The Phenomenon of Institutional Betrayal
Nika White • March 20, 2023
When you think of the word, “betrayal,” what comes to mind?
By definition, the term means “the violation of trust by someone close to you.” This can be an all too common feeling in the workplace. Institutions that promise safety, security, and belonging to workers who occupy marginalized identities may not have their actions and promises aligned. For some marginalized folks, the degrading trust they have for institutions is only worsening as the frequency of microaggressions and workplace trauma continue to impact their personal and professional lives.
But there’s a new term to describe the misalignment of words and actions and the ensuing feelings that come from it: institutional betrayal. First coined by psychologist, Jennifer Freyd, institutional betrayal is described as “wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals committed within the context of the institution.”
As we work towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in organizations, we should ask ourselves: How might our organization be perpetrating wrongdoings in the workplace and not even know it? How does repeatedly dismissing the requests and needs of marginalized workers while showing little accountability for organizational mistakes, be exacerbating feelings of mistrust and betrayal?
What is institutional betrayal?
Even if you haven’t heard of the term institutional betrayal, you’ve probably witnessed it in the workplace. It’s much like the phenomenon of “workplace trauma,” a term used to describe when marginalized people experience the same trauma outside of the workplace as they do inside, for example, when marginalized folks experience colorism hierarchy, gaslighting, and microaggressions in their personal and professional lives.
I would argue institutional betrayal is a step further. It’s not just the replication of workplace trauma–it’s the overwhelming feeling of betrayal that a marginalized person can experience when institutions don’t follow through on their promises of safety or actively cause harm and wrongdoing without taking accountability. It’s the gut-wrenching reality check that occurs when organizations assure someone that they can feel authentic and safe in a space, but it turns out to be nothing more than empty promises.
“I thought this was a safe space”
These words reverberate from the mouths of marginalized workers all over the country. The idea of workplace safety or safe spaces can be a talking point for many businesses and organizations. Leaders might assure marginalized folks that a particular space is “safe” for them to “be themselves” and show up “authentically.” But when a marginalized person enters the space, they see right away that the supposed “safe mecca” that’s been touted by the organization has no teeth.
Organizations should be careful about promising more inclusive spaces without doing the work to ensure those spaces are truly welcoming and warm to all. Organizations should practice accountability by doing the work of strategically planning initiatives, funding safer spaces and their staff, seeking constructive feedback from marginalized folks, and even hiring a DEI consultant. Organizations and leaders should understand that even with all of these tools, actions, and commitments, the space will never be one hundred percent “safe,” but rather “safer.” And for some marginalized folks, the attempt at creating a safer space is enough to quell feelings of mistrust and hurt within the organization.
“Our doors are always open”
Organizations may say they offer DEI resources or tell their shareholders they have support groups for marginalized workers. But, if the individuals who need those resources don’t feel supported by them or don’t have an opportunity to express grievances about the workplace culture, those individuals may experience institutional betrayal. They can feel gaslit by an organization that claims the support groups they are a part of have an open door to discuss changes and grievances around DEI. However, the lack of followthrough and pathways for institutional change can cause some individuals to feel jaded and betrayed by the organization’s supposed “open door” policy.
Organizations that say they’re open to feedback from marginalized workers need to uphold that promise. An organization that claims to value DEI but doesn’t actually value hard feedback from their workers is failing to rebuild psychological safety and trust in the workplace. When actions and words don’t align around grievances and receiving feedback, how can we expect marginalized workers to able to show up and feel supported and confident in the organization?
“I can’t breathe”
Outside of the workplace, institutional betrayal has been felt by marginalized communities for decades. Scholars and activists who have studied the tragic killing of George Floyd and other folks of color have seen the connection between the overarching issue of police brutality and institutional betrayal. The promise of law enforcement institutions is that police officers and other enforcement bodies will protect all citizens equally and be free of biases. The result is decades of biased policing practices that disproportionately target marginalized people. Institutional betrayal, in this case, shows up as promises of honesty and equality but the result is a resounding mistrust in the word and intentions of law enforcement bodies within certain communities.
At this level, many activists and organizers are calling for a complete reform of law enforcement. But as we’ve seen around the nation, some communities are open to change and others are not. Due to long-standing historical issues, many communities may never feel real trust for law enforcement bodies, but the attempt from enforcement departments and local governments to try to rebuild that trust is a step in the right direction. An acknowledgment of the trauma caused in certain communities has to be made in order to remedy it. Action must be taken, and when it is, that’s a step in the right direction.
