How do I handle passive-aggressive behaviour at work as a leader?

Passive-aggressive behaviour at work is more than annoying; it is costly. It erodes trust, disrupts collaboration, and quietly unravels team cohesion. And because it is ambiguous, it often goes unaddressed.

You have likely seen it. The terse “Sure, fine” email. The update that was “accidentally” left off the team call. The sarcastic comment dropped in a meeting, just light enough to deny intent.

These moments might seem minor, but they add up. Research shows that up to 98% of employees experience workplace incivility, with nearly half encountering it weekly (Estes and Wang, 2008). Even witnessing this kind of behaviour can reduce focus, lower generosity, and weaken team performance (Porath and Erez, 2009).

For organisations, the financial toll is estimated at $2 billion per year in lost productivity, absenteeism, and disengagement (Porath and Pearson, 2013).

So how do leaders deal with passive-aggression without escalating conflict? This article offers practical, evidence-based responses that reduce ambiguity, protect dignity, and keep the work on track.

Executive Summary: 5 moves to break the cycle

1. Regulate first: Manage your own reaction before you speak to prevent mirroring the hostility.

2. Describe, don’t diagnose: Name the specific observation (e.g., “The deadline was missed”) rather than the personality (e.g., “You are being difficult”).

3. Make the hidden issue discussable: Ask questions that invite the underlying frustration into the open.

4. Set boundaries: Establish clear consequences for the work if the pattern continues.

5. Choose channel & timing: Move public or digital conflicts into private, real-time conversations to save face.

Defining passive-aggressive behaviour precisely

Passive-aggressive behaviour is the indirect expression of negative feelings. Rather than communicating concerns openly, a person avoids, delays, or sends mixed signals to express resistance or frustration. Common forms include withholding information, deliberate inefficiency, subtle exclusion, or sarcasm delivered with plausible deniability (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2025).

In the workplace, this behaviour fits within a recognised category of covert counterproductive work behaviour. These are acts that obstruct collaboration or outcomes without visible confrontation (Baron and Neuman, 1998; Neuman and Baron, 1998). Unlike open conflict or direct hostility, passive-aggressive actions are harder to name, but their effect can be just as damaging.

A related construct is workplace incivility, defined as low-intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). This includes dismissive remarks, exclusion from key updates, or failing to acknowledge contributions. The ambiguity is part of what makes such behaviour so corrosive. Because intent is unclear, recipients are left unsure. Was that deliberate? Was I meant to notice?

These behaviours are often explained away as miscommunication or personality clashes. But over time, the pattern becomes clear. Trust declines. Teams start working around one another instead of with each other.

It is essential to distinguish passive-aggressive behaviour from other experiences that might appear similar. Honest disagreement, social discomfort, forgetfulness, or introversion can be misread, especially under stress. The difference lies in repeated, indirect resistance that disrupts work and leaves others managing the emotional residue.

Naming this matters. Not to diagnose or accuse, but to focus on observable behaviour rather than speculation about motive. As Pearson, Andersson and Porath (2005) argue, even subtle, ambiguous mistreatment can reshape team norms if left unaddressed. The longer it continues, the more likely it is to spread.

Understanding what passive-aggression is, and what it is not, is the first step in choosing a response that protects dignity without losing direction.

Why it escalates so easily

Passive-aggressive behaviour may seem minor, but it rarely stays contained. What begins as an ambiguous comment or small omission can quickly spiral. This is not just about thin skin. There is a clear mechanism at play, one that research has mapped out.

When intent is unclear, we interpret. We read between the lines, search for clues, and fill in the blanks. That process often leads to attribution. We assume motive. We assign blame.

This interpretation then feeds a second layer: emotional threat. Sarcasm or silence can feel like a challenge to competence or belonging. It touches status and identity, even when the content is light. In response, people protect themselves. They withdraw, retaliate, or harden.

This is the start of what Andersson and Pearson (1999) called the spiral of incivility. One ambiguous act prompts another. A curt reply is answered with silence. Information is withheld. Sarcasm is returned. What was once interpersonal becomes cultural, effectively becoming a new normal.

Pruitt and Kim (2004) describe this dynamic as an escalation trap. One person’s low-level provocation leads to a slightly stronger response, which is then matched or exceeded. The original issue disappears. What remains is the escalation itself.

Even those not directly involved are affected. Porath and Erez (2009) showed that simply witnessing incivility can reduce performance on both routine and creative tasks. It also decreases willingness to be helpful or collaborative. The environment becomes charged. People start to play it safe.

