How to deal with a passive-aggressive colleague

As you have probably heard, most of human history, civility was not the default setting. Societies were rougher, hierarchies more brutal, and interpersonal interactions often governed by blunt displays of power and overt physical aggression rather than kind or cordial exchanges. In medieval societies, for instance, everyday interactions were far less restrained by norms of politeness. Status determined how you were treated, and those with power often exercised it quite openly. Rudeness, intimidation, and direct confrontation were not social faux pas so much as ordinary features of life in rigidly stratified societies.

Fortunately, we have come a long way. Today, success in modern organizations often depends on the ability to at least appear or seem gentle, collaborative, and emotionally intelligent. Few people openly insult their colleagues or shout at meetings. Instead, most professionals understand that being likable, agreeable, and tactful helps them influence others, build alliances, and advance their careers. Even individuals who enjoy enough power to care less about how they impact others – say, senior leaders and executives – know that their reputation will take a hit if they don’t practice the art of seeming humble, empathetic, and kind.

As I noted in my latest book, this civility requires a great deal of performance. Being “professional” often means managing one’s impulses, editing one’s reactions, and presenting a socially acceptable version of oneself. The result is that modern workplaces reward a kind of controlled or strategic authenticity: people must come across as sufficiently real while at the same time acting in sufficiently other-oriented and empathetic ways so that they can be trusted. Needless to say, this is mostly a good thing, especially compared with the alternative: open hostility, egocentrism, or rudeness. In other words, civility is by and large what makes collaboration and living in a well-functioning society possible.

Too much of a good thing?

Despite the wide-raging benefits of kind politeness and civility, like any trait that is rewarded, it can be taken too far.

When politeness becomes excessive, it morphs into something else: political maneuvering, extreme conflict avoidance, and carefully managed insincerity. Instead of speaking candidly, people learn to say what sounds agreeable while thinking something entirely different. They nod in meetings but undermine decisions afterward. They compliment you publicly but criticize you privately. They avoid open disagreement yet quietly obstruct progress. As Kim Scott compellingly illustrated in her book about the benefits of workplace candor, at some point, civility stops being a lubricant for cooperation and starts becoming an inhibitor.

In personality psychology, one of the traits associated with this behavior is called leisurely, a dark-side tendency closely related to passive aggression. People high on this trait appear cooperative on the surface but resist demands indirectly. Rather than confronting conflict directly, they express dissatisfaction through subtle obstruction, delays, sarcasm, or behind-the-scenes criticism.

Passive-aggressive behavior thrives precisely because it is difficult to call out. Unlike openly hostile colleagues, passive-aggressive individuals maintain plausible deniability. They can always claim they were misunderstood or that they were “just trying to help.” They rarely say anything explicitly offensive, yet their actions consistently undermine others. If you think of colleagues or coworkers who never say anything during meetings, they just silently smile and nod and pretend to be interested and aligned, but then, when you think of it, you never really know what they think, who they are, and they rarely deliver anything or produce much at all. Once you start noticing it, you will probably realize how common it is.

Telltale signs

Consider a few familiar workplace scenarios or indicators:

a) A colleague praises your proposal enthusiastically in the meeting. “Brilliant idea,” they say, nodding vigorously. Days later, they circulate a follow-up email to senior stakeholders listing six “small concerns” that were mysteriously absent while you were in the room.

b) A team member repeatedly volunteers to “take ownership” of a task, only for the task to disappear into a bureaucratic Bermuda Triangle. Weeks later they resurface with an apology, three new complications, and a helpful reminder that they had “always worried the timeline might be ambitious.”

c) Someone compliments your presentation with almost theatrical enthusiasm. “Fantastic analysis,” they say. Later you learn that they have spent the afternoon telling half the organization that the data was “interesting, but probably incomplete.”

d) Then there is the meeting minimalist. They sit through ninety minutes of discussion smiling politely and contributing nothing except the occasional “fine by me.” Two days later they start to secretly sabotage the project.

e) Or the colleague who agrees with every decision but implements none of them. Their calendar is immaculate, their tone supportive, but their productivity is basically non-existent. Their time and focus is devoted to avoid having to do any work, which is a full-time job in itself.

f) And finally the true virtuoso of passive aggression: the person who ends every conversation with “happy to help,” while always ensuring that the help never actually arrives or crystallizes.

Unlike openly difficult colleagues, these individuals rarely cross a line that can be clearly challenged. That is precisely why the behavior persists. They remain outwardly polite, professionally agreeable, and quietly useless.

Leisurely non-compliance or resistance often emerges in environments where direct disagreement feels risky. In highly political organizations (or cultures that overemphasize harmony) people may feel safer expressing resistance indirectly rather than confronting issues openly. The problem, of course, is that in the long-term passive aggression erodes trust. When people say one thing and do another, collaboration becomes exhausting, as teams waste time deciphering signals rather than solving problems.

So, how can you best deal with passive-aggressive colleagues?

1) The first step is to bring behavior into the open without escalating conflict. Passive aggression thrives in ambiguity. Calmly clarifying expectations and commitments, makes indirect resistance harder to sustain and work.

For example, if a colleague expresses support in a meeting but later undermines the decision, you might say: “In the meeting you mentioned you were comfortable with this direction. Is there something we should discuss openly before moving forward?” Framed this way, the question invites transparency rather than accusation.

2) Second, document commitments clearly. Written follow-ups after meetings (summarizing decisions, responsibilities, and timelines with precision) create accountability. Passive-aggressive behavior often relies on vague agreements that can later be reinterpreted.

3) Third, reward candor when it appears. If someone finally expresses disagreement directly, treat it as constructive input rather than insubordination. One reason passive aggression flourishes is that people fear negative consequences for open dissent.

4) Fourth, focus on explicit behavior rather than implicit motives. It is tempting to label someone as manipulative or dishonest, but doing so rarely improves the situation. Instead, address specific actions. Saying “we agreed on X but the deliverable was Y, can we please clarify expectations?” is more productive than accusing someone of sabotage.

5) Finally, consider the possibility that passive aggression sometimes signals a deeper organizational issue. If people feel unable to speak openly, because of hierarchy, politics, or fear of consequences, they may resort to indirect resistance as a coping mechanism. In that sense, passive aggression is more likely a symptom of cultural dysfunction than merely an individual flaw. If this is the case, you may want to evaluate whether your own behavior meets the criteria for leisurely passive avoidance or aggression.

In short, the best way to combat passive aggression is through skilled, strategic, and tactically astute passive aggression, rather than overt confrontation or active emotional aggression or reaction. To be sure, at the organizational level, the long-term solution is not to eliminate disagreement but to try to normalize it.

Constructive dissent

As Amy Edmondson has illustrated in her programmatic and comprehensive research on psychological safety, healthy teams allow people to challenge ideas without being seen as disloyal. They encourage constructive dissent and reward honest feedback. In such environments, there is little incentive for passive aggression because people can express concerns directly.

Human civilization has come a long way from the days when power determined who spoke and who stayed silent. Modern workplaces aspire to something better: collaboration grounded in trust and professionalism. But professionalism should not mean politeness without honesty. In the end, the most effective teams are not those where everyone is endlessly agreeable. They are the ones where people mean what they say, and say what they mean, all in the interest of boosting team performance and organizational effectiveness, which is rarely incompatible with having a healthy culture.