On 2 July, Chancellor Rachel Reeves sat visibly tearful on the front bench during a heated Prime Minister’s Questions. The exchange, centred on Labour’s welfare policy U-turns, had grown personal. That evening, Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly backed her in a BBC interview, stating she would remain Chancellor “for a very long time.” It was a rare and resonant moment in British politics — not just because it happened, but because it was defended.
This short exchange has reignited a wider question in business and politics alike: is emotional visibility still seen as weakness, or is it finally being recognised as a leadership strength?
The evidence suggests the latter. A meta-analysis from Gallup found that high-engagement teams — a proxy for psychologically safe environments — are 23% more profitable and 21% less likely to suffer turnover. Deloitte’s HX Trust ID research went further: workers in high-trust companies were 140% more willing to take on extra responsibility and 180% more motivated overall.
The implication is clear. Leadership that fosters trust and psychological safety — often signalled by openness, candour, and even visible vulnerability — drives measurable business outcomes.
It’s a model seen elsewhere. In 2014, GM CEO Mary Barra publicly apologised before Congress for the company’s ignition-switch scandal, stating: “I am deeply sorry.” She accepted personal accountability, dismissed 15 employees, and later published wide-ranging safety reforms. GM’s internal trust scores recovered within three years; today, Barra ranks #1 on Fortune’s Most Powerful Women list.
This example highlights a key shift: controlled vulnerability, when rooted in authenticity and followed by accountable action, builds credibility rather than diminishing it.
Rachel Reeves’ moment is still unfolding — but the early response matters. That the Prime Minister did not distance himself, but instead doubled down on support, signals a cultural inflection. And yet, gendered expectations linger. Research from the Kellogg School of Management warns that while leaders who disclose personal weaknesses are rated more authentic, their disclosures must be voluntary and non-moral. Public emotion, especially from women in high office, still tests unspoken norms.
So what should leaders take from this? It’s simple: demonstrate authenticity through small, regular disclosures. Share lessons learned, own uncertainty, and design meetings that invite input — not just compliance. Vulnerability does not mean oversharing. It means showing up — visibly, responsibly, and with enough humanity to be trusted.
Enjoyed this analysis? For the full data picture, global case studies, and the evolving rules of emotional credibility in leadership, read the premium BQX longform feature.