Silence plays a role too. When a passive-aggressive pattern is not named, others learn something. They learn that unclear communication is tolerated. That indirectness wins. That psychological safety is conditional.

This is how the behaviour spreads. Not through bold acts, but through what we let slide. Through the small adaptations people make to avoid becoming the next target.

So the question is not just “Why do they behave this way?” It is also “What are we reinforcing through silence?”

And more usefully: “What would interrupt the spiral before it becomes the culture?”

The strategy: Five evidence-based moves

Interrupting the spiral of incivility requires a shift in tactics. We cannot simply hope the behaviour stops; we must actively change the dynamic.

The following five moves are drawn from negotiation theory and conflict regulation research. They are designed to work together to lower emotional threat while raising accountability. You can use them in sequence for entrenched patterns, or select the one that fits the immediate moment.

Move A: Regulate first, then speak

Before addressing passive-aggressive behaviour, the first task is internal. Regulation comes before resolution.

The ambiguity of passive-aggression often triggers defensiveness, especially when it touches identity or feels like disrespect. Yet how we show up in that first moment, especially if we are the target, shapes everything that follows. If we respond with heat, we confirm threat. If we pause, we create space.

This is supported by research into affect regulation in conflict situations, which shows that emotional arousal narrows perspective and increases the likelihood of hostile attributions (Halperin, 2014). Even brief moments of self-regulation, such as taking a breath or choosing to write instead of speak, can shift our cognitive frame and reduce the chance of escalation (Gross, 2002).

Timing matters. Passive-aggressive behaviour often occurs in public, such as in meetings, on group emails, or in front of others. Addressing it in the same space can feel like a correction or confrontation. That increases the risk of face-threat, particularly when power dynamics are involved (Brown and Levinson, 1987).

Instead, the research suggests we contain the heat first. That means choosing the time, place, and tone of response carefully. When conversations move from public to private, and from reactive to intentional, dignity is more likely to be preserved on both sides (Stone, Patton and Heen, 1999).

In practical terms:

• Pause before replying to a sarcastic comment or vague delay.

• Step away from the keyboard if an email lands poorly.

• Suggest a short one-to-one conversation: “Can we talk briefly about something that came up earlier?”

• Keep the tone neutral and focused on clarity, not correction.

What this move protects is not just tone. It protects choice, specifically your ability to decide what kind of conversation you want to invite. Without regulation, we react. With it, we lead.

For practical ways to build this kind of self-awareness, explore the EQ-i model. It offers a simple framework for noticing and naming your emotional responses before you act on them.

Move B: Describe behaviour and impact, avoid mind-reading

Once the emotional heat has dropped, the next move is to name what happened. Clearly, and without speculation.

The goal is to describe the behaviour, not diagnose the motive. This is the shift from “You are being passive-aggressive” to “I noticed that the deadline was missed without any update.” It is specific, observable, and free from interpretation.

Why does this matter? Because attributing intent, especially when it is negative or unclear, tends to escalate conflict rather than resolve it. Attribution theory and social conflict research both show that when we guess someone’s motives, we often get it wrong and create defensiveness (Weiner, 1985; Pruitt and Kim, 2004).

The risk with passive-aggressive behaviour is that the ambiguity invites story-making. We interpret tone, timing, or subtext, often through the lens of previous frustration. But naming the story, such as “You are trying to undermine me,” increases threat. Naming the behaviour, such as “You said X in the meeting, and it landed awkwardly,” opens the door to a more useful conversation.

This aligns with the structure used in nonviolent communication: observation, feeling or impact, then request (Rosenberg, 2003). It is not a script, but a structure. One that reduces blame and increases clarity.

It also mirrors the AID feedback model: action, impact, and desired outcome. This model keeps the conversation focused on what happened, not who someone is. For a fuller breakdown, visit the feedback hub.

In practical terms:

• Use language like “I noticed…”, “What I saw was…”, or “This is the effect it had…”.

• Avoid abstract labels. Words like “unprofessional”, “negative”, or “passive-aggressive” often inflame rather than clarify.

• End with a question or invitation, such as “Can we check what happened there?” or “Is that how you meant it to land?”

This move requires restraint, but also courage. It asks us to trust that naming what we saw is enough. That we do not need to interpret in order to be clear. And that people are more likely to respond to facts than to judgments. It also protects dignity. Because it keeps the focus on the work, not the person.

Move C: Make the hidden issue discussable

Passive-aggressive behaviour often signals something that has not been said. A frustration. A disagreement. A boundary that has not been voiced. The behaviour becomes the messenger because the words never arrived.

