How To Handle Passive-Aggressive People

[St Andrews Lynx]

Urgh.

 

How do you, gentle forum readers, deal with passive-aggressive behaviour in a professional environment? From those above, below or adjacent to you in the food chain? If you are not the direct recipient of passive-aggressive behaviour, would you still call it out in someone else? 

 

Thoughts, advice, anecdotes all appreciated.

[spectastic]

around here, everyone has a boss. so if there's someone you don't want to deal with, you can always get help. I don't like drama, so I just avoid as much as I can

[bumblyboo]

I try to ignore it and keep a low profile/don't involve myself, especially if it just a temporary setting/job. I take notes though. Those come in handy during HR meetings.

Edited June 12, 2014 by bumblyboo

[Eigen]

Honestly?

 

I usually deal with it by being passive-aggressive in return. It's the thing they're most familiar with, and what they're least likely to have experienced. 

[TakeruK]

I'm also in the "don't like drama" camp and will also be guilty of passive-aggressiveness when I face it. In honesty though, sometimes I "initiate" the passive-aggressiveness (oxymoron?) if I am upset at someone and I do not feel like investing the energy and effort in resolving the situation. This usually happens if I am not happy with someone who I don't see very often (e.g. someone in another department). After a while, I usually get over whatever it was that I was upset about and things go back to "normal". The other person probably doesn't even know but that's fine with me.

 

I think this is because I find interactions with people and relationships to be energy draining, and while I do enjoy having good relationships with people, I don't have unlimited energy so I prefer to just spend my time/effort/energy in strengthening and building relationships with people I care about. I feel like this paragraph might sound like I hate most people, but that is not true. So I want to clarify that "people I care about" is actually a pretty broad group, which includes all of my friends and colleagues that I see somewhat regularly, but it doesn't include random person from another building that I might only see at the occasional campus-wide event. 

 

So, if I was in your situation, I would probably return the passive-aggressiveness if it's not a relationship I want to have anyways. But if it is, then I would take some time to talk to them and figure out what is bugging them. For me, sometimes if I am upset about something that I think might be trivial, I might not feel like speaking up and I really appreciate it when someone asks me something more directly. 

[fuzzylogician]

I kind of depends on the situation - who the person is, how much power they have over me, how much interaction we have with one another, what I want from them (or better, what they want from me). 

 

The first thing I try is ignore the behavior. Most of the time it will go away soon enough. This is especially true for people who I don't interact with often, who are near me on the food chain, and who my work doesn't really depend on. I've never found returning the behavior to be very useful, I think it tends to escalate situations rather than diffuse them. If that doesn't work, since I'm a fairly direct person, I just ask the person what the problem is and try to work it out. If someone is actively disrupting my work, e.g. ignoring emails or requests for help in a way that hinders my progress, I try and discreetly involve a supervisor. Ccing your boss on your emails can be a very effective tool.

[WriteAndKnit]

Like others said, it depends on how often you deal with the person in question. If I only see them occasionally, I tend to ignore little things. It's not worth any extra stress. 

 

If I interact with the person on a regular basis, I tend to take the "direct and extremely polite" approach. Like, "JimBob, did you have a chance to make a copy of your notes", "Janey, did you want to set up a tutoring appointment? I have my planner with me", etc. Basically, I tend to play on my own tendency to want to be organized and on top of things. 

 

The worst thing to do is respond to passive-aggressiveness with the same. 

[Usmivka]

I'm from a part of the country where "passive-aggressive" is the default, or rather the default mannerisms are similar enough that outsiders can't tell the difference. I don't generally notice this behavior or see it as a problem unless someone else points out specific examples and explains why that causes them problems. So it not implausible that you could be making a tempest in a teacup over situations like this. The "offender" may be behaving normally from his/her perspective, and the passive-aggresiveness is only in the eye of the beholder.

