What psychology tells us about self-protective behaviour at work, and how compassion is the antidote.
Introduction
In the workplace, it’s common to encounter situations where someone claims credit for work they didn’t do alone, a team leader passes off responsibility, or a colleague withdraws during tough conversations. While these actions are easy to spot in others, we often struggle to notice them in ourselves. Usually, such behaviours aren’t intentional; they’re often motivated by the ego, which acts as our mechanism for natural self-protection.
The Ego as a Defence Mechanism
Psychology has recognized that the ego acts like a psychological immune system. When confronted by criticism, uncertainty, failure, or a possible loss of status, our minds activate defence mechanisms to protect us from perceived threats and safeguard our self-image.
These processes were first described by Sigmund Freud and later thoroughly catalogued by his daughter, Anna Freud. Modern researchers arrange defence mechanisms along a range from immature to mature: less adaptive practices, such as projection, rationalization, and displacement, can damage relationships and erode trust, whereas mature strategies like humour and altruism strengthen social bonds.
Immature defences often appear in the workplace, where they tend to be both obvious and harmful. Rationalization avoids accountability by creating convincing but false reasons for our actions. Projection, which involves blaming others for our own faults, fosters a culture of blame. Displacement shifts frustration away from its actual source, like a difficult boss or a tight deadline, and transfers it onto safer targets, such as coworkers, subordinates, or even family members.
Studies by Fraley & Roisman (2019) and Diamond (2016) show a clear connection between these behaviours and organizational cultures marked by blame and weakened trust. Importantly, these reactions are not conscious, since we often subconsciously believe our responses are justified. This subconscious nature makes ego-driven behaviour difficult to spot and easy to rationalize, and it becomes part of our identity and the persona we assume in our daily interactions, especially in the workplace.
The Cost To Your Team
Defensive behaviours among individuals, even absent any intent to harm, collectively contribute to a measurable decline in trust and collaboration within teams. A peer-reviewed study conducted by Glińska-Neweś et al. (2022), published in the Journal of Health Sciences Management, demonstrated that immature defence mechanisms in senior management teams are directly correlated with reduced interpersonal trust and weaker positive team relationships. The authors emphasise that trust serves as an enabler, reducing friction and fostering collaboration in team efforts.
Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson’s research supports these findings in a different way. She introduced the important idea of psychological safety, which means team members believe they can take interpersonal risks without fear. This shared belief is essential for high-performing teams because it encourages honesty, innovation, and learning from mistakes. However, when teams are marked by defensive or ego-driven behavior, this environment of psychological safety is reduced. Psychological safety is severely hindered in environments where leaders or members act with defensive ego, such as punishing failure, rejecting feedback, or managing through fear.
Similarly, Google’s Project Aristotle, which examined hundreds of teams, identified psychological safety as the singular most influential factor in achieving high team performance. Teams exhibiting greater psychological safety experienced lower turnover rates, generated higher revenue, and received higher effectiveness ratings from management. Conversely, psychological safety is compromised in environments where fear of judgment, blame, or embarrassment prevails, all symptoms of ego-protective behaviours, causing individuals to withhold ideas and refrain from active participation.
When team members anticipate that candor may be met with defensiveness, that recognition may not be equitably distributed, or that errors will result in punitive measures rather than constructive learning, they tend to adopt cautious approaches. Consequently, open communication diminishes and the collective intelligence of the team is compromised.
Compassion as The Alternative
When ego-defensive behaviour presents challenges, compassion, both towards oneself and others, offers a solution supported by substantial research. Dr. Kristin Neff, a prominent scholar at the University of Texas at Austin, has dedicated two decades to the study of self-compassion. Dr. Neff’s research demonstrated that self-compassion is a powerful tool for personal growth and responsibility, allowing individuals to accept mistakes without the crippling shame that often leads to defensiveness or denial.
Neff’s findings indicate that self-compassion correlates positively with mastery goals, such as intrinsic motivation for learning and development, and negatively with performance goals motivated by the desire to protect one’s self-image. Those who practice self-compassion maintain a stable sense of worth, independent of external validation or comparison.
Within organizations, leaders and team members who cultivate self-compassion are less inclined to deflect blame, claim undue credit, or dominate discussions out of insecurity. They can acknowledge errors without fearing harm to their identity. By minimizing defensive behaviors, they enhance their capacity to perceive and support colleagues.
A fundamental principle of emotional healing is that “true letting go requires radical honesty”, and that one cannot release a burden they refuse to acknowledge having. Therefore, recognizing our behaviours centered around ego-defensiveness is a crucial initial step towards adopting more constructive approaches. We can change our behaviour by training our ego to persistently avoid the negative fear-driven thoughts and practicing compassion for ourselves and others.
What Teams Can Do
Awareness alone rarely results in meaningful behavioural transformation. Below are six evidence-based strategies that teams may adopt to mitigate ego-centric interactions and foster collaboration.
Demonstrate accountability at the leadership level
Research by Edmondson clearly indicates that leaders who openly admit their mistakes create an environment where team members feel safe to do the same. This approach significantly enhances psychological safety more than any formal policy or initiative.
Reframe failure as a learning opportunity
Position work as an opportunity for learning rather than simply focused on execution. Treating errors as valuable information, rather than signs of incompetence, reduces defensiveness and blame-shifting.
Incorporate reflective pauses
Drawing inspiration from psychodynamic therapy, teams can increase self-awareness through regular retrospectives that address questions such as: “What issues did we face this week? What topics did we avoid? What issues remained unresolved?”
Explicitly reward collaborative behaviour
Recognising only individual achievements can unintentionally promote competition and self-interest. By actively acknowledging and highlighting teamwork, organisations can help break this pattern and ensure all team members feel proud of their contributions. This recognition strengthens collaboration and teamwork, as everyone understands that their efforts are appreciated and valued.
Foster a culture of constructive openness
Edmondson notes that teams with strong psychological safety openly debate, as trust enables disagreement without damaging relationships. Organizations should focus on improving feedback quality and fostering a safe space where all can speak freely without fear.
Address patterns, not individuals
When facing tension, teams benefit from using a shared vocabulary to describe observed dynamics (e.g., “I notice we consistently move away from that topic”) instead of attributing motives or character traits to individuals. This distinction separates behaviours from people, making difficult discussions more manageable.
The Question Worth Contemplating
The hardest part of this topic is personal self-reflection; it’s simpler to notice ego-driven behavior in others than in ourselves. Research shows everyone uses defensive strategies, which are not failures but human nature. What distinguishes strong teams is not the absence of these behaviours, but having psychological safety, self-awareness, and compassion to recognize and address them constructively. In the workplace, compassion fosters honest communication, accountability, and real collaboration, rather than signaling weakness.
References
Freud, A. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Neff, K.D. (2023). Self-Compassion: Theory, Method, Research, and Intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 193–218.
Glińska-Neweś, A. et al. (2022). Defence mechanisms as predictors of trust and positive relationships in top management teams. Journal of Health Sciences Management.
Google Project Aristotle (2015). Re:Work — The five keys to a successful Google team.
Fraley, R.C. & Roisman, G.I. (2019). Referenced in Diamond, M.A. (2016). Organizational Diagnosis and Intervention.