Once you have named the observable behaviour and its impact, the next move is to make space for what may be underneath. This is not an interrogation. It is an invitation.

Research into workplace conflict shows that avoidance patterns often emerge when people feel that direct expression will be unsafe or unsuccessful (Kolb and Putnam, 1992). When people do not feel permission to speak up, they find sideways ways to express discontent. That does not excuse the behaviour, but it can explain the pattern. What helps is to ask. Clearly, and with some generosity.

Questions such as:

• “Is there something about this task or timeline that is not working?”

• “Was there something about that meeting that landed badly for you?”

• “Would it help to name what might be getting in the way here?”

These kinds of invitations do two things. First, they move the conversation from behaviour into context. Second, they offer a face-saving path out. That can matter when someone has not felt able to raise a concern more directly.

This approach is consistent with research on psychological safety. Edmondson (2019) highlights that people are more likely to speak up when they believe they will not be punished or embarrassed for doing so. A non-judgmental question, asked privately and calmly, creates that opening.

You do not need to solve the underlying issue in that moment. The point is to signal that it can be named. That disagreement is not dangerous. That there is room to speak, even when the first signal was sideways.

You might be wrong in your reading. That is fine. It is why phrases like “I might be misreading this” or “Tell me if I have that wrong” are so powerful. They reduce threat. They show humility. And they create a space where something more honest can emerge.

Making the hidden issue discussable does not guarantee change. But it makes the current pattern less necessary.

Move D: Set a boundary that protects the work

At some point, clarity requires consequence. When a passive-aggressive pattern continues, even after it has been named and discussed, it is time to set a boundary. Not to punish. Not to escalate. But to protect the work.

Boundaries in this context are not ultimatums. They are agreements about how collaboration will function, and what will happen if it does not. The shift is from request to clarity about response.

In conflict and negotiation research, this step is part of the move from dialogue to action. Pruitt and Kim (2004) describe it as transitioning from problem-solving to settlement, where patterns need limits, not just understanding. Without this, ambiguity returns. People begin to wonder what happens next. They wait, or withdraw.

A clear boundary says: “This matters, and we are not going to leave it vague.”

Boundaries can take many forms. For example:

• “If this continues, I will suggest we move these updates into written form so nothing gets missed.”

• “If the tone in team meetings stays like this, I will start calling a pause and reset for the group.”

• “If we cannot get a clear update in real time, I will ask to document decisions at the end of each check-in.”

These are not threats. They are next steps that reinforce expectations and hold space for respectful collaboration.

This move is particularly important in leadership roles. Managers who allow passive-aggressive behaviour to persist without response risk signalling that it is acceptable. That corrodes both culture and credibility.

Boundary-setting also supports fairness. It ensures that those who are collaborative are not left carrying the burden of unclear expectations or unspoken conflict.

Porath and Pearson (2013) found that unresolved low-level mistreatment damages not only individual performance but also team norms. Passive-aggression that goes unchecked becomes part of the culture. It spreads by example and survives through silence.

A boundary does not need to be hard. But it does need to be real. What are you prepared to do differently if the pattern continues? And what does the team need from you to stay focused on the work, not the static?

Move E: Choose channel and timing intentionally

How we respond to passive-aggressive behaviour matters. But so does where and when.

Most passive-aggressive acts are subtle and deniable. That makes public or asynchronous responses risky. Emails can escalate tone. Group settings can heighten embarrassment. What might have been a repair becomes a performance.

The research supports this caution. Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987) highlights the importance of face-saving: the need people have to protect their social identity in interaction. When feedback threatens that face in front of others, defensiveness is almost guaranteed. This is especially true when power differences are present.

Choosing the right channel is about lowering threat and raising the chance of dialogue. If the behaviour showed up in email, shift to a short real-time conversation. If it surfaced in a group meeting, invite a brief one-to-one check-in. This is not about secrecy. It is about conditions for honesty.

Timing matters too. Do not raise it when emotions are raw or the context is rushed. Do not wait so long that the event is stale or diluted. Look for a window where both people have enough attention and enough calm to engage.

In practical terms:

• Avoid replying to vague or snarky emails in the same tone. Respond briefly, and suggest a quick chat.

• If something lands awkwardly in a meeting, note it and follow up later. Try: “There’s something I wanted to revisit from earlier; can we find ten minutes?”

• Use neutral, forward-looking language. “Can we talk about how that landed?” works better than “That was out of line.”

Porath and Erez (2009) found that even witnessing incivility reduces collaboration and performance. That makes timing and delivery a leadership task, not just a personal one.