 

And even if this person is directing such behavior at you intentionally, isn't that better than the alternatives? Personally, I prefer folks that act in the way I was acculturated to expect (which I view as a way of being polite and professional even when you dislike or don't respect a coworker), as opposed to, say, a more Northeastern approach where folks are very direct about their hostility. There will be people that don't like you in your life but have to work with you anyway. Passive-aggressive behavior is easy to ignore and live with (for me), but outright hostility is something I prefer not to deal with and view as boorish--and this is the alternative I see.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Usmivka

[TakeruK]

I feel like a lot of Canada (at least where I grew up) is similar to the mannerisms that Usmivka describes. Also I feel like different people might have different ideas on what "passive-aggressiveness" is (also mentioned by Usmivka!)

 

For example, the actions that WriteAndKnit suggests count as "passive-aggressive" (hereafter, PA) in my mind and it was what I had in mind when I suggested that one might also be PA as a response to PA behaviour. That is, if someone is acting in a PA manner by ignoring my request for a meeting, I think an action like "oh hey, while I have my planner out, why don't we schedule X" is also "PA" because you are not directly confronting the problem / the cause, but instead just managing the symptoms/effects.

 

To me, the opposite of PA is to directly confront the issue: in the above example that would mean sitting down with the person and asking them why they are ignoring me! But perhaps I just have a very wrong interpretation of what PA means.

[m-ttl]

I feel like a lot of Canada (at least where I grew up) is similar to the mannerisms that Usmivka describes. Also I feel like different people might have different ideas on what "passive-aggressiveness" is (also mentioned by Usmivka!)

 

For example, the actions that WriteAndKnit suggests count as "passive-aggressive" (hereafter, PA) in my mind and it was what I had in mind when I suggested that one might also be PA as a response to PA behaviour. That is, if someone is acting in a PA manner by ignoring my request for a meeting, I think an action like "oh hey, while I have my planner out, why don't we schedule X" is also "PA" because you are not directly confronting the problem / the cause, but instead just managing the symptoms/effects.

 

To me, the opposite of PA is to directly confront the issue: in the above example that would mean sitting down with the person and asking them why they are ignoring me! But perhaps I just have a very wrong interpretation of what PA means.

 

It *can* be ignoring someone. But it's "an indirect expression of hostility", like being sarcastic, "making jokes", procrastinating because you know it will harm the other person, being resentful, sullen, stubborn, and then using it to inflict upon someone else like intentional inefficiency or sabotaging work, or planned lateness. 

 

In other words, being a complete pain in the ass in such a way that it's harder to prove you're doing anything wrong. 

 

But it wouldn't, say, be the same as dealing with different regional or even country-based work attitudes (like, say, the commonalities of being indirect in East Asian countries, group work, and "saving face" is not the same because no one is being hostile directly or indirectly, and in actuality, being indirect prevents actions seen as hostile), being passive aggressive is not avoiding conflict but creating conflict indirectly. 

 

All that said, I usually maintain a policy of being direct and open with people. If (and when) they become passive aggressive, I look to see if they are actually going to cause me any problems outside of being annoying. If I can "fix" any problems they create by not relying on them, I do so. If I have to rely on them anyways, that's when I'd speak with a supervisor, etc. 

Edited June 13, 2014 by m-ttl

[Quantum Buckyball]

Honestly?

 

I usually deal with it by being passive-aggressive in return. It's the thing they're most familiar with, and what they're least likely to have experienced. 

 

Oh hell yes

 

Ain't nobody got time to play nice. I usually try to walk away before I say something nasty back, or something I know would "hurt" their feelings severely, I'm a Scorpio.

 

There is a difference between being passive-aggressive and being a fxxking bully, and if someone is straight out rude and disrespectful I make sure to call them out during the group meeting or in front of the PI. I love drama.... 

Edited June 13, 2014 by Quantum Buckyball

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Horse head at the foot of the bed. 

