The difficult conversation has been rehearsed a dozen times. We know what we want to say, but we also know what speaking might cost. Perhaps someone will be disappointed. Perhaps a relationship will change. Remaining silent offers immediate relief, while leaving something important unresolved. Courage begins to matter in precisely this space, where a valued possibility and a credible risk occupy the same moment.

What makes an action courageous? The size of the risk matters, but so do the reasons for taking it and the judgment guiding the response. Psychologists and philosophers differ over whether fear must be present and how the worth of a goal should be judged. These differences matter because courage describes an experience and expresses a judgment about what deserves our respect (Goud, 2005; Chowkase et al., 2024).

Nelson Goud offers a useful starting point. His analysis of writings across psychology, philosophy, and other fields identifies three interacting dimensions: fear, appropriate action, and a higher purpose (Goud, 2005). These dimensions help us look beyond the appearance of boldness and ask what a person faces, what they choose, and what their choice serves.

The Three Dimensions of Courage

In Goud’s account, courage involves a relationship among its components. Fear gives the situation its difficulty. Appropriate action brings judgment to the response. Purpose gives the risk a reason. A frightening action without thoughtful direction may expose us to danger without serving anything we can responsibly defend.

Goud’s model is a conceptual interpretation of the literature. It does not establish three independently measured ingredients whose combination guarantees courage. Its value lies in the questions it makes possible. What is threatened? What response fits the circumstances? What makes the goal worth pursuing? The answers may differ considerably between people facing what appears to be the same event (Goud, 2005).

Fear and What Feels at Stake

We often imagine a courageous person as someone who feels less afraid than we do. Yet an outwardly ordinary act may require considerable effort from the person undertaking it. Asking for help, acknowledging a mistake, or returning to a neglected creative project can involve risks to belonging, competence, or self-respect. Physical danger is one setting for courage; emotional exposure is another (Goud, 2005).

Harriet Lerner’s clinical perspective helps us resist treating fear as a simple instruction. In The Dance of Fear, she describes fear as a message that requires interpretation. Sometimes it warns us about a situation that deserves caution. Sometimes it accompanies a necessary change. The task is to examine what the feeling concerns and how closely it fits present circumstances (Lerner, 2010).

Someone preparing to disagree with a trusted friend may fear rejection even when the friendship has room for disagreement. Someone preparing to challenge a person who has repeatedly retaliated faces a different situation. Both may feel anxious. Their anxiety alone cannot tell us whether the same response would be appropriate. Asking what has actually happened, what might happen next, and what support is available makes the discussion of courage more humane.

Fear is central to many accounts of courage, including Goud’s, but its necessity remains debated. A recent theoretical model places intentionality, substantial risk, a noble purpose, and context at the center of its definition. It treats fear as a frequent accompaniment whose role still needs clarification (Chowkase et al., 2024). We can therefore recognize acting while afraid as an important form of courage without requiring every courageous act to contain a consciously felt struggle.

Appropriate Action Requires Judgment

The word appropriate carries much of the responsibility in Goud’s model. An action must be considered in relation to its purpose, the danger, and the circumstances. Taking the largest available risk does not automatically make a choice more courageous. Skill, preparation, timing, and restraint can belong within courageous action (Goud, 2005).

Consider an employee who discovers a serious error. Publicly accusing a colleague might feel bold, yet a private inquiry could establish the facts and protect others more effectively. If the evidence confirms a substantial problem, a more formal response may become necessary. Courage here involves remaining engaged with an uncomfortable responsibility while allowing information to shape the action. The appropriate response may change as the employee learns more.

Rollo May adds a demanding qualification: commitment can coexist with the recognition that we might be wrong. In The Courage to Create, he argues that being deeply committed need not close us to new truth. Courage can involve holding a position while remaining capable of learning from someone who challenges it (May, 1994, chapter 1, section 5). We may need enough conviction to act and enough openness to revise the act. Becoming more certain is not always the same as becoming more courageous.

Lerner gives this question an especially useful human setting. Early in her career, she regularly spoke against unfairness in her workplace. Yet speaking had become so automatic that others could dismiss her before considering what she said. The harder task was to pause, listen to criticism without immediately defending herself, and think carefully about when and how to respond (Lerner, 2010, chapter 11).

In the same chapter, Lerner describes a colleague whose habitual response was to remain accommodating and silent. He withheld ideas because he feared disapproval and damage to his credibility. For him, speaking would have required the courage that Lerner needed in order to refrain from speaking. These are clinical and autobiographical accounts, rather than controlled comparisons. Their value is in revealing how the same outward behavior can have different meanings in different lives.