Every response teaches the team something. Choosing the right moment and medium is not about control. It is about care. It signals that clarity matters, and that people deserve to be spoken with, not at.

Scripts for common scenarios

It can be hard to know where to start. Even with the right intentions, the words can stall. We want to be clear but not harsh, curious but not passive. The fear of misstepping often leads us to say nothing.

These short scripts are not templates. They are starting points. Each one reflects the moves outlined earlier, naming behaviour, inviting dialogue, setting boundaries, while keeping the tone steady and the dignity of both parties intact.

Adapt them to your voice. Use them to practise before the moment arrives. The aim is not perfection. It is presence.

1. The meeting sarcasm reset

Scenario: A peer makes a sarcastic comment during a team meeting that undermines your point. Script (1:1 follow-up): “In today’s meeting, when you said, ‘Well, that’s one way to do it,’ it landed more as a dig than a contribution. It made it harder to keep the group focused. Was that what you intended?”

Why it works:

• Names the behaviour and its impact (Move B)

• Invites clarification without assuming intent (Move C)

• Keeps tone neutral and content-focused (Move A)

2. The missed update with vague excuses

Scenario: A colleague repeatedly misses updates, offering unclear reasons each time. Script: “I noticed this is the third update we’ve missed this month without notice. It leaves us scrambling to adjust. Going forward, I’ll need to document timelines and flag any missed inputs right away so we can stay aligned. If something’s getting in the way, I’m open to talking about it.”

Why it works:

• Focuses on pattern and impact (Move B)

• Offers a path to name underlying issues (Move C)

• Sets a firm, work-focused boundary (Move D)

3. The email snark response

Scenario: You receive a curt, vague, or subtly undermining email. Script (reply) “Thanks for the note. I’d prefer to talk this through briefly in real time. Are you free for ten minutes later today or tomorrow?”

Why it works:

• Defers reaction to avoid escalation (Move A)

• Shifts to a lower-threat channel (Move E)

• Signals respect without reinforcing tone

What not to do (and why)

When faced with indirect behaviour, it is easy to slip into reflex. We protect ourselves, push back, or try to fix the discomfort fast. But not all responses bring relief.

Here are some common approaches that often backfire, and what to consider instead:

1. Do not label the person Saying “You’re being passive-aggressive” may feel honest, but it rarely opens dialogue. It shifts attention from behaviour to character. That almost always raises defences. Try instead: Name the action. Describe the impact. Ask a clean, open question.

2. Avoid public correction unless harm is immediate In meetings or emails, calling someone out can humiliate more than clarify. It teaches others that mistakes bring exposure, not conversation. Try instead: Make a quiet note. Follow up in private.

3. Don’t match ambiguity with more ambiguity Withholding your own concerns, speaking in sarcasm, or making indirect jabs feels tempting when trust is low. But it extends the spiral. Try instead: Stay steady. Be the one to name what’s real, clearly and calmly.

4. Don’t dismiss it too soon Saying “It’s just their way,” or “It’s not worth raising” creates permission for patterns that damage morale over time. Try instead: Consider whether the pattern is affecting others. Small acts can have wide ripples.

This is not about being perfect. It is about choosing influence over reaction.

Start with the mirror

Before naming someone else’s pattern, pause. Ask where you are in the room. Stewardship starts with self-awareness. So does credibility. Here are three simple self-audits before you intervene:

1. Have I made expectations clear? Unspoken standards often lead to frustration. If the timeline, scope, or roles were vague, behaviour that looks resistant might be a reaction to confusion.

2. Am I responding to a pattern or a single moment? Everyone has off days. One missed update, or one short reply, may be noise rather than signal. Check whether this is part of a broader theme.

3. Is there something I have been avoiding? Sometimes we experience passive-aggression after we have sidestepped our own responsibility, such as delaying feedback, avoiding a hard ask, or signalling uncertainty.

This reflection is not blame. It is calibration. It makes the next move more likely to be heard.

Here is a strong, reflective conclusion that ties the practical moves back to the broader theme of leadership and culture. It is written in British English to match your text.

Closing thoughts: The culture we create

Dealing with passive-aggressive behaviour is rarely comfortable, but it is a defining act of leadership. When we choose to interrupt the spiral of incivility, we do more than solve an immediate problem. We signal to the team that clarity is valued over comfort, and that conflict is safe as long as it is direct.

The goal of these moves is not to police personality or demand perfection. It is to reduce the ambiguity that allows mistrust to fester. By regulating our own reactions, naming what we see, and inviting honest dialogue, we replace silence with psychological safety.