[maelia8]

I find that a lot of passive-aggressive people quail before a direct question/confrontation. Usually when someone makes a snide response or refuses to commit, I just look them straight in the eye and say something along the lines of, "Is that really true/what you really mean? I'm sorry, but I can't believe that/accept that as an answer." Most of them get ashamed and break eye contact and try to slither away because they aren't used to being called out on their bullshit. Being nicely passive-aggressive back is exactly what they expect, but if you respond candidly and with straightforwardness, you will put them off balance and they will have no choice but to do the same.

[spectastic]

Horse head at the foot of the bed. 

an offer you can't refuse

[themmases]

I am rarely feeling assertive enough to act on maelia8's advice (although I think it's completely correct). But I do eventually stop trying to infer what they mean by their behavior. I quit responding to implied requests and I stop altering my own behavior based on a guess about what they want. At a minimum, there's no reason you should do someone else's work of communicating for them. The person is eventually forced to be direct with you, or else let it go. What are they going to do, angrily confront you and insist that their cutesy sarcastic fridge note signed only with a smiley face was perfectly clear?

[TakeruK]

I find that a lot of passive-aggressive people quail before a direct question/confrontation. Usually when someone makes a snide response or refuses to commit, I just look them straight in the eye and say something along the lines of, "Is that really true/what you really mean? I'm sorry, but I can't believe that/accept that as an answer." Most of them get ashamed and break eye contact and try to slither away because they aren't used to being called out on their bullshit. Being nicely passive-aggressive back is exactly what they expect, but if you respond candidly and with straightforwardness, you will put them off balance and they will have no choice but to do the same.

 

I think this is a good way to get what you want for the question/answer you want, but in my opinion, this can sometimes turn out to be pretty rude, and much worse than passive-aggressive behaviour. But I think this is a manner of the culture we grew up in. Even if you are in the right, if you do something that makes the other person ashamed then you are now the one in the wrong. Obviously this is just my opinion and is extremely subjective, but I just want to point out how this action can be seen negatively by other people. I think if I already did not have a good relationship with a person like this, this response would make things even worse and probably increase my amount of passive aggressive behaviour because I would want to avoid direct interactions/conflict with them even more.

 

In my opinion, I do not enjoy interacting with people who are this direct with what they want because to me, it seems like they believe that what they want is more important than how comfortable I feel. If I was doing something wrong with my passive-aggressive behaviour (and I might not even realise it), I think the right action would be to have an actual talk so that both of us understand each other better. Direct hostility like this is not helpful in the long run, I think.

Edited June 13, 2014 by TakeruK

[the_sheath]

I think this is a good way to get what you want for the question/answer you want, but in my opinion, this can sometimes turn out to be pretty rude, and much worse than passive-aggressive behaviour. But I think this is a manner of the culture we grew up in. Even if you are in the right, if you do something that makes the other person ashamed then you are now the one in the wrong. Obviously this is just my opinion and is extremely subjective, but I just want to point out how this action can be seen negatively by other people. I think if I already did not have a good relationship with a person like this, this response would make things even worse and probably increase my amount of passive aggressive behaviour because I would want to avoid direct interactions/conflict with them even more.

 

In my opinion, I do not enjoy interacting with people who are this direct with what they want because to me, it seems like they believe that what they want is more important than how comfortable I feel. If I was doing something wrong with my passive-aggressive behaviour (and I might not even realise it), I think the right action would be to have an actual talk so that both of us understand each other better. Direct hostility like this is not helpful in the long run, I think.

 

Is this the part of the topic where we confuse "being direct" and "being directly hostile"?

 

I mean yeah, I know full well that calling people out could be seen as wrong. That does not make call-outs wrong. To make someone feel ashamed for doing something that is actually bad (passive aggression) is not wrong at all.

 

And if you wanted to avoid direct interactions/conflict, and passive aggression resulted in direct interaction and conflict, and you have reason to believe it would continue to result in direct interaction and conflict, why would you increase the amount of passive aggression? I mean, logically that's likely to just increase direct interaction and conflict.

 

For the record, I am very passive aggressive when I want to generate conflict. I've been given to understand that's a prerequisite of being an adult. And it is waaaay more socially acceptable.