People can remain silent for very different reasons. In their theoretical account of employee voice and silence, Linn Van Dyne, Soon Ang, and Isabel Botero distinguish giving up, protecting oneself, and trying to protect others (Van Dyne et al., 2003). A quiet meeting does not tell us which motive is present. Keeping a confidence may be responsible; hiding a harmful error raises a different concern. Before judging the silence, we need to understand what it protects and what it allows to continue.

We can bring that distinction to an ordinary disagreement. Silence may provide room to understand another person; it may also keep an important concern hidden. Speaking may express a considered conviction; it may also discharge anxiety before we have thought about the consequences. We need to consider the pattern a response belongs to and what it makes possible. The quieter act can require the greater effort.

Restraint also leaves room for returning. A pause can be used to gather facts, recover perspective, and arrange another conversation. When it becomes an indefinite postponement, we need to examine what is being avoided. Courage asks something more specific than whether we acted quickly: did our response remain accountable to the purpose we hoped to serve?

Purpose Makes the Risk Worth Examining

In Goud’s account, a higher purpose involves securing or affirming a value beyond immediate self-interest. This requirement separates courage from the pursuit of danger for its own sake. Protecting another person, defending an important principle, or contributing to a community can supply a reason to accept a cost that would otherwise be unnecessary (Goud, 2005).

Albert Bandura’s account of moral disengagement explains one danger in relying on a declared purpose. Harmful conduct can be made acceptable to its participants when it is portrayed as serving a worthy cause. Moral justification can weaken the self-restraint that would otherwise accompany harming another person (Bandura, 2002). This account concerns moral agency, rather than courage specifically. It nevertheless gives us a reason to examine how a valued cause is being used: does it sustain responsibility, or provide a way to excuse the damage we do?

The meaning of purpose needs careful handling. People can feel sincerely committed to causes that harm others. Calling a goal noble cannot settle whether it is fair, informed, or humane. In applying the model, we therefore need to ask whose welfare is considered, who bears the cost, and whether contrary evidence receives a hearing. These are ethical questions raised by the model, rather than a psychological test that can certify a person’s motives.

Personal Courage and Social Context

Personal courage concerns the difficulty an act presents to the person undertaking it. It does not mean simply acting for one’s own benefit. Research distinguishing general and personal courage directs attention to the actor’s circumstances when judging an act’s difficulty (Pury, Kowalski, & Spearman, 2007). A step need not attract public admiration to involve a substantial personal struggle. Someone who speaks confidently at work may still find asking a partner for reassurance deeply difficult.

A separate question concerns who benefits from an action. Seeking needed help or ending a destructive commitment may primarily protect the person taking action. Such choices create a definitional tension with Goud’s emphasis on a purpose beyond immediate self-interest. That issue should remain visible, without treating personal courage as a synonym for a self-benefiting goal. The difficulty of the act and the worth of its purpose require separate consideration.

Lerner makes a similar point when she considers the balance between security and growth. A person can cling to familiar routines to avoid uncertainty. Another can keep pursuing beginnings to avoid the demands of commitment. In her clinical account, neither constant change nor constant stability supplies a universal measure of courage (Lerner, 2010, chapter 11, One Size Doesn’t Fit All). The useful question concerns what a particular person needs to face.

Lerner also cautions against suggesting that a few skills and a better attitude can transform any reality, however difficult the circumstances. Her warning matters for an article about courage. We can acknowledge possibilities for action while recognizing grief, dependency, material limits, and the need for other people (Lerner, 2010).

The same challenge may carry unequal costs. Challenging a supervisor while financially secure differs from doing so when losing one paycheck threatens housing. Naming mistreatment to a supportive person differs from naming it to someone who has threatened retaliation. These examples illustrate why our evaluation needs context. Calling for courage should not become a way of transferring responsibility from a harmful environment to the person struggling within it.

The employee considering whether to report an error also has to judge the likely response. Morrison’s review of employee voice and silence describes how speaking up depends on whether it seems safe and whether it seems likely to make a difference. Leaders’ openness and the surrounding work environment matter alongside individual motivations (Morrison, 2023). Treating every withheld concern as a shortage of bravery overlooks the possibility that people have learned to expect retaliation or futility.

Psychological safety concerns a shared belief that a setting permits interpersonal risk. A meta-analysis links it with learning and other constructive work outcomes, while noting limits on causal conclusions (Frazier et al., 2017). A workplace that makes questions and mistakes discussable can help create room for action. This evidence does not measure courage, and feeling safe does not guarantee protection from real consequences. It does help us see why responsibility also belongs to those who receive a difficult disclosure.

