Every leader knows the experience. A team member who seems to have a complaint for every situation. The project plan is flawed. The deadlines are unrealistic. Leadership is out of touch. Sometimes even the coffee is wrong.

One senior leader  I coached described dreading their weekly team meeting because they knew a colleague would find fault with whatever was being discussed. Their instinct was to silence him or to fix the problems quickly to remove the noise. Neither approach worked. The cycle repeated, and the weight on the leader grew heavier. Then something shifted. Instead of pushing back, the leader asked a different question: “What would you like to see instead, and what part of that are you willing to take on?” The colleague paused. For the first time, he was invited not only to criticise but to imagine and own part of the solution. The dynamic began to change.

This blog explores how leaders can reframe complaint. We will look at the impact of complaining, why people do it, how leaders can use inquiry to shift the conversation, practical tools that help, and reflection questions to build self-awareness.

The impact of complaining

Complaints are not harmless. They ripple across individuals, relationships, teams, and tasks.

On the individual: For the complainer, the behaviour can become identity. If they are labelled as “the negative one,” others dismiss their contributions. Ironically, this often entrenches the behaviour. The less they feel heard, the louder they complain.

On relationships: Complaints strain trust. Colleagues start to avoid the complainer or defend themselves. Conversations narrow into attack and defence, rather than curiosity and collaboration.

On the team: A single persistent voice of negativity can set the tone. Will Felps’ research found that one consistently negative team member can reduce group performance by up to 40%. Teams become cautious, less likely to share ideas, and less willing to take risks.

On the task: Complaints slow execution. Meetings are consumed by rehashing frustrations instead of making decisions. Gallup estimates disengaged employees cost the global economy $8.8 trillion annually. Complaining is often how disengagement makes itself heard.

The cost is real. Yet beneath every complaint is energy. The leadership challenge is to decide whether that energy corrodes or contributes.

Why people complain: Psychological lenses

Leaders often assume a complaint equals a bad attitude. Psychology reveals a richer picture.

Reinforcement: behaviour shaped by reward

B. F. Skinner’s work on operant conditioning showed that behaviour followed by a reward tends to repeat (Skinner, 1953). Applied to organisations, this means that if a complaint secures attention, relief, or concessions, the act of complaining itself is reinforced. Research into workplace communication confirms that behaviours which reduce tension or achieve short-term gains, even if unhelpful overall, quickly become habits (Bandura, 1977). Over time, the brain learns a simple formula: voice dissatisfaction and watch the environment shift.

The difficulty for leaders is that reinforcement is often invisible. A manager who extends a deadline may see themselves as being flexible, yet to the employee it signals that complaint is an effective lever. The cycle strengthens without either side being fully aware. The research here is not about blaming individuals but about recognising patterns. Once leaders see the reinforcement loop, they can shift the reward structure from attention to ownership, from criticism to constructive problem-solving.

Example: A team member repeatedly complains about timelines. Each time, the manager extends them. Soon, complaining becomes the default negotiation strategy.

Leadership move: Notice what you reward. If every complaint gains airtime or concessions, the cycle strengthens. Instead, start rewarding ownership. For example: “That’s a real concern. What adjustment would you propose, and are you willing to lead it?” This shifts reinforcement from the complaint itself to the constructive action that follows.

Learned helplessness: complaint as despair

Martin Seligman’s experiments demonstrated that repeated exposure to uncontrollable events produced passivity, even when escape became possible (Seligman, 1967; Seligman, 1975). Later studies applied this to humans, showing how a sense of futility leads to disengagement (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993). In organisations, this presents as chronic negativity. The words sound like resistance, but the deeper message is despair: “nothing will change, so why try.” The complaint here is not a strategy for gain but a symptom of helplessness.

The American Psychological Association’s 2022 survey found that more than 80 percent of employees report workplace stress, with powerlessness among the strongest predictors (APA, 2022). This highlights the social cost of helplessness. Leaders who dismiss complaints in such contexts risk reinforcing the very despair they want to overcome. The research suggests that restoring agency requires evidence of impact, even in small increments. When people experience small wins that prove their voice matters, the cycle of helplessness begins to break.