[TakeruK]

Is this the part of the topic where we confuse "being direct" and "being directly hostile"?

 

I mean yeah, I know full well that calling people out could be seen as wrong. That does not make call-outs wrong. To make someone feel ashamed for doing something that is actually bad (passive aggression) is not wrong at all.

 

This might just be our different experiences leading to subjective opinions/interpretations of the actions of others. To me, a statement like "I cannot accept that as an answer" is almost always direct and hostile, not just direct. I was going to include an example in my last post to clarify what I meant but I thought it would make my long post even longer.

 

But here it is: let's say Persons A and B are both graduate students and Person A is trying to set up a seminar series where people in the department give talks about their research. Person B, for some reason, does not want to do this and uses passive aggression in the form of avoiding Person A, procrastinating, equivocating etc. in order to avoid getting scheduled for a talk slot. Eventually, Person A gets frustrated and corners B and directly asks them if they can do a certain date in 3 weeks. Person B once again makes up an excuse like "Sorry I am too busy" and A thinks this is BS since everyone else is just as busy and so A says something like "I cannot accept that as an answer!"

 

My analysis of this situation is that B is trying to avoid a direct confrontation through passive aggression and A is forcing it by direct hostility. Sure, what B is doing is not good, but since B is not really required to participate in A's seminar, I don't think A is right to call out B's behaviour and should have taken the hint that B doesn't want to do the seminar but does not want to directly say so. 

 

However, if we are in the exact same situation but B is supposed to be doing something vital to A's work, then yes, I agree with you that it's completely appropriate to call out B's bad behaviour. But I wrote my last post as a continuation of my previous ones, in which I support passive aggressive behaviour in response to other passive aggressive behaviour if the relationship is not actually important to you or your work or it's a problem that you will rarely encounter.

 

And if you wanted to avoid direct interactions/conflict, and passive aggression resulted in direct interaction and conflict, and you have reason to believe it would continue to result in direct interaction and conflict, why would you increase the amount of passive aggression? I mean, logically that's likely to just increase direct interaction and conflict.

 

For the record, I am very passive aggressive when I want to generate conflict. I've been given to understand that's a prerequisite of being an adult. And it is waaaay more socially acceptable.

I would only increase passive aggression if I think that by doing so, we can continue indirect conflict indefinitely until it no longer becomes a problem, then I would do it. But as I said above, if this is damaging to a working relationship or other relationship I want to foster, then it definitely makes sense to solve it rather than push it further down the road.

[seeingeyeduck]

Is this the part of the topic where we confuse "being direct" and "being directly hostile"?

I mean yeah, I know full well that calling people out could be seen as wrong. That does not make call-outs wrong. To make someone feel ashamed for doing something that is actually bad (passive aggression) is not wrong at all.

And if you wanted to avoid direct interactions/conflict, and passive aggression resulted in direct interaction and conflict, and you have reason to believe it would continue to result in direct interaction and conflict, why would you increase the amount of passive aggression? I mean, logically that's likely to just increase direct interaction and conflict.

For the record, I am very passive aggressive when I want to generate conflict. I've been given to understand that's a prerequisite of being an adult. And it is waaaay more socially acceptable.

I've learned to not be so direct after a first request. I think it's fine to politely ask again and again if it's vital to work but otherwise I've learned to read when someone's simply not going to do what you want and there is no way of forcing them.

It's also worse when you're female since any overt confrontation will lead most people to conclude that's you're "angry" and aggressive, not to mention the b-word. I think it's done to be indirect but there is a line between an indirect no and indirectly sabotaging. The latter is what I consider to be passive aggressive. Unfortunately the indirect no is just a common way people have found to not be confrontational. Annoying but once you learn to read it, it's not so bad.

[The Wayfarer]

My currenty employment situation is basically passive-agressive central; no one enjoys confronting anyone else so there are A LOT of anonymous notes left around. Frankly I just ignore them and will only deal with an issue if someone comes to me directly about it. I take it to the respective person if I have an issue...all I ask in return is that they do the same.