How Do I Address Problematic Behavior at Work?
Last Updated October 4, 2026
The Short Answer
Address problematic behavior at work by describing the behavior you actually observed, explaining its impact, listening for information you may not have, and being clear about what needs to change. Focus on behavior rather than labeling the person, and match your response to the seriousness and pattern of the issue.
The goal is not to make a difficult message painless. Nor is it to construct the perfect sentence that prevents the other person from becoming uncomfortable or defensive.
The goal is clarity without unnecessary attack.
That distinction matters. When leaders delay difficult conversations because they want to avoid discomfort, relatively manageable problems can become entrenched patterns. Yet confronting someone with accusations about their character can create a different problem: the conversation shifts away from the behavior and toward defending identity.
A more constructive approach keeps the conversation anchored in what happened, why it matters, and what needs to happen next.
Key Takeaways
Address problematic behavior early enough that it does not become an accepted pattern.
Describe observable behavior rather than assigning motives or character labels.
Explain the impact of the behavior without exaggerating it.
Distinguish between a single incident, a recurring pattern, and serious misconduct.
Give the other person an opportunity to provide information you may not have.
Be clear about what needs to change rather than relying on vague requests to “do better.”
Do not confuse empathy with avoiding accountability.
Pay attention to your own reactions; frustration can turn useful feedback into a personal indictment.
Follow-up matters. A conversation without follow-through can teach people that expectations are optional.
Some behavior requires formal organizational action rather than an informal difficult conversation.
The Conversation Most Leaders Would Rather Not Have
A team member repeatedly interrupts colleagues.
Someone rolls their eyes when a coworker speaks.
A manager dismisses concerns in meetings.
An employee misses commitments and leaves others scrambling.
A high performer gets results but regularly leaves damaged relationships behind.
Most leaders recognize these situations.
The harder question is what to do about them.
The temptation is often to wait.
Perhaps the behavior will correct itself. Perhaps someone else will say something. Perhaps the next meeting will be better.
Sometimes it is.
Often it isn't.
Repeated behavior has a way of becoming normalized when nobody addresses it. Other employees begin adapting around it. They stop raising concerns. They avoid the person. They compensate for missed commitments. They complain privately.
Eventually, what began as one person's behavior becomes part of the team's environment.
Start With What You Actually Know
Before speaking to someone about problematic behavior, separate observation from interpretation.
Suppose you write:
“Jordan is disrespectful in meetings.”
That may capture your experience, but it is a conclusion rather than an observation.
What did Jordan actually do?
Perhaps:
“During Monday's meeting, Jordan interrupted Priya three times while she was presenting and said, ‘We've already tried this. Can we move on?’ before she finished explaining the proposal.”
Now there is something to discuss.
The distinction is important because words such as disrespectful, unprofessional, difficult, toxic, and negative compress a great deal of interpretation into a label.
Once the conversation begins with the label, the other person has a strong incentive to defend their character.
“I'm not disrespectful.”
Now you are debating identity.
Observable behavior gives the conversation firmer ground.
Describe Behavior, Not Character
Compare these two openings:
“You've become very negative lately.”
and:
“In the last three project meetings, when new proposals were raised, you responded before the person had finished explaining them. Twice you said the ideas would never work. I want to talk about what's happening.”
The second is not necessarily comfortable.
But it is discussable.
A person can disagree with your interpretation of an event, provide context, or explain what was happening. It is much harder to have a productive conversation about whether they are fundamentally a “negative person.”
This is especially important when emotions are already high. Character judgments increase the likelihood that the conversation will be experienced as an identity threat rather than as a discussion about behavior.
Explain Why the Behavior Matters
Simply identifying a behavior is sometimes insufficient.
People need to understand its impact.
The impact may be on the work:
“When the data arrives after the agreed deadline, the finance team cannot complete the forecast on time.”
It may be on participation:
“When people are interrupted repeatedly, I've noticed they contribute less as the meeting continues.”
It may be on trust:
“When decisions are changed after we've agreed on them without discussing the change, people become less confident about what commitments they can rely on.”
Keep the impact proportionate.
Avoid turning one incident into a sweeping indictment:
“You always destroy morale.”
That kind of language invites an argument about whether always is true.
Specificity keeps attention where it belongs.
Do Not Pretend You Know the Motive
Behavior has causes.
But leaders are often less certain about those causes than they believe.
Someone who repeatedly challenges colleagues may be trying to establish status.
Or they may believe they are protecting the team from poor decisions.
An employee who stops contributing may be disengaged.
Or they may have learned that speaking candidly carries consequences.
Someone who misses a deadline may be careless.
Or priorities may have changed without your knowledge.
Understanding the cause matters because different causes require different responses.
So after describing what you have observed and its impact, create room for information.
“What's your perspective on what's been happening?”
That question is not a retreat from accountability.
It is diagnosis.
Listening Does Not Mean Withdrawing the Concern
This is where difficult conversations sometimes lose their direction.
A leader raises a concern.
The employee provides a compelling explanation.
The leader becomes uncomfortable and quietly abandons the original issue.
Understanding context is important.
But explanation and accountability are not mutually exclusive.
