Microaggressions at work: what research shows and how to respond

What microaggressions are – and why the concept is contested

“I bet you know everyone from Ukraine,” a colleague says to a new employee, though all he knows about her is where she comes from. The speaker may see it as a joke or an attempt to strike up a connection. She may hear a suggestion that she is not an individual but a representative of a single group. It is precisely small situations like this that are sometimes described as microaggressions. The term itself, however, does not automatically settle what the speaker meant or how a particular incident should be judged.

Researchers do not fully agree on the boundaries of the concept or how to measure it. Scott Lilienfeld pointed to vague definitions and the risk of inferring intentions. Monnica Williams, for her part, highlighted evidence of the harmful effects of some of these experiences. This debate deserves to be taken seriously. You can accept that someone’s words hurt without claiming that science lets you read the speaker’s hidden beliefs from a single sentence. At work, describing an incident precisely is more helpful than quickly slapping a label on it.

What research says about the consequences of these experiences

A 2019 meta-analysis by Lui and Quezada described associations between experiencing microaggressions and various measures of psychological adjustment. This is an important signal, but the studies often relied on self-reports, covered different groups and did not allow causal conclusions to be drawn automatically in every case. Research on workplace incivility also shows that repeated disrespectful behaviour can harm well-being and working relationships. That is not, however, the same as proof that every awkward remark leads to a similar effect.

For a manager, frequency and the context of situations matter particularly. One stupid joke can be addressed and stopped straight away. It is a different matter for someone who regularly hears comments about their origin, language or gender, is invited into conversations less often and constantly has to prove their competence. Sometimes the harm comes from an accumulation of small incidents rather than one dramatic event. That is a reason to listen to the description of the whole pattern, rather than analysing a single word in isolation from the situation.

Why it’s unwise to guess intent from a single sentence

An employee says to a colleague: “Your Polish is really good.” If he has known her for a few minutes, the remark may be an ordinary compliment – but it may also give the impression that he did not expect her to speak the language well because of how she looks. You cannot read the speaker’s intent with any certainty from the wording alone. The history of the relationship, tone, repetition and how both people react all matter. A manager should not rush to judge the speaker’s character, but can respond to the visible effect of the remark.

A useful sentence is: “That might have sounded as if you were assuming she wouldn’t speak the language as well. I’d rather we focused on how she actually works.” If the colleague says the remark was unpleasant for her, there is no need to demand proof of bad intent before listening. On the other hand, it is not helpful to shut the conversation down with “You’re a racist” when what is needed is to clear up a specific behaviour. The goal is to stop the pattern and protect the relationship, not to win an argument about a label.

Three roles in one situation: the recipient, the bystander and the manager

The person a comment is aimed at can say: “I don’t like it when people assume things about me because of where I’m from. Please don’t say that again.” But they are under no obligation to educate everyone themselves or to respond immediately. A bystander can help with a brief intervention: “Let’s talk about what we actually know about this person.” Often it is enough to move away from generalisations and talk about the specific person, without humiliating the speaker in front of others.

The manager’s role is broader. They should respond to warning signs, check whether similar situations keep recurring and make sure there is a way to report a problem. If they hear “It was only a joke – don’t be so sensitive”, they can reply: “Let’s not decide right now who has a sense of humour. Let’s establish what was said and how we want to talk to each other.” The seriousness of the response must match the facts. In serious or repeated situations, or those involving unequal treatment, a formal intervention will also be needed, not just a mediation conversation.

When incivility becomes an organisational problem

Imagine that a colleague regularly gets comments about her origin, and her ideas in meetings are brushed aside until someone else repeats them. In a case like this, it is worth looking not only at the words but also at who takes part in decisions, the rules for speaking up and the criteria used in assessments. Research on selective incivility shows that small everyday behaviours can entrench unequal treatment even when no openly hostile statement is made. A manager should look for recurring behaviour rather than confining themselves to a single incident.

Good practice is to set a standard: we criticise arguments, not group characteristics; we don’t assume competence based on origin; everyone can raise a concern without fear of retaliation. If there is a dispute, you can gather accounts of what happened, compare them with the workplace rules and decide on the next steps. Equally, the word “microaggression” must not be used to shut down legitimate criticism of someone’s work performance. Everyone deserves a fair, factual assessment – and, at the same time, protection from humiliation and stereotyping.

How to respond firmly without unnecessary escalation

In the moment, three steps often help: name the specific remark, say what problem it may cause and suggest a different way of putting it. “You said she probably knows everyone from her country. That reduces her to where she’s from. Let’s ask her about her experience on this project instead.” If the speaker replies “I didn’t mean to offend anyone”, you can acknowledge that while holding the line: “I understand. Even so, it’s worth changing how you put things.”

Afterwards, check that the situation isn’t recurring. Where there are indications of discrimination, harassment or workplace bullying (“mobbing” under Polish law), start the appropriate procedures and assess the matter in line with the law. The amendment to the Labour Code (Kodeks pracy) in force from November 2026 strengthens the employer’s duties to prevent violations of dignity and unequal treatment. Not every instance of incivility automatically amounts to legally established discrimination – but nor must it be ignored simply because the speaker insists he was joking. An effective response rests on facts, proportionality and consistency.

You don’t need to settle the debate over the definition of microaggressions to ensure people are treated with dignity at work. Three things help: naming the specific behaviour, taking account of context and repetition, and setting a clear boundary for the future. In cases of serious or persistent violations, a formal response from the employer may be essential.

How Empatyzer helps you respond to comments that hurt

An employee can describe to Em a remark that left them feeling excluded and think through how to name the problem without guessing at the other person’s intentions. Em will help them prepare a short response, clarifying questions and a way of setting a boundary. Someone who witnesses such a situation can practise an intervention that stops the comment without turning the meeting into a public argument about a colleague’s character. A manager, in turn, can prepare a conversation about recurring behaviour, gather observable facts and draft a message about shared ground rules. Where the relevant relationship context is available in Empatyzer, collaboration tips can help adjust the tone and explain why certain remarks are received differently by different people. They do not, however, provide certainty about anyone’s hidden intentions or access to private diagnoses. Em helps you talk about the problem more precisely, not pass judgement on people. After the conversation, the user has ready-made wording and a plan for next steps, not just another label to describe the conflict.