In Short
Confronting toxic traits effectively means matching the weight of the behavior to the richness of your communication channel, preparing thoroughly, and staying grounded in specific facts throughout.
- Choose richer mediums, in-person or video, for serious behavioral confrontations.
- Prepare with the M.A.S.T.E.R. Method before any high-stakes conversation.
- Ground every exchange in documented facts, not feelings or labels.
Confronting toxic traits is the deliberate process of directly addressing specific harmful behaviors, such as manipulation, gaslighting, or explosive anger, using a planned, structured approach that matches the seriousness of the behavior to the appropriate communication channel and format.
A colleague of mine once sent an email to address a team member who had been systematically undermining colleagues, taking credit for others' work, and shutting down anyone who challenged her in meetings. He had drafted the message carefully. He thought the written record would protect him. Within two hours, that email had been forwarded to three senior leaders, stripped of all context, and used as evidence that he was targeting her unfairly. He lost credibility. She kept her position. The toxic behavior continued for another year.
The problem was not his courage. He had plenty of that. The problem was his choice of medium. Confronting toxic traits through the wrong channel does not just fail, it can actively make the situation worse and leave you more exposed than before you started.
In this article, I will walk you through a practical, step-by-step process for choosing and using the right communication medium when the behavior you are addressing is genuinely harmful. This process draws directly from Chapter 11 of Say It Right Every Time, where I introduce the Communication Medium Richness Hierarchy and the M.A.S.T.E.R. Method. Both tools were built for exactly this situation.
Why Confronting Toxic Behavior Is Different From Any Other Hard Conversation
Most difficult conversations are hard because the subject is uncomfortable. Confronting toxic traits is hard for a different reason: the person you are dealing with is often skilled at turning the conversation against you.
Manipulation thrives in confusion. Gaslighting depends on ambiguity. Explosive anger is designed to make you back down. These are not just personality quirks; they are patterns of behavior that have worked for this person before, often because the people around them did not know how to respond. When you choose the wrong medium, you hand them the tools they need to deflect, deny, and reframe.
I have watched too many people approach these conversations the way they would approach any feedback exchange, with good intentions and an open tone, only to find themselves completely outmaneuvered. The stakes are genuinely different here. The risk of escalation during meetings is real, and the consequences of a failed confrontation can outlast the original problem by months.
"The Conversation You're Avoiding Is the One You Need to Have."
"The Conversation You're Avoiding
Is the One You Need to Have."
Stop rehearsing conversations you'll never have. Say It Right Every Time gives you 115 word-for-word scripts and 16 proven frameworks to speak with confidence in every conversation that matters.
What Must Be in Place Before You Say a Word
There are three things you need before any confrontation of toxic behavior, regardless of which channel you choose.
First, you need documented facts. Impressions are not enough. You need specific incidents with dates, behaviors, and observed impacts. "She tends to undermine people" will not hold up. "On Tuesday, she interrupted the project lead four times and then took credit for the cost-saving proposal in her email to the director" will.
Second, you need clarity on what you are asking for. Confrontation without a clear request is just venting. Know what behavioral change you are seeking, and be ready to state it plainly.
Third, you need to have chosen your medium before you begin. Not after you write the opening line of an email. Not while you are walking to the person's desk. The medium shapes everything that follows. Choose it deliberately, based on the process below.
The Communication Medium Richness Hierarchy
In Say It Right Every Time, I describe what I call the Communication Medium Richness Hierarchy. It ranks channels from richest to leanest: in-person, video call, phone call, email, text message. The richer the medium, the more information passes between you, tone, expression, body language, real-time adjustment.
For everyday feedback, a leaner medium can work fine. For confronting toxic traits, richness is not optional. The more harmful the behavior, the richer the medium you need. This is the foundational rule. Everything else builds on it.
If you are addressing a passive-aggressive pattern that has been quietly eroding your team, that requires at least a phone call, and probably a face-to-face meeting. If you are confronting outright manipulation or gaslighting, you need in-person or video, full stop.
The Step-by-Step Process for Confronting Toxic Traits
Here is the sequence I teach in Chapter 11 of Say It Right Every Time, adapted for the specific challenge of behavioral confrontation.