Institutional betrayal requires urgent action from organizations
When we hear the phrase workplace trauma, it leaves an impression. No one wants to intentionally cause trauma to another person. But some organizations may not know they are causing trauma to their employees by replicating microaggressions from the outside world and bringing them inside of the workplace. Organizations may misunderstand workplace trauma as a personal problem–not an institutional one. So when we use the word betrayal, the issue becomes more urgent and relevant to organizations. The issue transforms from someone else’s problem into an institutional problem of building trust and remedying repeated failed actions on the part of the organization. Leaders should see workplace trauma and institutional betrayal as related, but understand both terms require leaders to do something about the issues within their walls and to follow through with action. Leaders and executives should ask themselves: In what ways have our policies or practices retraumatized marginalized workers? How have our policies not protected those who needed it most? What can we do to listen deeper and find solutions for marginalized workers? These questions may lead organizations to find cooperative solutions to workplace safety and belonging.
Final thoughts
As more and more institutions implement DEI in the workplace, they may be missing a critical component: action. Saying a space is “safe” or “welcoming” is not enough–we need proof. Marginalized folks and allies need to see organizations dedicated to implementing their DEI initiatives and not perpetuating workplace trauma and institutional betrayal. Marginalized folks should genuinely feel safe in the institutions in which they work and live, and see that their policies and procedures around DEI are honest, transparent, and effective. Organizations should make sure their practices and policies are aligned with their actions, and if they’re not, be willing to do the work to change them. We all have a responsibility to tread lightly and not cause more trauma and betrayal in the pursuit of “business as usual.” We can all be more conscious of the ways we cause trauma to others and how we can remedy betrayals when they occur. Only through cooperation between marginalized folks and organizations will we be able to walk in the workplace with compassion, safety, and trust.
But there’s a new term to describe the misalignment of words and actions and the ensuing feelings that come from it: institutional betrayal. First coined by psychologist, Jennifer Freyd, institutional betrayal is described as “wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals committed within the context of the institution.”
As we work towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in organizations, we should ask ourselves: How might our organization be perpetrating wrongdoings in the workplace and not even know it? How does repeatedly dismissing the requests and needs of marginalized workers while showing little accountability for organizational mistakes, be exacerbating feelings of mistrust and betrayal?
Today, we’ll further define institutional betrayal, see how it shows up in and outside of the workplace, and discuss what organizations can do to take ownership in order to curb this phenomenon.
Even if you haven’t heard of the term institutional betrayal, you’ve probably witnessed it in the workplace. It’s much like the phenomenon of “workplace trauma,” a term used to describe when marginalized people experience the same trauma outside of the workplace as they do inside, for example, when marginalized folks experience colorism hierarchy, gaslighting, and microaggressions in their personal and professional lives.
I would argue institutional betrayal is a step further. It’s not just the replication of workplace trauma–it’s the overwhelming feeling of betrayal that a marginalized person can experience when institutions don’t follow through on their promises of safety or actively cause harm and wrongdoing without taking accountability. It’s the gut-wrenching reality check that occurs when organizations assure someone that they can feel authentic and safe in a space, but it turns out to be nothing more than empty promises.
“I thought this was a safe space”
These words reverberate from the mouths of marginalized workers all over the country. The idea of workplace safety or safe spaces can be a talking point for many businesses and organizations. Leaders might assure marginalized folks that a particular space is “safe” for them to “be themselves” and show up “authentically.” But when a marginalized person enters the space, they see right away that the supposed “safe mecca” that’s been touted by the organization has no teeth.
Organizations should be careful about promising more inclusive spaces without doing the work to ensure those spaces are truly welcoming and warm to all. Organizations should practice accountability by doing the work of strategically planning initiatives, funding safer spaces and their staff, seeking constructive feedback from marginalized folks, and even hiring a DEI consultant. Organizations and leaders should understand that even with all of these tools, actions, and commitments, the space will never be one hundred percent “safe,” but rather “safer.” And for some marginalized folks, the attempt at creating a safer space is enough to quell feelings of mistrust and hurt within the organization.