However, be realistic about the timeline. Success depends on consistent practice and broader organisational support; one-off attempts are rarely enough to shift entrenched patterns. In environments with highly toxic cultures, these interpersonal moves may need to be paired with deeper interventions, such as HR involvement or structural training.

As you return to your work, consider that culture is not what we claim it is in values statements. It is what we tolerate in the hallway, the meeting room, and the email chain.

Three questions for reflection

To keep this practice alive, ask yourself these three questions when you sense tension rising:

1. Where am I trading short-term peace for long-term clarity? Am I letting a vague comment slide to avoid an awkward moment, knowing it will likely return as a bigger issue later?

2. Is my own communication modelling the directness I expect? Have I been clear about my standards and requests, or is there ambiguity in my own leadership that might be inviting resistance?

3. What is the “hidden issue” I am afraid to make discussable? If I strip away the tone and the annoyance, what is the core work problem that we are actually struggling to talk about?

Resources

Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most (Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen). This book is the source code for “Move B” (Describe Behaviour) and “Move E” (Choose Channel). It explains that every difficult conversation is actually three conversations at once: the “What Happened,” the “Feelings,” and the “Identity” conversation. Great for leaders who need specific scripts and want to understand why their feedback often triggers defensiveness.

Mastering Civility: A Manifesto for the Workplace (Christine Porath) Christine Porath is the primary researcher cited in the article regarding the financial costs of incivility ($2 billion/year). This book moves beyond the “don’t be rude” advice and offers a strategic framework for leaders to quantify the cost of bad behaviour and build a culture of respect. Excellent for leaders who need to make the business case to senior management for why passive-aggressive behaviour cannot be tolerated.

The Fearless Organization (Amy C. Edmondson) This book addresses the root cause mentioned in the article: the “spiral of incivility” caused by silence. Edmondson explains how to build Psychological Safety, an environment where people feel safe to speak up directly, removing the need for passive-aggressive signaling. A worthwhile read for Leaders who want to stop playing “whack-a-mole” with individual bad actors and instead fix the team culture that enables them.

Do you have any recommendations for dealing with passive-aggressive behaviour?

What has worked for you?

Do you have any recommended resources to explore?

Thanks for reading!

Sources:

Andersson, L.M. and Pearson, C.M. (1999) ‘Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace’, Academy of Management Review, 24(3), pp. 452–471.

Baron, R.A. and Neuman, J.H. (1998) ‘Workplace aggression—the iceberg beneath the tip of workplace violence: evidence on its forms, frequency and targets’, Public Administration Quarterly, 21(4), pp. 446–464.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edmondson, A.C. (2019) The fearless organization: creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Estes, B. and Wang, J. (2008) ‘Workplace incivility: impacts on individual and organizational performance’, Human Resource Development Review, 7(2), pp. 218–240.

Gross, J.J. (2002) ‘Emotion regulation: affective, cognitive, and social consequences’, Psychophysiology, 39(3), pp. 281–291.

Halperin, E. (2014) ‘Emotion regulation and conflict resolution’, in Tropp, L.R. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 278–296.

Kolb, D.M. and Putnam, L.L. (1992) ‘The multiple faces of conflict in organizations’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), pp. 311–324.

Mayo Clinic Staff (2025) Passive-aggressive behavior: what are the warning signs?. Available at: https://www.mayoclinic.org/ (Accessed: 4 January 2026).

Neuman, J.H. and Baron, R.A. (1998) ‘Workplace violence and workplace aggression: evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes’, Aggressive Behavior, 24(2), pp. 127–149.

Pearson, C.M., Andersson, L.M. and Porath, C.L. (2005) ‘Workplace incivility’, in Fox, S. and Spector, P.E. (eds) Counterproductive work behavior: investigations of actors and targets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 177–200.

Porath, C.L. and Erez, A. (2009) ‘Overlooked but not untouched: how rudeness reduces onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), pp. 29–44.

Porath, C. and Pearson, C. (2013) ‘The price of incivility’, Harvard Business Review, 91(1/2), pp. 114–121.

Pruitt, D.G. and Kim, S.H. (2004) Social conflict: escalation, stalemate, and settlement. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rosenberg, M.B. (2003) Nonviolent communication: a language of life. 2nd edn. Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press.

Stone, D., Patton, B. and Heen, S. (1999) Difficult conversations: how to discuss what matters most. New York: Viking.

Weiner, B. (1985) ‘An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion’, Psychological Review, 92(4), pp. 548–573.