Choose your medium based on behavior severity, not personal comfort. In-person is your default for any behavior that involves deliberate harm: manipulation, gaslighting, chronic undermining. Video call is acceptable when geography makes in-person impossible. Phone works for lower-level patterns when you need to escalate from text or email. Never use email or text as your primary channel for confronting toxic traits. If a conversation has already started in text, move it immediately. A direct script for this: "This feels like a conversation we should have by phone or in person. Text isn't great for this kind of thing. When can we talk?"
Prepare using negative visualization. Before the conversation, imagine everything that could go wrong. The person denies it happened. They become explosive. They cry and make you feel guilty. They try to flip the blame. For each scenario, decide in advance what you will say and do. This is not pessimism; it is preparation. Surprises lose confrontations. Preparation wins them.
Write a brief factual record before you meet. This serves two purposes. It anchors you to reality during the conversation, and it creates a written record in case the person later attempts to gaslight you about what was said or what occurred. Keep it factual: dates, actions, observable impacts. If you are facing someone with a pattern of denying reality, that written record is your anchor before you walk into the room.
Open with the behavior, not the label. Do not say "You are manipulative" or "You are toxic." Name the specific action and its impact. Use the S.B.I. structure: Situation, Behavior, Impact. "In yesterday's meeting, you redirected the conversation every time James tried to present his findings. As a result, his proposal was never discussed and the team lost an hour." How to use the S.B.I. method is a skill worth building before you need it in a high-stakes setting.
Respond to deflection with documented facts, not emotions. Manipulation and gaslighting both depend on pulling you into a debate about feelings or intent. Do not go there. If the person says "That is not what happened," your response is: "I know what I experienced. Here is what I observed: [specific facts]. I am not here to debate whether it happened. I am here to address what comes next." Stay on the facts. Every time they try to shift ground, return to the specific, documented behavior.
State your boundary and mean it. This is where most confrontations collapse. People state what they need and then soften it into a suggestion. A boundary without enforcement is just a suggestion, and a person skilled in toxic behavior will treat it as one. Be direct: "Going forward, I need this to stop. If it continues, I will escalate this to [specific consequence]." Then be ready to follow through.
End with clarity and a written follow-up. Before the conversation closes, state clearly what was agreed. Then send a brief written summary within 24 hours. This is not punitive; it is protective. For anyone who tends to rewrite history after the fact, a written record of what was discussed and agreed becomes invaluable. Keep the follow-up factual and neutral, not accusatory.
Adapting This Process for Remote Teams
Remote work creates a specific problem: the richest medium available is often video, not in-person. That gap matters when you are confronting toxic traits, because you lose physical presence, room dynamics, and some of the non-verbal signals that help you read how the other person is truly responding.
Compensate for the leaner medium with extra clarity and deliberate kindness in your language. Be more explicit than you would be in person. Name what you are observing in real time: "I notice you have gone quiet. I want to make sure you have space to respond." Do not let silence on a video call go unaddressed, it will be filled by assumption.
Choose a private one-on-one video call, never a group setting. Confronting someone's behavior in front of others, even remotely, raises the emotional stakes dramatically and usually produces defensiveness rather than change. Matching your communication medium to the stakes of the conversation applies just as strongly in distributed teams as it does face-to-face.
If the conversation breaks down remotely, it is harder to de-escalate than it is in person. Have an exit plan: "I think we should pause this and continue tomorrow. I will send you a summary of where we are, and we can pick it up then." Then follow through with that written summary before the next session.
The Mistakes That Undo a Well-Prepared Confrontation
Even people who prepare carefully can lose ground at the wrong moment. These are the patterns I see most often.
The mistake: Choosing email because it feels safer or less confrontational.
Why it happens: Email gives you control over your words. That feels like an advantage. But in a confrontation of toxic behavior, the other person now has your words in writing, without your tone, without your presence, and without any ability for you to respond in real time to how they are interpreting it. You lose the conversation before it starts. When emails fail in difficult situations is a pattern worth understanding before it costs you.