An employee might explain:
“I've been interrupting because I feel we're repeatedly discussing ideas we've already rejected, and nobody is acknowledging the previous decisions.”
That is useful information.
It may reveal a legitimate team-process problem.
It does not necessarily make interrupting colleagues constructive.
A leader can hold both:
“That helps me understand your frustration, and I think we need to address the repeated reopening of decisions. I also need you to let colleagues finish rather than shutting the discussion down.”
Good conflict leadership can accommodate complexity without losing clarity.
Make the Expectation Concrete
“Be more professional.”
“Improve your attitude.”
“Communicate better.”
“Be more collaborative.”
These sound like expectations.
They are often too vague to guide behavior.
If a change matters, make it observable.
Instead of:
“You need to communicate better.”
Try:
“If a deadline is at risk, I need you to tell the project lead before the deadline rather than after it has passed.”
Instead of:
“You need to be more respectful.”
Try:
“When you disagree in meetings, challenge the idea without making comments about the person's competence or motives.”
Clear expectations make follow-up fairer because both people understand what change would actually look like.
Not Every Problematic Behavior Is a Conflict
This distinction is important.
A manager discovers that an employee has repeatedly ignored a required safety procedure.
That may produce conflict.
But the primary issue is not necessarily interpersonal conflict.
It may be a performance or conduct issue.
Similarly, harassment, discrimination, threats, retaliation, serious policy violations, or other misconduct should not simply be reframed as “two people having a conflict.”
Some situations require HR involvement, investigation, formal performance management, legal guidance, security intervention, or other organizational processes.
Conflict skills are useful.
They are not a substitute for appropriate organizational responsibility.
Match the Response to the Pattern
One awkward comment does not necessarily require the same intervention as six months of repeated behavior.
Ask:
How serious is the behavior?
Is it isolated or recurring?
Has it already been addressed?
What impact is it having?
Is there a power imbalance?
Does policy or law create additional obligations?
A relatively minor first occurrence may need a quick conversation.
A recurring behavior may require explicit expectations and documented follow-up.
Serious misconduct may need formal action immediately.
Effective leadership is not about treating every conflict identically. It is about matching the response to what is actually happening.
Address It Before Your Frustration Writes the Script
Delayed conversations accumulate emotional interest.
The first time someone behaves problematically, you are mildly irritated.
The fifth time, you are frustrated.
By the tenth time, you are furious that they “still don't get it”—even though nobody has actually told them clearly.
Then the conversation begins with months of accumulated resentment.
“I've had enough of this.”
From the employee's perspective, the intensity can seem to arrive from nowhere.
Addressing behavior earlier usually allows the conversation to be smaller, more specific, and less emotionally loaded.
That is good for everyone involved.
Feedback Is Not Automatically Helpful
Leaders are often told that more feedback is better.
Research suggests something more complicated.
Kluger and DeNisi's influential meta-analysis found substantial variation in the effects of feedback interventions; feedback does not automatically improve performance, and some interventions can make it worse. Later work has continued to emphasize the importance of how feedback is framed and the context in which it occurs. IAAP
One practical implication is straightforward: feedback that pulls attention toward a global judgment of the self can create a very different response from feedback focused on a specific behavior or task.
“You're unreliable” invites a person to defend who they are.
“This is the third deadline that passed without advance notice” gives them something concrete to address.
The Conflict EQ Perspective: Watch What Happens to You
Addressing problematic behavior does not create pressure only for the person receiving the message.
It creates pressure for the person delivering it.
Perhaps you hate disappointing people.
Perhaps you become overly forceful when someone challenges you.
Perhaps tears make you retreat from the message.
Perhaps defensiveness makes you double down.
Perhaps your own sense of competence feels threatened when someone says, “Why didn't you tell me this sooner?”
Conflict EQ is our capacity to think clearly, manage our reactions, stay connected, and act constructively when tension creates additional pressure.
That pressure may create emotional, cognitive, or relational load. If competence, values, authority, or belonging feel threatened, the load can intensify. As load rises, available capacity can decrease and behavioral range can narrow.
That is why your preparation should include a question that has nothing to do with the employee:
What am I likely to do if this conversation becomes difficult?
Use the Conflict EQ Compass During the Conversation
The Conflict EQ Compass offers a useful way to stay deliberate:
Notice Signals → Shift Response → Expand Perspective → Navigate Tension
Notice Signals. Are you speeding up? Becoming irritated? Softening the message because the person looks upset?
Shift Response. Slow the pace. Pause. Ask a question rather than immediately defending your position.
Expand Perspective. What information are you learning? Is there something about the situation you had not understood?
Navigate Tension. Decide what the new information changes—and what it does not. Clarify expectations, boundaries, responsibilities, or next steps.
The Compass does not replace the managerial conversation.
It helps you remain capable of having it.
What If They Become Defensive?
Defensiveness does not necessarily mean the conversation has failed.
Being told that your behavior is creating problems is uncomfortable.
People may explain, minimize, disagree, become embarrassed, or question your examples.
You do not need to defeat the defensiveness.
Stay with the issue.
