Joy Bertrand Says the Habit Killing More Professionals Than “Stress” Isn’t What You Think

Every professional has their triggers. The colleague who monopolizes meetings. The client who emails at midnight. The LinkedIn commenter who seems determined to miss the point entirely. These moments of friction feel minor—forgettable, even. But according to trial attorney Joy Bertrand, they’re accumulating into something far more dangerous than a bad day.

For 28 years, Bertrand has built her career in the midst of conflict. As a trial lawyer, confrontation isn’t just part of the job description; it’s the foundation. Her mornings typically begin around 7:30 with phone calls from people looking to pick a fight. It’s the kind of professional environment that would test anyone’s patience, but Bertrand has discovered something troubling: the way most professionals handle these daily provocations quietly undermines their health.

The research she’s examined reveals a stark reality. Hostility—not just the explosive kind, but the simmering resentment that follows a frustrating interaction, the eye roll during a video call, the sarcastic comment muttered under your breath—carries health risks comparable to smoking. For women, the stakes are even higher, as heart disease remains the leading cause of death.

“I still have moments where I look down at my phone, grit my teeth, and think, oh, it’s that guy,” Bertrand acknowledges. “But I’m also realizing how dangerous that is.”  A growing number of studies shows why hostility causes so much damage.  Bouts of explosive hostility limit the ability of blood vessels to dilate.  At the same time, the hostility triggers surges of “stress hormones,” such as adrenaline and cortisol.  Chronic levels of these hormones have been shown to cause extensive damage to many of the body’s systems.  The physical reactions, combined, create measurably higher heart attack and risks. 

The Emotional Choice Scale

What makes Bertrand’s approach particularly actionable is her reframing of hostility not as a personality trait, but as a habit. Like chronic complaining or gossip, it’s a pattern that develops over time through repeated choices—and like any habit, it can be changed.

She conceptualizes emotional responses on a scale from zero to one thousand. At the bottom sits anger, self-loathing, victim mindset, and hostility. At the top: gratitude and self-realization.  The good news, Bertrand explains, is that you don’t need to reach enlightenment to see meaningful health benefits. You just need to get reach the middle.

That middle ground looks different for different people. For some, it’s acceptance—recognizing that while you neither like nor agree with what’s in front of you, it’s the reality you have to work with. For others, it’s reframing what seems like an unchangeable character trait as something within your control.

“That’s courage,” Bertrand says. “The decision to act even when it’s hard, and even when it’s scary.”

Bertrand notes that perfection isn’t the goal – intention is.  When conflict begins to build, hostility does not have to be the default response.  Recognizing hostility when it starts to build and deliberately choosing a heart-healthy response just takes some practice.  

The Professional Cost

The implications extend beyond individual health. In workplace cultures where hostility becomes normalized—expressed through sarcasm, exclusion, or passive aggression—the cumulative effect damages team cohesion, decision-making quality, and ultimately organizational performance.

Bertrand’s insight is particularly relevant for professionals in high-stress industries. Legal professionals, healthcare workers, executives, and anyone whose role involves regular conflict face a compounding risk. The very skills that make someone effective at navigating disagreement can create habitual emotional patterns that activate the body’s stress response repeatedly throughout the day.

The distinction Bertrand draws is between the external circumstances of conflict, which may be unavoidable, and the internal response to those circumstances, which is always a choice. That choice point—the moment between stimulus and response—is where health outcomes are determined.

Getting to the Middle

Bertrand’s work centers on helping professionals recognize these choice points and develop different response patterns. By combining scientific research on the physiological effects of hostility with practical strategies drawn from her own experience in high-conflict situations, she’s created a framework that makes the abstract concept of “choosing your response” actionable.

The approach doesn’t require eliminating conflict or avoiding difficult people. Instead, it focuses on managing the internal experience of conflict in ways that protect cardiovascular health while maintaining professional effectiveness.

For professionals who pride themselves on being tough, direct, or uncompromising, this might initially sound like weakness. Bertrand would argue the opposite. Choosing acceptance over hostility, especially when the latter feels justified, requires more strength than giving in to the immediate emotional response.

Bertrand’s work challenges a fundamental assumption in many professional environments: that high performance requires intensity, urgency, and a certain amount of interpersonal friction. Her message is that this price is being paid not just in workplace culture, but in years of life.

“You might save your relationships, your career, maybe even your life,” Bertrand concludes. It’s a bold claim, but one increasingly supported by research showing the cardiovascular impact of chronic hostility. In an era where workplace wellness programs focus primarily on exercise and nutrition, Bertrand is pointing to a risk factor hiding in plain sight—in our inboxes, our commutes, and our comment sections.

The question she leaves professionals with is disarmingly simple: Is that reactive moment of righteous anger worth what the cost?  If not, then you can choose again.