In situations involving coercion, violence, or credible threats, safety takes priority. Confrontation and greater disclosure are not universal measures of courage. Seeking confidential help, limiting contact, or preparing a safer route away may better serve the person’s welfare. No one needs to prove bravery by remaining accessible to harm.

Creative and Relational Courage

The three dimensions describe features of a courageous act. May’s discussion of social and creative courage turns our attention toward the settings in which such acts arise. These are different levels of description: fear, action, and purpose can be considered within a creative undertaking or a relationship. They need not become competing lists of courage’s ingredients.

Creative Courage

May distinguishes the courage to address wrongs from the creative courage to discover new forms and possibilities. In his account, creative courage belongs in teaching, science, business, and other occupations as well as the arts. It concerns our participation in shaping a world whose next form is not yet settled (May, 1994, chapter 1, section 6). This is an existential interpretation of courage, rather than a demonstrated psychological mechanism.

His later discussion of the creative process adds another distinction: imagining ourselves as creative is different from engaging with the work. May describes a talented person who developed stories in his mind but repeatedly stopped before writing them. He uses this clinical example to explain what he calls an encounter, an absorbed engagement with an idea, material, or problem (May, 1994, chapter 2, section 2). The example does not explain every unfinished project, but it gives us a precise question: are we protecting a possible identity, or allowing our work to meet something that can change it?

For a writer, creative courage might mean allowing an unfinished idea to be examined rather than protecting it indefinitely from criticism. The purpose could be a contribution worth making; the appropriate action could include revision and selective feedback. The courage belongs partly to making something and partly to tolerating the possibility that the work needs to change. This application extends May’s account into an ordinary writing situation.

Relational Courage

Social courage brings a related uncertainty into intimacy. May describes the risk of investing ourselves in relationships that can alter us. In her own opening chapter, Cynthia Lynn Wall describes learning to trust wisely while recognizing that reaching toward another person involves the possibility of disappointment. The capacity to confide matters because a hoped-for compassionate response can become criticism instead (May, 1994, chapter 1, section 4; Wall, 2005, chapter 1).

Opening up also depends on how we expect the other person to respond. Yan Ruan and colleagues studied perceived partner responsiveness: the sense that a close partner understands and cares about us. In a two-week diary study, people reported expressing more emotion on days when they saw their partner as more responsive. In a separate experiment, participants led to see their partner as more responsive expressed more anxiety during a stressful task. The studies examined expression, not courage, and feeling understood is not the same as being treated well. They nevertheless help explain why openness depends partly on the person receiving it (Ruan et al., 2020).

Wall also emphasizes that a person seeking repair must respect the injured person’s boundaries. In the section Accept Others’ Need for Space, she places the other person’s need for safety ahead of the apologizing person’s urgency to explain (Wall, 2005, p. 78). Being willing to reveal ourselves does not entitle us to someone else’s attention, forgiveness, or renewed trust. Sometimes the courageous responsibility is to accept a limit and change our conduct.

Making Room for Courageous Action

A useful starting point is to make the situation more specific. Instead of asking whether we are a brave person, we might ask what matters here, what we fear losing, and what response we can responsibly undertake. These questions bring the preceding ideas into everyday reflection; they are not a psychological test.

Goud describes possible ways to develop courage, including experience confronting manageable fears, preparation, and support. These are proposals grounded in his conceptual analysis; the paper does not show that following them reliably increases courage across every domain (Goud, 2005). Their practical appeal lies in helping us identify conditions that could make a worthwhile response more possible.

One early behavioral study offers a narrower piece of evidence. Norton and Weiss studied approach to a spider among 31 female undergraduates with elevated spider fear. Their results provided preliminary support for a self-report courage measure’s relationship with approaching a feared stimulus. The small, selected sample and specific task limit what we can infer about courage in relationships, moral conflict, or other settings (Norton & Weiss, 2009).

For the employee facing a serious error, preparation might mean separating observations from assumptions, documenting what is known, and identifying an appropriate person or reporting route. Planning for an unhelpful response may include seeking advice or using another available channel. The aim is to make a responsible response possible without assuming that one route will fit every workplace. Lerner’s discussion of ordinary courage also includes listening without defensiveness, admitting a mistake, and honoring a limit when continuing would exceed one’s capacity (Lerner, 2010, chapter 11). Such modest acts deserve consideration alongside dramatic images of bravery.

What happens after we act can help us choose what to do next. George Bonanno and Charles Burton describe regulatory flexibility as noticing what a situation calls for, having more than one way to respond, and checking whether our response is helping (Bonanno & Burton, 2013). Their review concerns coping and emotion regulation. It does not test a program for building courage, but it offers a useful connection: we can remain committed to a purpose while changing how we pursue it. Our employee may need to correct an assumption, choose a different channel, or acknowledge that an initial approach has failed.