“I hear that you see the meeting differently. I'm willing to talk about that. I also want to stay with the pattern I'm raising because it needs to change.”
You can listen without surrendering clarity.
What If They Become Emotional?
Emotion is not evidence that you have done something wrong.
Nor is it a reason to become indifferent.
If someone becomes upset, acknowledge what is happening and adjust the pace.
“I can see this is difficult to hear. We can slow down.”
Then remain present.
One of the most common mistakes is assuming that empathy requires withdrawing the message.
It does not.
You can care about the person's experience and still hold an expectation.
Follow Through
The conversation is not complete when the meeting ends.
If the behavior matters enough to address, it matters enough to revisit.
“Let's check in next Friday about how this is going.”
Then actually check in.
Notice improvement.
Address recurrence.
Clarify anything that was misunderstood.
The third phase of the Conflict-to-Connection Approach—Sustain Connection—is particularly relevant here.
Without follow-through, even a strong conversation can become another workplace ritual in which everyone says the right things and nothing changes.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I tell someone their behavior is a problem?
Describe the specific behavior you observed, explain its impact, ask for their perspective, and state clearly what needs to change. Avoid broad character labels or claims about motives you cannot know.
Should I address problematic behavior immediately?
Usually it is better to address meaningful behavior relatively early, but timing matters. If emotions are extremely high or you lack necessary information, a short delay may improve the conversation. Serious misconduct may require immediate formal action.
What if the employee disagrees with my version of events?
Listen carefully. They may have information you do not. You can revise your understanding without abandoning legitimate concerns. Focus on what can be established and what expectations apply going forward.
What if the problematic employee is a high performer?
High performance does not make damaging behavior irrelevant. Allowing results to excuse conduct can teach the rest of the team that standards depend on someone's value to the organization.
Should I document the conversation?
That depends on the seriousness of the issue, organizational policy, and whether the behavior is part of a formal performance or conduct process. When in doubt, consult the appropriate HR guidance within your organization.
How do I address behavior without making the person defensive?
You cannot guarantee that someone will not become defensive. You can reduce unnecessary defensiveness by staying specific, avoiding character attacks, listening to their perspective, and making expectations clear.
What if the behavior does not improve?
Follow through. A recurring problem after clear feedback may require stronger accountability, performance management, HR involvement, or another appropriate organizational response.
Is problematic behavior always a conflict issue?
No. It may involve conflict, but some situations are primarily performance, conduct, policy, safety, or legal matters and should be treated accordingly.
Conclusion
Addressing problematic behavior is not about finding language so gentle that nobody feels uncomfortable.
It is about making the conversation useful.
Name what happened.
Explain why it matters.
Listen for what you do not know.
Clarify what needs to change.
Then follow through.
The most constructive leaders resist both extremes: attacking the person and avoiding the problem.
They keep the conversation where it belongs—on behavior, impact, expectations, and what happens next.
References
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The Feedback Environment Scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165–184.
Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well. Viking.
Conflict EQ Note
This article draws on established research relevant to conflict, leadership, and human behavior. It applies the Conflict EQ approach to load and capacity, developed by Dr. Irvine Nugent and Trista Schoonmaker.
The load we carry can affect our ability to think clearly, manage our reactions, stay connected, and act constructively during conflict. Load may be emotional, cognitive, or relational, and can be intensified when we feel that our competence, values, or sense of belonging are threatened. This helps explain why knowing what to do does not always mean being able to do it when pressure rises.
This load-and-capacity dynamic informs the Conflict-to-Connection Approach: Map the Conflict, Engage Constructively, and Sustain Connection. It also informs the Conflict EQ Compass, which guides constructive engagement through four points: Notice Signals, Shift Response, Expand Perspective, and Navigate Tension.
Continue Your Conflict EQ Journey
Continue exploring the foundational guides in the Conflict EQ Knowledge Center:
You can also:
Take the Impact of Conflict Snapshot™ to examine how conflict and pressure may be affecting you, your team, or your organization.
Explore the Conflict to Connection™ Competency Model and the competencies that strengthen Conflict Capacity.
Subscribe to The Conflict EQ Lens for research-informed insights and practical leadership tools.
Explore Conflict EQ keynote presentations, leadership development, executive coaching, workplace mediation, and organizational consulting.
About Dr. Irvine Nugent
Dr. Irvine Nugent, PhD, PCC, CSP, is aninternational keynote speaker, executive coach, workplace mediator, and co-founder of Conflict EQ. He helps leaders and organizations build the capacity to understand conflict clearly, remain deliberate under pressure, engage constructively, and sustain connection.
His work draws on leadership, emotional intelligence, conflict management, and human behavior to help people navigate difficult conversations and workplace conflict more effectively. He is the co-developer of the Conflict-to-Connection Approach and the Conflict EQ Compass, practical models for understanding conflict and choosing constructive action when pressure rises.
Ready to Build Greater Conflict Capacity?
Conflict is inevitable. The ability to navigate it effectively can be developed.
Whether you're looking for a keynote speaker, leadership development, executive coaching, workplace mediation, or organizational training, Conflict EQ helps leaders and teams build the capacity to remain calm, clear, and constructive when the pressure is on.