Two of my leadership team members are constantly passive-aggressive in our weekly meetings, using subtle digs and body language instead of open argument. It is poisoning the room but they never actually blow up. How do I put an end to this covert peer warfare?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Covert conflict is far more destructive than a loud argument because it erodes the safety of the entire room. When leaders use passive-aggressive digs, they are managing status rather than solving problems. You must address this behavior immediately and directly.

Intervening in Real-Time

During your next [Level 10 Meeting](/qa/should-integrator-facilitate-level-10-meetings), the moment you observe a subtle dig or dismissive body language, you need to call it out in real time. Do not wait for the meeting to end.

• State exactly what you saw and heard.
• Ask them to clarify what they actually mean. This forces the issue into the open where you can IDS it.

This immediate intervention prevents the behavior from festering and makes it clear that such actions are not acceptable.

Addressing Persistent Behavior

If the passive-aggressive behavior continues despite real-time intervention, you need to escalate.

• Schedule a three-way meeting with both leaders involved.
• Use the trust framework from Charles H. Green to diagnose the issue. Often, passive-aggressive behavior stems from high self-orientation, where one or both leaders are more focused on protecting their own ego or department than helping the business.
• Force them to define the root cause of their friction. This might involve discussing issues of [Accountability Chart seat overlaps](/qa/resolving-accountability-chart-seat-overlaps) or other underlying tensions. For tips on fostering openness, consider how to [build vulnerability and safety in leadership](/qa/building-vulnerability-and-safety-in-leadership).

The "Right Person" Issue

If they cannot resolve the issue and commit to healthy, direct debate, you have a Right Person issue on your hands. You cannot run a healthy leadership team with people who choose sabotage over direct conversation. This might require difficult decisions about whether individuals are a [Core Values fit](/qa/handling-top-performers-who-violate-core-values) and whether they Get, Want, and have the Capacity (GWC) for their seat.

The Role of AI

AI never sits in the room during these human-centric interactions. Its value lies in supporting roles:

• Before the [Level 10 Meeting](/qa/owner-exit-transition-level-10-meetings): Prepping data, such as for reviewing your [weekly scorecard](/qa/how-to-review-scorecard-under-five-minutes).
• After the meeting: Capturing and tracking decisions made during the IDS conversation.

The 90 minutes of the Level 10 Meeting should remain human: focused on your leadership team, the scorecard, the issues list, and direct, honest discussion.

Related questions

• [Our leadership meetings look fine on paper, but we never have real breakthrough debates. How do I know if my team actually trusts each other, or if they are just playing nice to avoid conflict?](/qa/leadership-team-trust-healthy-conflict)
• [My leadership team is starting to form quiet alliances and cliques behind closed doors, especially when we debate resource allocation during our quarterly sessions. It feels like passive-aggressive political maneuvering rather than direct, healthy disagreement. How do we break up these executive factions?](/qa/breaking-up-executive-factions-cliques)
• [When an issue is dropped to IDS, my leadership team immediately starts pointing fingers at other departments rather than taking ownership. How do we use the Accountability Chart to stop the blame game during meetings?](/qa/using-accountability-chart-to-stop-blame-in-ids)
• [My leadership team seems more concerned with protecting their departments and checking off boxes than looking at the big picture of the business. How do we shift their mindset to enterprise-first?](/qa/shifting-leadership-mindset-to-enterprise-first)