“Our doors are always open”
Organizations may say they offer DEI resources or tell their shareholders they have support groups for marginalized workers. But, if the individuals who need those resources don’t feel supported by them or don’t have an opportunity to express grievances about the workplace culture, those individuals may experience institutional betrayal. They can feel gaslit by an organization that claims the support groups they are a part of have an open door to discuss changes and grievances around DEI. However, the lack of followthrough and pathways for institutional change can cause some individuals to feel jaded and betrayed by the organization’s supposed “open door” policy.
Organizations that say they’re open to feedback from marginalized workers need to uphold that promise. An organization that claims to value DEI but doesn’t actually value hard feedback from their workers is failing to rebuild psychological safety and trust in the workplace. When actions and words don’t align around grievances and receiving feedback, how can we expect marginalized workers to able to show up and feel supported and confident in the organization?
“I can’t breathe”
Outside of the workplace, institutional betrayal has been felt by marginalized communities for decades. Scholars and activists who have studied the tragic killing of George Floyd and other folks of color have seen the connection between the overarching issue of police brutality and institutional betrayal. The promise of law enforcement institutions is that police officers and other enforcement bodies will protect all citizens equally and be free of biases. The result is decades of biased policing practices that disproportionately target marginalized people. Institutional betrayal, in this case, shows up as promises of honesty and equality but the result is a resounding mistrust in the word and intentions of law enforcement bodies within certain communities.
At this level, many activists and organizers are calling for a complete reform of law enforcement. But as we’ve seen around the nation, some communities are open to change and others are not. Due to long-standing historical issues, many communities may never feel real trust for law enforcement bodies, but the attempt from enforcement departments and local governments to try to rebuild that trust is a step in the right direction. An acknowledgment of the trauma caused in certain communities has to be made in order to remedy it. Action must be taken, and when it is, that’s a step in the right direction.
Institutional betrayal requires urgent action from organizations
When we hear the phrase workplace trauma, it leaves an impression. No one wants to intentionally cause trauma to another person. But some organizations may not know they are causing trauma to their employees by replicating microaggressions from the outside world and bringing them inside of the workplace. Organizations may misunderstand workplace trauma as a personal problem–not an institutional one. So when we use the word betrayal, the issue becomes more urgent and relevant to organizations. The issue transforms from someone else’s problem into an institutional problem of building trust and remedying repeated failed actions on the part of the organization. Leaders should see workplace trauma and institutional betrayal as related, but understand both terms require leaders to do something about the issues within their walls and to follow through with action. Leaders and executives should ask themselves: In what ways have our policies or practices retraumatized marginalized workers? How have our policies not protected those who needed it most? What can we do to listen deeper and find solutions for marginalized workers? These questions may lead organizations to find cooperative solutions to workplace safety and belonging.
Final thoughts
As more and more institutions implement DEI in the workplace, they may be missing a critical component: action. Saying a space is “safe” or “welcoming” is not enough–we need proof. Marginalized folks and allies need to see organizations dedicated to implementing their DEI initiatives and not perpetuating workplace trauma and institutional betrayal. Marginalized folks should genuinely feel safe in the institutions in which they work and live, and see that their policies and procedures around DEI are honest, transparent, and effective. Organizations should make sure their practices and policies are aligned with their actions, and if they’re not, be willing to do the work to change them. We all have a responsibility to tread lightly and not cause more trauma and betrayal in the pursuit of “business as usual.” We can all be more conscious of the ways we cause trauma to others and how we can remedy betrayals when they occur. Only through cooperation between marginalized folks and organizations will we be able to walk in the workplace with compassion, safety, and trust.
Read more from The Human Shift on Substack, where I share long-form essays on leadership, culture, and how we work and live.
Share this Content:
Speed often feels like progress. Decisions made. Meetings closed. Momentum maintained. But speed and clarity are not the same. Earlier in The Human Shift, The Cost of Constant Readiness, we explored how readiness can create urgency where it may not actually exist. When leaders move quickly from that state, decisions can reflect pressure more than perspective. A Reframe Speed moves things forward. Clarity moves things well. One Simple Practice Before your next decision, ask: “Am I choosing speed—or am I choosing clarity?” If it’s speed, ask: “What would clarity require right now?” Question to Consider Where might slowing down actually create stronger outcomes? What This Looks Like In Practice Many organizations don’t suffer from slow decision-making—they suffer from fast decisions that require correction. Clarity reduces rework.. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. What decision today would benefit from just a little more space?