Example: After years of ignored feedback, an employee criticises every new policy. The complaint is not about the policy itself, but about hopelessness: “No one listens anyway.”

Impact: APA’s 2022 survey found 81% of employees report workplace stress, with feelings of powerlessness among the strongest predictors.

Leadership move: Restore agency through small wins. Ask: “What is one thing we could try that’s within our reach?” Even a modest step, piloting a change, testing a new approach, reminds people that action can make a difference. The goal is not to solve everything at once, but to break the cycle of powerlessness with evidence that progress is possible.

Locus of control: where responsibility sits

Julian Rotter introduced the concept of locus of control to explain how people interpret the link between their actions and outcomes (Rotter, 1966). Those with an internal locus believe they can shape results through their own effort, while those with an external locus believe outcomes are determined by chance, fate, or powerful others. In the workplace, chronic complainers often lean external: “management never listens” or “nothing here depends on us.” This mindset is not just frustrating for colleagues, it is associated with lower job satisfaction and weaker performance (Judge & Bono, 2001).

The leadership challenge is not to lecture people into taking more responsibility, but to open a pathway to it. Research suggests that framing work in terms of personal choice strengthens internal locus and motivation (Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006). Leaders who invite employees to imagine what they would do if they had full freedom help shift the conversation from external blame to internal agency. Such questions do not deny real constraints, but they remind people that even within limits, choices exist. Over time, this nurtures a culture where responsibility is not assigned but claimed.

Leadership move: Invite an internal stance by reframing the question of power. Ask: “If this decision were entirely yours, what would you do first?” This does not deny real constraints, but it opens space for ownership. It also signals that their view matters, which builds confidence that they can shape outcomes, not just endure them.

Cognitive biases: the brain’s tilt to the negative

Cognitive psychology has long shown that human judgement is not neutral. One powerful bias is the negativity effect, where bad events weigh more heavily on memory and mood than good ones (Baumeister et al., 2001). Another is confirmation bias, where people seek and interpret evidence in ways that confirm pre-existing beliefs (Nickerson, 1998). Together, these biases create a fertile ground for complaint. When a project review highlights nine successes and one failure, the complainer often fixates on the failure, reinforcing their sense that “things are broken.”

Left unchecked, these biases distort collective attention. They make problems loom larger than possibilities and can weaken team morale. Leaders cannot remove these biases, but they can rebalance them. Research on appreciative inquiry demonstrates that deliberately focusing on what works strengthens resilience and creativity (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). Beginning conversations with “what went well” is not naïve optimism; it is a counterweight to the brain’s natural tilt. By training attention on both strengths and gaps, leaders help teams see a fuller picture and reduce the gravitational pull of negativity.

Example: In a review, nine things succeed and one fails. The complainer fixates on the failure and ignores the rest.

Leadership move: Balance the scales by deliberately naming strengths. Begin reviews with: “What worked well here that we can build on?” This trains attention toward wins as well as losses. Over time, the practice reduces the gravitational pull of negativity and makes the team more resilient when problems arise.

Belonging: complaint as a plea to be seen

Self-Determination Theory identifies three psychological needs that drive motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When relatedness is lacking, frustration often surfaces as complaint. In this light, many grievances are less about tasks or policies and more about connection: “notice me, include me.” Workplace studies confirm that social exclusion and invisibility predict disengagement and higher turnover (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). What looks like nit-picking may in fact be a plea for belonging.

Belonging is not created by solving every issue raised, but by recognising the person beneath the words. Research on psychological safety shows that when people feel respected and included, they are more willing to voice concerns constructively (Edmondson, 1999). Leaders who acknowledge the care behind the complaint validate the individual without necessarily agreeing with the criticism. A simple response such as “what would help you feel more included as we work on this” shifts the energy. The complaint no longer has to be the vehicle for visibility, because belonging has been made explicit.

Example: A hybrid team member constantly raises issues in meetings. In private, they admit feeling invisible. The complaint is less about tasks, more about belonging.

