For generations, organisations have been fuelled by the power of positivity. Bold visions, upbeat messaging and smiling employees all rallying together to meet their shared goals.

But maybe that power, like fossil fuels, has been causing more damage than good, putting the whole environment of workplace relationships and engagement under threat.

Work by Professor David Collinson in the wake of the 2008 global recession exposed a difficult truth for organisations. His research suggested that some particular attitudes to leadership, both inside organisations and among the business schools equipping them with ideas and development, had led to an an insidious influence. And some dangerous flaws.

Collinson found that the dramatic collapse of established financial institutions — leading to huge government debts from bail-out payments, business failures and mass unemployment — hadn’t been caused by subprime finance lending alone, but by a much wider culture of excessive risk-taking among businesses and the unwillingness among leaders to listen to ‘bad news’. They were guilty of ‘Prozac leadership’: addicted to an excessive and artificial positivity; only interested in hearing about the next success, not admitting failures; which meant shutting down debate and alternative opinions on boards. Management levels below them, and their line reports, would all be under pressure to gloss over problems in performance and missed targets, even if they included issues of safety.

Collinson pointed to how positive thinking had become a self-fulfilling, multimillion pound industry. Research in the hugely influential US business schools had emphasised appreciative inquiry, positive psychology and positive organisational behaviour; critical thinking applied to management, by contrast, had been subject to open hostility from US scholars.

While lessons may (or may not) have been learnt from the shocks of 2008, employers need to remember not to fall into the traps of positivity. Naturally, people want good news, they prefer optimism and easy relationships. They want to avoid negative situations and emotions like anger and confrontation, especially when they already feel under pressure.

But a culture of Prozac leadership means the spread of dishonesty. There’s secrecy and problems go unrecognised and are left unaddressed until it’s too late. For employees, there’s just blame on individuals rather than understanding because underlying problems haven’t been acknowledged. In other words, there’s nothing wrong with anger in the workplace, not in itself. It can be evidence of healthy levels of interest and commitment among staff. They care about how things are going, how work is done. Challenge and conflict are often necessary for real change to be introduced, for development. And sometimes anger is just an expression of human personality. Cathartic, a way of clearing the air that puts teams and relationships on a stronger footing because misunderstandings have been dealt with and people know where they stand.

So there can be positive and negative forms of conflict. Negative conflict is what happens when nothing is learnt from a situation, there’s no resolution, no clarity about what’s happened and why, no moving on — in other words, when there’s secrecy, unacknowledged issues, just a break (disciplinary action, resignations and sackings). HR need to appreciate the difference between negative and positive conflict and be open-minded and unembarrassed when there’s anger and conflict. They also need to make sure they have the systems in place to pick up on and deal with conflict in constructive ways.

Organisations should be aiming to have a ‘Clear Air’ culture. This is what happens when employees have enough confidence in their organisation (and each other) to speak up — even if that means letting their anger show — and know that they will be listened to, and understood in the right way.

This only comes with the right skills and the right informal channels. So, the option of mediation for early interventions and not as a last resort; a habit of open conversations, both scheduled and unscheduled, along with the qualities needed to make them ‘good’ conversations, whether they involve challenges and difficult situations or not: listening skills, empathy and self-awareness; all those things that make the difference between knee-jerk irritation and assumptions and constructive, grown-up ways forward.