High-capacity leade rs often say: “I’ll take care of it.” At first, it’s situational. Then it becomes habitual. Eventually, it becomes identity. You’re the one who handles things. The one people trust. The one who doesn’t drop anything. But identity-level responsibility is different. It doesn’t turn off. Earlier in The Human Shift, Capacity is not Infinite, we explored capacity as information. When responsibility becomes identity, capacity signals are often overridden—not because leaders don’t feel them, but because they don’t believe they can respond to them. A Reframe Responsibility is a role you hold. Not a definition you carry. One Simple Practice Today, notice one “yes” you give automatically. Pause. Then ask: “If I didn’t see this as mine by default, what would I choose?” Question To Consider Where has your sense of responsibility expanded beyond what is actually yours? What This Looks Like In Practice In leadership development work, one of the most important shifts is helping leaders separate identity from role. When that happens, both performance and sustainability improve. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. What responsibility do you carry right now that no one explicitly asked you to hold?
Some leaders become known as “the calm one.” The one who steadies the room. Who doesn’t react. Who absorbs tension without showing it. It’s a valuable presence. But over time, it can quietly become a role you feel responsible to maintain. Not because it’s always needed. But because it’s expected. Earlier in The Human Shift, The Shift from Bracing to Grounding , we explored how leaders often move into bracing without realizing it. Being “the calm one” can sometimes be a more refined version of the same pattern—holding steady externally while managing pressure internally. A Reframe Calm is not a performance. It is a state that requires support. One Simple Practice Notice one moment today where you feel responsible for stabilizing others. Instead of immediately holding that role, pause and ask: “Is steadiness needed here—or am I used to providing it?” Question to Consider Where has your composure become something you feel you must maintain rather than something you can access? What This Looks Like In Practice Many leaders I work with don’t struggle with composure—they struggle with the cost of sustaining it alone. When shared steadiness becomes possible, leadership begins to feel lighter. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. Where in your leadership do you feel most responsible for “holding the room”?
Some leaders repeat directions often. Others rarely need to. The difference is not position. It is trust in their steadiness. Authority rooted in pressure requires monitoring. Authority rooted in presence requires less reinforcement. This connects back to grounding, in The Human Shift, The Body Knows Before the Mind Does. When leaders are regulated, direction travels clearly without amplification. Reframe Authority is not measured by force. It is measured by reliability. One Grounded Practice Before giving direction, slow your speaking pace by 10%. Then deliver the message once, clearly and calmly. Consistency communicates confidence more than volume does. Closing Reflection Do people follow your direction because they understand — or because they feel urgency? Contextual Depth Signal Leaders who cultivate a steady presence often find they need fewer reminders, corrections, and escalations. Regulation reduces management load. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. When you give direction, what do you think your team experiences — clarity or pressure?
Leaders often focus on how meetings go. But the greater influence is what happens afterward. What people replay during their commute. What they describe at dinner. What they anticipate the next morning. Leadership is remembered less for exact wording and more for internal experience. Earlier, in The Human Shift, Culture Is What People Carry Home, we discussed how the emotional residue of leadership interactions shapes engagement more than policies do. Reframe Leadership influence continues after the conversation ends. One Grounded Practice After a meeting, pause for one minute and ask: “If I were in that conversation as a participant, how would I feel right now?” Not how you intended. How it likely landed. Closing Reflection What emotional tone do your interactions leave behind? Contextual Depth Signal Organizations often attempt culture change through communication strategies, but emotional experience — not mes saging — is what employees actually carry. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. After a typical meeting with you, what do you think people feel most — clarity, pressure, or steadiness?
Leaders often believe transparency exists because information is available. But culture is revealed by what people choose to share — not what they’re allowed to share. When teams withhold concerns, it rarely begins with fear. It begins with small experiences: Ideas redirected quickly Mistakes met with visible tension Questions answered defensively Over time, people learn which conversations require self-protection. Earlier, in The Human Shift, Culture Is What People Carry Home, we explored culture as what people absorb. Silence is one of the clearest indicators of that absorption. Reframe Candor depends less on policies and more on predictability of response. One Grounded Practice In your next meeting, when someone raises a concern, respond first with: “Tell me more.” Do not correct immediately. Do not solve immediately. Signal curiosity before direction. Closing Reflection What information seems to reach you last? Contextual Depth Signal Many culture initiatives fail not because values are unclear, but because reactions teach people which truths are welcome. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. If someone on your team hesitates before speaking, what do you think they’re predicting?
