Verified by 
Key points
- Mass resignations can spotlight systemic issues but may inadvertently harm marginalized groups.
- Privilege often shapes who can protest without risking career precarity.
- The psychological toll of activism includes stress, uncertainty, and moral injury.
- Effective protests balance immediate action with sustainable pathways for change.
Mass resignations often capture headlines as bold acts of defiance, designed to challenge systemic issues or demand accountability. At their best, they highlight pressing concerns and force institutions to reckon with long-standing problems. However, the consequences of these actions are not always straightforward. A recent wave of editorial resignations from the journal Gender, Work & Organization underscores the complexities of such protests.
While the resignations were framed as a response to perceived threats to academic freedom and the journal’s scholarly mission, they also raised questions about the unintended harm caused to early-career and marginalized academics. This example highlights the delicate balance required in activism: how can resistance challenge injustice while ensuring it doesn’t inadvertently harm those most vulnerable?
The Psychological Dimensions of Privilege in Protests
Mustafa Özbilgin, a professor of organizational behavior at Brunel University of London, and Milena Tekeste, an assistant professor at New York University Abu Dhabi, co-authored a paper analyzing the resignations from Gender, Work & Organization. In an interview with me, they explained how privilege shaped the outcomes of the mass resignation. Many of the resigning editors were established academics with significant networks and job security. Özbilgin and Tekeste observed that their actions, while well-intentioned, created a divide between those who could afford to protest and those who were left dealing with the fallout.
“Mass resignations, while often seen as bold stands against institutional mismanagement, warrant critical reflection on their unintended consequences, particularly for those who lack the privilege or networks to recover,” Özbilgin said. Early-career scholars and researchers from marginalized groups were disproportionately affected, as they often rely on established editorial structures for mentorship and publishing opportunities.
Critics of the resignations have pointed out that this dynamic risks alienating vulnerable scholars rather than fostering solidarity. Tekeste noted that groupthink—the tendency for a group to prioritize unity over dissent—may have played a role in the decision-making process. While collective action often fosters solidarity, it can also suppress critical perspectives about the potential harm of such actions. This dynamic may have overshadowed the voices of those within the resigning cohort who questioned whether resigning was the best path forward.
The resignations also underscore the emotional burden carried by those who left. Özbilgin explained that for many of the resigning editors, walking away from a journal they had helped build likely created a sense of moral injury—the psychological distress that arises when individuals feel they have violated their own ethical code. This tension between loyalty to their values and the unintended consequences of their actions highlights the emotional complexity of collective action.
How Collective Actions Can Lead to Unintended Psychological Consequences
The resigning editors cited several reasons for their protest, including concerns about academic freedom, the increasing commercialization of the journal, and a lack of transparency in decision-making. They criticized Wiley, the journal’s publisher, for prioritizing revenue over academic integrity by appointing three new editors-in-chief with limited or no connection to the journal’s established academic focus. According to the resigning editors, this decision reflected an effort to "mainstream" the journal, potentially diluting its emphasis on gender-focused scholarship.
Ozbilgin observed that destabilizing such platforms can leave early-career scholars without viable alternatives, compounding their precarity. Tekeste emphasized that these disruptions risked leaving early-career academics, particularly those from marginalized groups, without essential support systems, deepening their sense of isolation and precarity.
From a psychological perspective, these resignations reveal the complexities of decision-making under uncertainty. For many resigning editors, the lack of transparency in Wiley’s decision-making process created an urgent need to act, even without full clarity on what the resignations might achieve. For early-career scholars, this uncertainty likely magnified existing feelings of instability, exacerbating stress and a sense of powerlessness.
Balancing the Emotional and Strategic Demands of Resistance
The resignations raise a critical question for protests and boycotts across sectors: how can resistance hold institutions accountable while minimizing harm to those with the least power? Activism, when not carefully planned, can create unintended barriers for the very people it seeks to support. At the same time, defenders of the resignations argue that such actions can serve as powerful symbolic gestures, highlighting systemic concerns that might otherwise remain unaddressed. By resigning en masse, the editors created a moment of reckoning that could inspire broader awareness and discussions about the corporate influence on academic publishing.
Tekeste and Özbilgin described the resignations as a principled stance that, while addressing valid concerns, failed to foster constructive dialogue or systemic reform. Özbilgin suggested that the resigning scholars might have missed an opportunity to engage with Wiley to create lasting change from within. On the other hand, proponents argue that when trust is fundamentally broken, engagement may no longer be viable, and bold actions become necessary to demand accountability.
Psychologically, the resignations reveal the emotional resonance of protest, which can range from empowerment to disillusionment. Bold actions often galvanize support among like-minded individuals, creating a sense of collective efficacy—the belief that a group can achieve meaningful change together. However, they also risk alienating those who value dialogue or gradual reform. Tekeste added that the resignations, while disruptive, underscored the need for future activism to balance short-term disruption with pathways for systemic reform.
Effective activism, both in academia and beyond, requires a dual focus: addressing immediate concerns while leveraging psychological principles of change to build sustainable pathways for reform. Without this balance, protests risk becoming symbolic gestures rather than drivers of meaningful reform.
What Activism Teaches Us About Psychological Decision-Making
The resignations from Gender, Work & Organization offer lessons that extend beyond academia. They highlight the complexities of activism and the psychological processes underpinning collective action. For example, the resignations demonstrate how symbolic actions can inspire awareness and solidarity, but they also underscore the cognitive and emotional toll of such decisions on those involved.
From a psychological perspective, this case offers insights into moral decision-making under pressure. For activists and leaders, weighing the immediate impacts of their actions against potential long-term benefits requires careful consideration. Psychological models of systems thinking and change management suggest that incremental activism, which seeks reform through sustained engagement, may sometimes be more effective than disruptive actions. However, bold gestures, when paired with follow-through, can create powerful catalysts for change.
Leaders and activists navigating similar challenges should ask: Who will benefit from this action? Who might be harmed? And how can these risks be mitigated? By addressing these questions, resistance can move beyond symbolic gestures to create tangible and lasting change.