Leadership move: Acknowledge the care beneath the complaint. Respond with: “I can see this matters to you, what would help you feel more included as we work on it?” This validates the person without necessarily agreeing with the criticism. By making belonging explicit, you reduce the need for complaint as the only route to being noticed.

The Circle of Concern, Influence, and Control

Stephen Covey (1989) reframed human energy into three concentric circles:

• Concern: issues we care about but cannot control (economy, corporate politics).

• Influence: areas we can shape indirectly (team reputation, relationships).

• Control: what we decide and do ourselves (our commitments, tone, actions).

Chronic complainers often camp in the Circle of Concern. Energy is spent on what cannot shift.

A coaching example: A senior manager I coached constantly complained about leadership decisions. His team felt drained. When we explored further, it turned out he longed for more agency in shaping those decisions. Once his leader began inviting him into early discussions, his energy changed. He moved from critic to contributor, and his team’s morale lifted.

Leadership move: When a complaint arises, locate it in the circles. Ask: “Which part of this is truly in our control? Which part could we influence if we acted together? And which part do we need to release, at least for now?” This simple move helps teams redirect energy away from the outer ring of helpless concern and toward the inner rings where ownership and progress live.

Pulling the models together

• Reinforcement explains repetition.

• Helplessness explains hopelessness.

• Locus explains where responsibility sits.

• Biases explain distorted perception.

• Belonging explains the deeper human need.

• Circles explain where energy has leverage.

Complaining is not a character flaw; it is a response shaped by context, past experiences, and unmet needs such as recognition, belonging, or agency. When leaders interpret complaint only as negativity, they risk silencing the very signals that reveal what people care about. By seeing complaints as expressions of care in disguise, leaders can move beyond irritation and instead use inquiry to uncover underlying concerns, redirect energy, and invite ownership. In this way, what begins as frustration can become the raw material for contribution and engagement.

Inviting inquiry

When leaders face a complaint, the reflex is to fix or silence. A more effective approach is to change the conversation. Questions matter more than answers. Inquiry does three important things:

1. Shifts stance from critic to participant. A well-placed question invites the complainer to move beyond describing the problem and toward imagining their role in the solution.

2. Affirms dignity. By asking rather than telling, you signal trust: “Your perspective counts. You are part of shaping this.” That sense of being valued often reduces the need to keep complaining.

3. Invites collective responsibility. Good questions widen the frame from “their issue” to “our opportunity.” They remind the team that culture is built together, not managed from the top down.

Inquiry is not soft. It demands courage to hold silence, resist fixing, and wait for ownership to emerge. But when leaders practise it consistently, complaints lose their power to dominate, and the group learns that energy belongs in contribution, not cynicism.

Questions that invite agency

• “What choice do we have here, even if it’s small?”

• “What part of this feels within your reach?”

• “What is the next step you’d be willing to try?”

Questions that call forth possibility

• “What do we want to create instead of what we have now?”

• “If we were free of constraints, what would we try first?”

• “What would ‘better’ look like here?”

Questions that restore belonging

• “What does this issue tell us about what matters to you?”

• “What would help you feel more part of the team as we work on this?”

• “Whose voice do we need to hear to move forward?”

Questions that shift perspective

• “What gift might be hidden in this frustration?”

• “What does this complaint reveal about what we value most?”

• “How would we approach this if we assumed everyone here wants this to succeed?”

Questions that build collective responsibility

• “What commitment are we, as a group, willing to make?”

• “How do we want to hold each other accountable for this?”

• “If we succeed, what will we say each of us contributed?”

Inquiry is not about having the perfect question; it is about creating the space where people choose responsibility over resignation. When leaders bring curiosity instead of control, they open the door to a culture where complaints no longer drain energy but spark commitment.

Tools and Practices

Inquiry works best when supported by practices that normalise ownership.

Reframe complaints: When a complaint surfaces, resist the urge to defend or fix. Instead, redirect the energy by asking, “What would you like to see instead?” This reframing shifts the conversation from what is wrong to what could be different. Over time, colleagues learn that raising a frustration is only the first step; the real discussion begins when they are asked to picture a preferred future.