Not all fast decisions are strategic. Some are relief. Ambiguity produces tension. A quick decision restores certainty — even if it doesn’t improve outcomes. Leaders often experience resolution as progress. But clarity and certainty are not the same. Earlier in The Human Shift, The Stories We Tell Under Pressure , grounding was described as remaining present under pressure. Many leadership decisions improve when leaders stay with uncertainty slightly longer than feels comfortable. Reframe A quick decision reduces discomfort. A clear decision reduces rework. One Grounded Practice When faced with a non-urgent decision, ask: “What additional information might emerge if I waited 24 hours?” Then actually wait. Not to avoid responsibility. To allow discernment to complete. Closing Reflection Where in your work might patience increase effectiveness? Contextual Depth Signal In advisory settings, leaders often discover that many operational “fires” were created by premature decisions rather than delayed ones. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. Which decision right now feels pressing — and what would happen if you gave it one more day?
Many leadership expectations are never written in a role description. Holding tension in meetings. Staying steady when others escalate. Containing uncertainty without amplifying it. We often call these “soft skills.” They are not soft. They are regulatory labor. When leaders manage emotional intensity, they stabilize the environment for others. Yet because this effort is invisible, leaders often interpret their fatigue as inadequacy rather than expenditure. Earlier, in The Human Shift, Culture Is What People Carry Home , we discussed that regulation is one of the primary ways leaders influence what others carry. Reframe Composure is not effortless. It is energy being used on behalf of the group. One Grounded Practice At the end of the workday, ask yourself: “Where did I hold the emotional center for others today?” Then intentionally do one small action that returns attention to yourself — a walk, silence, or stepping outside for two minutes. Regulation requires recovery. Closing Reflection Where have you been calling leadership strain a personal weakness instead of a leadership function? Contextual Depth Signal In executive work, many leaders don’t need more resilience training. They need permission to recognize that stabilizing others uses real capacity — and to pace themselves accordingly. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. What part of your leadership today required the most emotional steadiness? Read more from The Human Shift on Substack , where I share long-form essays on leadership, culture, and how we work and live. [NW
Two leaders can say the same words and produce entirely different outcomes. One conversation invites reflection. Another produces compliance. A third produces quiet withdrawal. The difference is rarely the phrasing. It is the state of the person delivering it. Before a listener processes meaning, their body processes safety. If tension, urgency, or frustration is present, the nervous system prioritizes protection over learning. The person may nod, agree, or apologize—but understanding has not actually occurred. Earlier in The Human Shift, The Body Knows Before the Mind Does , we explored how the body registers experience before the mind interprets it. Feedback follows that same sequence. Presence communicates before language does. Reframe Feedback is received through regulation before it is received through reasoning. One Grounded Practice Before offering feedback, take 30 seconds to orient yourself to the environment: Look around the room. Name three neutral objects you can see. Slow your exhale once. Then begin the conversation. Grounded delivery increases learning far more than refined wording. Closing Reflection What state are others experiencing when they receive guidance from you? Contextual Depth Signal In leadership coaching, feedback rarely fails because leaders lack clarity. It fails because the emotional tone of the interaction determines whether the brain processes information or threat. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. Think about your last feedback conversation — how regulated did you feel before it started?
High-capacity leaders often step in before others struggle. They refine the message. They fix the slide. They solve the problem before it fully forms. The intention is almost always supportive. But the impact accumulates differently. When leaders consistently intervene early, teams stop developing judgment. Initiative declines. And the leader’s workload increases—not because the team lacks ability, but because the team lacks ownership. Control rarely announces itself as control. It appears helpful. Earlier in The Human Shift, Capacity Is Not Infinite , we discussed capacity as information. Control is often a response to leaders sensing the system might falter and unconsciously compensating. The leader becomes the stabilizer. And stabilizers eventually become exhausted. Reframe Support strengthens capability. Preemption weakens it. One Grounded Practice The next time a team member brings you a solvable problem, pause before offering a solution and ask: “What options are you considering?” Then wait. Do not refine immediately. Do not redirect quickly. Allow their thinking to complete before yours begins. Leadership capacity grows when others experience themselves as capable. Closing Reflection Where might your helpfulness be preventing someone else’s development? Contextual Depth Signal In organizational advisory work, many leadership bottlenecks are not skill issues but ownership issues. When leaders shift from solving to supporting thinking, both performance and energy improve. In the shift, Dr. Nika White P.S. Where do you feel most necessary right now—and is it because of structure or habit?
