How to talk to someone who expresses anger indirectly

Silence does not prove anger, but it can get in the way of working together

At a meeting you agreed a deadline for a report, but a colleague does not acknowledge your message. When asked, they reply: “Well, you know best”, and then go quiet for two days. It is easy to conclude that they are “punishing you with silence”. That is possible, but still uncertain. Perhaps they do not understand the scope of the task, have no access to the data, feel left out or simply think the deadline is unrealistic. “Passive aggression” is often used as a popular shorthand, but it is not proof that you know what is driving someone. Rather than drawing conclusions from tone, write down three things: what behaviour you observed, what effect it had on the work and what you still do not know. “We sent two requests for confirmation and have had no reply, so we cannot close the report” is a description of facts. “You’re doing this on purpose to humiliate us” remains an accusation about intentions. You can open the conversation with the first sentence, not the second.

Why meeting curtness with curtness does not help

When one person responds curtly, the other often does the same: sends terse messages, stops inviting them to meetings, stops sharing information. Before long, both sides have their own evidence that “the other one started it”. Andersson and Pearson described a theoretical mechanism of an incivility spiral at work. This does not prove that every curt reply leads to serious conflict, but it does illustrate the risk of each side’s behaviour fuelling the other’s. What can you do? Let go of the interpretation and return to the shared task: “I need confirmation by 2 pm so I can finish the dispatch. Is anything holding up your part?” If you get a sarcastic remark, say calmly: “I’m not sure how to take that. Let’s talk specifically about the deadline.” Give the other person a chance to answer without feeling they have been judged in advance. At the same time, do not pretend that a lack of cooperation has no consequences. They need to be named clearly and a change agreed.

When silence stops being a pause and starts to exclude

People are entitled to need a moment of calm before responding to a difficult message. Equally, there is no point in calling every unanswered message harassment or ostracism. A more serious problem begins when someone systematically cuts another person off from information, meetings or the means to do their job. A meta-analysis by Howard, Cogswell and Smith describes workplace ostracism as a phenomenon that involves more than a single unanswered message and examines its links with how employees function. So look for the pattern: who is not getting invitations, whose questions are consistently ignored, and whether this affects the work. If you are yourself a party to the conflict, also check whether your own behaviour is reinforcing the other person’s isolation. Where workplace safety or systematic exclusion is at stake, it is not enough to urge people to get along. The organisation has a duty to respond in line with the appropriate procedures.

A conversation about facts, consequences and a solution

Prepare a short statement in four parts. Situation: “At Monday’s briefing we agreed the data would be sent by Wednesday.” Behaviour: “We didn’t receive confirmation or any word about a hold-up.” Impact: “As a result, the customer service team couldn’t close the offer.” Question and agreement: “What got in the way, and how will we flag a delay next time?” Do not say “You’re being passive-aggressive”, because that shifts the conversation from the task to a judgement of character. If the other person says they need more time, set a realistic deadline and the minimum information needed along the way. If they say their earlier comments were not heard, check whether that is true rather than automatically rejecting the complaint. The same applies on a hospital shift: do not ask “Why are you trying to spite me?”, but rather “The information about the change to the order wasn’t passed on. How do we make sure the handover is secure at the next shift change?” Being specific lets you solve the problem even when intentions remain unclear.

What to do when the other person says “nothing’s wrong”

You do not have to convince someone that they are angry if they do not say so themselves. You can say: “That’s fine. We don’t have to talk about feelings. But we do need to agree how we acknowledge important messages.” Then propose one measurable behaviour: a reply within a set time, flagging an obstacle or entering the current status in the system. If the person still avoids agreeing, make a note of the problem and explain the consequences for the process. Do not turn the conversation into an interrogation about their true feelings, and do not try to outdo them in sarcasm. If more people are involved in the conflict, choose to meet in private so that you are not building a coalition against the other person. After a few days, check whether the agreement has worked. A one-off curt exchange does not call for an elaborate procedure. Repeated avoidance of duties or breaches of the rules may require formal steps.

When an informal conversation is no longer enough

Distinguish between three levels. The first is a one-off ambiguity that can be cleared up with a question. The second is a recurring problem with cooperation, which calls for documented agreements, support from a manager and follow-up on whether they are kept. The third is threats, humiliation, persistent exclusion or retaliation, where you should use the organisation’s proper channels. Since 5 November 2026, amended regulations on preventing workplace bullying (“mobbing” under Polish law) and discrimination have been in force in Poland. This does not mean that every rude remark is mobbing; any assessment takes into account the actual nature of the behaviour and how persistent it is. A manager should not attach legal labels on their own on the basis of gossip, but nor should they play down serious reports. If talking about the behaviour does not bring about change, move from guessing at emotions to assessing the facts, the consequences and the procedures available.

Indirectly expressed anger is sometimes just an interpretation of silence or sarcasm. Effective action starts with facts: the behaviour, its impact on the work and a question about what is getting in the way. Agree a specific way of working together rather than labelling someone’s character. When the behaviour becomes persistent, exclusionary or a threat to safety, an appropriate intervention is needed.

How Em helps you clarify ambiguous signs of anger

If before the conversation you are thinking “he’s doing it on purpose”, describe a specific episode to Em, but separate what you saw from your own interpretation. Em will help you prepare a neutral opening: which deadline was missed, what the consequences were and what you need to ask. You can rehearse how to respond to sarcasm, evasion or “nothing’s wrong” so that you do not get drawn into trading jibes. It can also help to work on your own style of reacting: do you tend towards applying direct pressure, or towards withdrawing from contact? If you know the other person’s communication profile, Em can help you choose the best way to frame your explanation, treating the profile as a pointer for the conversation rather than a guess about intentions. After the meeting, come back with the agreed facts and ask for a simple summary message: the task, the deadline and how to flag an obstacle. That way, instead of guessing at the other person’s character, you can talk about specific rules of cooperation and check whether they are being followed.