Small groups: Complaints often take root in large meetings where one voice can dominate. Breaking into trios changes the dynamic. In groups of three, people are less likely to hide and more likely to contribute. A helpful practice is to give each trio the same question, for example: “What part of this issue are you willing to own?” When the team reconvenes, the focus is on commitments, not criticism.

Complaint harvest: Sometimes it helps to surface frustrations rather than letting them simmer openly. Invite the team to write down their complaints on sticky notes or in a digital board. Collect them all, then together decide: Which of these do we control? Which can we influence? Which do we need to release? For those in the control or influence categories, ask: “What will we own?” The act of harvesting complaints makes them visible and depersonalises them. The follow-up question transforms them from background noise into a menu for collective action.

Meeting rituals: Meetings set the cultural tone of a team. Starting with a quick round of “What’s working well?” primes the group to notice strengths before diving into problems. Ending with “What gift are you taking from this conversation?” helps people leave with appreciation rather than frustration. These rituals are not fluffy;  they directly counteract the human tendency to fixate on negatives. By consistently opening and closing meetings this way, leaders anchor the team in both progress and gratitude, reducing the space for chronic complaint to dominate.

Leader modelling: Leaders cannot credibly ask others to take ownership if they only act as referees. Model it yourself by naming your own frustrations, then immediately showing what step you will take. For example: “I’ve been frustrated by the lack of clarity in our reports, so I’m committing to draft a simpler template this week.” This does two things: it normalises the fact that leaders also feel complaints, and it demonstrates how to turn them into ownership. When leaders practise this regularly, they give the team permission and a pattern to follow.

Self-Reflection questions for leaders

It is tempting to think first about how to handle other people’s complaints. But leadership begins with the mirror. We all complain. We all get drawn into the gravity of what is wrong. The discipline is not to eliminate complaint,that would be impossible, but to notice our own patterns and the culture we reinforce, even unintentionally.

Reflection is not about blame; it is about choice. Each question below is an invitation to examine where we place our attention, how we use our voice, and what we are modelling for the people around us. By shifting our own stance, we create the conditions for others to do the same.

• Which complaints drain me most, and why?

• How do I usually respond: silence, fixing, defending? What does that reinforce?

• How might I see complaint as care in disguise?

• What questions can I ask that invite ownership rather than dependency?

• Where in my own leadership am I living in complaint rather than possibility?

Reflection is only useful if it leads to different choices. Every leader has more influence over the culture of their team than they often realise. The way you respond to complaints, your own and others’, teaches people what is possible in the room. By practising ownership yourself, by asking questions that invite rather than direct, and by treating complaints as signals of care rather than threats, you model the shift from cynicism to contribution. In that modelling, the culture begins to change.

Conclusion

Complaints will always exist in workplaces. The difference lies in whether they dominate the culture or are harnessed as energy for progress.

The executive I mentioned at the start no longer dreads her team meetings. Complaints still arise, but now they are met with questions that invite ownership. The atmosphere has shifted from one of cynicism to one of accountability.

The insight is simple: complaint is not the end of the story. It is the beginning of a choice. Leaders can let it corrode, or they can invite it into contribution.

Every complaint opens a door. The question is whether we step through into blame or into possibility.

Thanks to Ioana Bora, a fellow European coach, friend and professional colleague, for sharing this question in a recent conversation.

References

• American Psychological Association (2022) Work and Well-Being Survey 2022. Washington, DC: APA.

• Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. and Vohs, K.D. (2001) ‘Bad is stronger than good’, Review of General Psychology, 5(4), pp. 323–370.

• Covey, S.R. (1989) The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Free Press.

• Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Springer.

• Felps, W., Mitchell, T.R. and Byington, E. (2006) ‘How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, pp. 175–222.

• Gallup (2023) State of the Global Workplace: 2023 Report. Washington, DC: Gallup Press.

• Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001) ‘Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), pp. 80–92.

• Nickerson, R.S. (1998) ‘Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises’, Review of General Psychology, 2(2), pp. 175–220.

• Rotter, J.B. (1966) ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement’, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), pp. 1–28.

• Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 68–78.

• Seligman, M.E.P. (1975) Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

• Skinner, B.F. (1953) Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.