The outcome alone cannot settle whether the original choice was courageous or well judged. A careful action can meet an unjust response; a careless action can succeed through luck. We can ask instead what was reasonably knowable, whose interests were considered, and what the response now asks us to reconsider. Returning to these questions keeps persistence accountable. Commitment need not mean repeating an ineffective or harmful strategy.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

The conversation we rehearsed may still be uncomfortable when it finally occurs. Courage does not promise that our voice will steady, that another person will understand, or that the outcome will justify every hope. Its value lies partly in our willingness to remain thoughtful about something we care enough to risk pursuing.

We may speak, pause, seek support, or change course. The outward act tells only part of the story. Its meaning becomes clearer when we consider the fear involved, the judgment guiding the response, and the purpose it serves. Courage asks us to meet a particular moment with care, including enough openness to recognize when responsibility calls for a different response.

Associated Concepts

• Psychological Flexibility: The capacity to remain open to experience and adapt behavior in ways guided by values.
• Emotional Regulation: Processes that influence which emotions we experience, when they arise, and how we experience and express them.
• Self-Efficacy: Belief in one’s ability to carry out a particular action; confidence in capability does not by itself establish courage.
• Personal Integrity: Alignment between considered values and conduct, including when maintaining that alignment carries a cost.
• Relationship Boundaries: Limits that protect autonomy, privacy, and safety while defining what contact or conduct is acceptable.
• Uncertainty Avoidance: A preference for reducing ambiguity and unpredictability, relevant to the difficulty of acting without assurance.
• The Four C Model of Creativity: A distinction among personal, everyday, professional, and eminent forms of creativity that broadens what creative contribution can mean.

References

Bandura, Albert (2002). Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119. DOI: 10.1080/0305724022014322.
(Return to Main Text)

Bonanno, George A.; Burton, Charles L. (2013). Regulatory Flexibility: An Individual Differences Perspective on Coping and Emotion Regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. DOI: 10.1177/1745691613504116.
(Return to Main Text)

Chowkase, Aakash A.; Parra-Martínez, Fabio Andrés; Ghahremani, Mehdi; Bernstein, Zoe; Finora, Gabrielle; Sternberg, Robert J. (2024). Dual-Process Model of Courage. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1376195. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1376195.
(Return to Main Text)

Frazier, M. Lance; Fainshmidt, Stav; Klinger, Ryan L.; Pezeshkan, Amir; Vracheva, Veselina (2017). Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. DOI: 10.1111/peps.12183.
(Return to Main Text)

Goud, Nelson H. (2005). Courage: Its Nature and Development. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 44(1), 102–116. DOI: 10.1002/j.2164-490X.2005.tb00060.x.
(Return to Main Text)

Lerner, Harriet (2010). The Dance of Fear: Rising Above Anxiety, Fear, and Shame to Be Your Best and Bravest Self. HarperCollins e-books. EPUB edition, September 2010. Original work published 2004. ISBN: 9780061983719.
(Return to Main Text)

May, Rollo (1994). The Courage to Create. W. W. Norton & Company. Paperback edition. Original work published 1975. ISBN: 9780393311068.
(Return to Main Text)

Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe (2023). Employee Voice and Silence: Taking Stock a Decade Later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 79–107. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654.
(Return to Main Text)

Norton, Peter J.; Weiss, Brandon J. (2009). The Role of Courage on Behavioral Approach in a Fear-Eliciting Situation: A Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(2), 212–217. DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.07.002.
(Return to Main Text)

Pury, Cynthia L. S.; Kowalski, Robin M.; Spearman, Jana (2007). Distinctions Between General and Personal Courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 99–114. DOI: 10.1080/17439760701237962.
(Return to Main Text)

Ruan, Yan; Reis, Harry T.; Clark, Margaret S.; Hirsch, Jennifer L.; Bink, Brian D. (2020). Can I Tell You How I Feel? Perceived Partner Responsiveness Encourages Emotional Expression. Emotion, 20(3), 329–342. DOI: 10.1037/emo0000650.
(Return to Main Text)

Van Dyne, Linn; Ang, Soon; Botero, Isabel C. (2003). Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00384.
(Return to Main Text)

Wall, Cynthia Lynn (2005). The Courage to Trust: A Guide to Building Deep and Lasting Relationships. New Harbinger Publications. EPUB edition. Copyright 2004. ISBN: 9781608823086.
(Return to Main Text)