Recently, there was a discussion in the media about whether we should say “please” and “thank you” to AI assistants. The debate gathered pace after OpenAI founder Sam Altman remarked that those extra polite words cost OpenAI “tens of millions of dollars”, which he described as well spent.
It’s an interesting cultural moment, but it also highlights a striking contrast. We’re debating whether to be courteous to machines, even as too many workplaces still tolerate incivility among people.
I was reminded of this when working with a leader who was worried about one person in their team.
On paper, the individual looked like an asset. They were technically strong, delivered results, and were trusted by senior stakeholders.
Yet within the team, something else was happening. In meetings, they interrupted colleagues, corrected people publicly, and could be overly sharp in their dealings with others.
Taken separately, each incident was easy to rationalise or explain away.
Together, however, they were forming a repeated behavioural pattern that was negatively impacting the team. Team members were speaking less, withholding views, and choosing caution over candour.
That’s often how corrosive behaviour begins.
Not with an obvious breach that instantly triggers policy, but with smaller acts that are easy to excuse. Eye rolling. Exclusion. Credit-stealing. Selective courtesy. Public put-downs dressed up as honesty.
Incivility is Your Early Warning Sign
Incivility matters because it’s often one of the earliest and most subtle signs of workplace mistreatment. Research has long shown that, when left unchecked, it can escalate into more intense forms of aggression.
Management scholars Dr Lynne Andersson’s and Professor Christine Pearson’s classic definition remains useful1. They describe workplace incivility as “low-intensity deviant behaviour, with ambiguous intent to harm, that violates norms of mutual respect”.
One of the key words in that definition is ambiguity. It is precisely that ambiguity that often causes leaders to hesitate. They tell themselves it may just be a matter of style. They want more evidence and don’t want to overreact.
Complicating matters further, the person causing harm is sometimes also the person delivering strong results, carrying institutional knowledge, or managing up very effectively.
The result is a familiar but costly delay. The behaviour is tolerated because the person is seen as valuable to the bottom-line results.
This is where leaders need the wisdom to discern what’s really happening, the courage to address the issue early, and the fortitude to act if the behaviour does not change.
I call this the D.A.A. approach:
- Discern the pattern
- Address the behaviour
- Act with consequence
Discern the pattern
Not every disagreement or difficult interaction is corrosive. In fact, nurturing a culture of healthy friction is essential to a high-performing team. What is not acceptable is repeated unreasonable behaviour that creates a risk to people’s health, safety, trust, or performance.
That distinction matters. Healthy disagreement can sharpen thinking and improve decisions. Repeated harmful conduct does the opposite. It erodes trust, undermines psychological safety, and weakens team effectiveness.
For leaders, the challenge is not to label too quickly. It’s to recognise when ordinary friction is becoming a corrosive pattern.
That starts with understanding what’s really happening. You will want to look beyond a single incident and pay attention to the frequency, impact, and context.
For example:
- Is this a capable leader/team member under temporary pressure, or is there a repeated pattern of behaviour that leaves others diminished, silenced, or excluded?
- Do they behave this way with everyone, or mainly with peers and more junior colleagues?
- Are team members starting to self-censor around them?
- Are colleagues quietly stepping back from working with them?
This matters because the damage is rarely confined to the direct target. Research shows that witnesses are affected as well. Experimental studies by Associate Professor Christine Porath and Professor Amir Erez found that witnessing rudeness reduced onlookers’ performance on both routine and creative tasks2.
In other words, bad behaviour does not simply land on one person. It shapes the broader environment and, over time, your team’s culture.
When leaders fail to address corrosive behaviour, the team starts learning the wrong lesson about what’s tolerated.
Address the behaviour early and clearly
Once the pattern is evident, the leader’s first move should be constructive, specific, and behavioural. This is not the moment for vague warnings or sweeping character judgements.
The task is to name what you have been observing, explain the impact, and reset expectations.
At the same time, effective leaders do more than tell. They get curious. You want to understand what is driving the behaviour, how aware the person is of its impact, and whether there is a realistic basis for change.
Is the person under unusual pressure? Are they confusing bluntness with honesty? Have they normalised a way of operating that others experience as dismissive, intimidating, or undermining?
That curiosity matters because it helps you distinguish between someone who lacks awareness, someone who lacks skill, and someone who simply lacks regard for their effect on others. Each requires a different response. One may need coaching and feedback. Another may need clearer boundaries and behavioural expectations. A third may require formal intervention.
Your task at this point is to be both direct and diagnostic. Name the observable behaviour. Explain the impact. Set the standard. Then ask thoughtful questions that reveal what sits underneath it.
For example:
- What was happening for you in that meeting?
- How do you think your comments landed?
- What outcome were you trying to achieve?
- Is this consistent with how you want to lead?
The goal is not to over-accommodate poor behaviour or turn the conversation into therapy. You want to gather enough insight to respond wisely.
Clear standards matter. So does understanding whether the person can recognise the issue and take responsibility for changing it.
It’s also worth noting that you want to be clear without being humiliating. Recent research reported in Harvard Business Review highlights how negative feedback can improve performance when it is delivered thoughtfully, but when it comes across as belittling or humiliating it often backfires, impairing performance rather than improving it3.
So, be clear on the standard and curious about the cause.
Act with consequence
Some situations can be corrected through clear feedback and coaching. Others cannot. When the behaviour does not shift, you must move beyond hope and into action.
That may mean documenting incidents, increasing oversight, involving HR, setting explicit consequences, or initiating formal processes.
This is where many leaders falter. They have the first conversation, see a brief improvement, and then step back too soon.
But corrosive behaviour often survives on inconsistency. If the person learns that standards soften when deadlines loom or results are strong, they learn that output buys them immunity from consequence.
That’s not a good lesson for you, them, the team and colleagues.
Remember, research repeatedly demonstrates how one negative group member can damage team functioning well beyond their own behaviour4.
Leverage D.A.A. before behaviour impacts culture
What matters most is whether you are willing to act before the issue becomes formally undeniable. Wise leaders don’t wait for a full-blown crisis before they intervene. They discern the pattern, address the behaviour, and act with consequence before corrosive conduct becomes team culture.
The real risk is not simply that one difficult person remains difficult. The real risk is that everyone else adapts around them in problematic ways. Once that happens, the behaviour is no longer an individual problem; it’s a cultural challenge.
Getting you ready for tomorrow, today®
Award-winning author and global workplace expert, Dr Michelle Gibbings, helps leaders, teams and organisations unlock strategic influence to accelerate progress.
References
- Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131
- Porath, C. L., & 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), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.003
- Zhao, B., Dunkailo, R. L., Clair, J., & Boyd, R. L. (2026, March 2). When feedback crosses the line. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2026/03/when-feedback-crosses-the-line
- Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9