up boundaries.

🤫 Why Silencing Voice Backfires

Behavioural science tells us that crackdowns often do not solve the problem and can even create new ones.

● Psychological safety matters. When people fear speaking up, trust evaporates. A meta-analysis found that lower psychological safety is consistently linked to weaker learning and performance, and higher disengagement.

● Silence creeps in. Research in the Academy of Management Journal shows when formal voice is constrained, employees report more silence and burnout, which corrodes impact and trust.

● Identity is on the line. For Gen Z and millennials, work is not just a paycheck, it is identity. The latest Deloitte Gen Z and Millennial Survey shows younger workers expect their employers to reflect their values on climate, equity, and wellbeing. Ignoring that expectation erodes loyalty fast.

● Reactance kicks in. Limit a freedom and people push back harder. That’s classic reactance.

🚀 What Leaders Should Do Instead

Nobody wants every Monday meeting to turn into a soapbox. But stamping out activism entirely is also bad business. Leaders should think in terms of rewiring, not repressing.

1. Set clear boundaries. Not every Slack channel is a forum for global politics, but banning discussion altogether makes employees feel invisible. Define the lanes where activism belongs, and keep the rest focused on delivery.

2. Give dissent a safe outlet. Structured forums, listening sessions, or employee councils let people channel energy productively. If employees feel heard, they are less likely to stage disruptive protests.

3. Respect the act of speaking up. Leaders do not have to agree with every slogan. But dismissing employees outright signals contempt. Even a curious response is better than a cold crackdown.

4. Train managers to handle activism with skill, not panic. Shutting down conversations does not protect the company; it just pushes resentment deeper.

💬 Final Thoughts

Workplace activism is not disappearing. Companies can keep swinging the hammer, but every silenced employee chips away at trust, culture, and innovation. Small protests rarely disappear. They go quiet, then resurface louder. And when they resurface, it is usually with more force than before.

If something here speaks to you, I’d love to hear it.

Until next week,
Frank

P.S. If you want to get a feature about your own story, reply to this email. If you’d like to reach our newsletter audience (founders, creators, and marketers), click the button below.

If you’re new here, I’m over the moon you’ve joined us! To help me craft content that’s actually useful (and not just noise in your inbox), I’d love it if you took 1 minute to answer this quick survey below. Your insights help shape everything I write.

✨ Insane Media is more than one voice

💡 Dive into our other newsletters - where psychology meets the founders, creator economy, e-commerce marketing, and AI founders.