What to do instead: Use email only to confirm what was discussed in a richer medium, never as the primary confrontation channel.
The mistake: Matching explosive anger with raised emotion of your own.
Why it happens: It is a natural human response to intensity. When someone raises their voice or attacks your character, your nervous system wants to fight back.
What to do instead: Anger feeds on anger. When you refuse to provide fuel, the fire eventually burns out. Say calmly: "I can see that you're very upset, and I want to understand what's going on. However, I need us to have this conversation calmly. I'm asking you to lower your voice so we can talk this through. If you're not able to do that right now, I'm going to suggest we take a break and come back to this when we're both calmer." Then enforce that suggestion if needed.
The mistake: Softening the boundary after stating it.
Why it happens: The other person responds with distress, tears, or counter-accusation, and you feel guilty for causing that distress.
What to do instead: Empathy and firmness are not opposites. You can acknowledge the emotion and hold the line at the same time: "I hear that this is hard for you. The behavior still needs to change."
The mistake: Opening the conversation without a clear specific request.
Why it happens: You know what is wrong but have not articulated what you actually need to be different.
What to do instead: Before the meeting, finish this sentence in writing: "After this conversation, I need [specific behavior] to stop and [specific alternative] to begin." If you cannot complete it, you are not ready. Giving constructive feedback without causing unnecessary tension starts with knowing exactly what change you are asking for.
The mistake: Failing to follow up in writing after the conversation.
Why it happens: The conversation ended on what felt like a good note, and you do not want to seem like you are keeping score.
What to do instead: Send a brief, neutral follow-up within 24 hours. "Following our conversation today, I wanted to confirm what we discussed and agreed." One paragraph. No editorial commentary. This protects you if the other person later claims the conversation went differently than it did.
Before the Next Conversation: Your Preparation Checklist
Use this before any confrontation of toxic behavior, regardless of which medium you have chosen.
- I have written down at least two specific incidents with dates, behaviors, and observed impacts.
- I have identified the exact behavioral change I am asking for.
- I have chosen the richest feasible medium: in-person, video, or phone, not email or text.
- I have used negative visualization: I have imagined three ways this could go wrong and decided how I will respond to each.
- I have prepared my opening two sentences and rehearsed them aloud.
- I know what my boundary is and what the consequence is if it is not respected.
- I have planned a written follow-up summary to send within 24 hours.
- If this conversation relates to starting a difficult exchange that is blocking progress, I have reviewed how to start a difficult conversation for additional structure.
What Happens When the Conversation Goes Wrong
Sometimes, despite good preparation, a confrontation of toxic traits falls apart in the moment. The person becomes aggressive, or you say something you regret, or the conversation spirals into territory you did not anticipate. This is not failure. It is information.
In Say It Right Every Time, I outline the R.E.C.O.V.E.R. Method for exactly this situation: Recognizing what went wrong, Ending the conversation if it has become unproductive, Cooling down, Owning any mistakes you made, Validating the other person's experience without abandoning your own, Explaining your intent, and Recommitting to the relationship where that is appropriate.
The step most people skip is owning their part first. Taking responsibility for what you said or how you said it does not mean accepting blame for the toxic behavior. It means creating the space for an honest repair. "I've been thinking about our conversation, and I don't feel good about how it went. I said some things I regret, specifically what I said about your intentions. I want to make this right. Can we talk?" That is not weakness. That is the kind of strength that actually moves situations forward.
The Truth About Confronting Toxic Traits
Here is what I know from sixty years of watching people navigate these situations. The discomfort of having the conversation is temporary. The regret of avoiding it lasts far longer. Every week you wait while the toxic behavior continues is a week you cannot get back.
Choosing the right communication medium when confronting toxic traits is not a small technical detail. It is the difference between a conversation that changes something and one that makes things worse. Use the richest medium you can access. Prepare with the M.A.S.T.E.R. Method. Ground yourself in documented facts. State your boundary and hold it. Then follow up in writing. That process will not guarantee an easy outcome. Nothing can. But it gives you the best possible chance of being heard, respected, and effective.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What does confronting toxic traits actually mean in practice?
Confronting toxic traits means directly addressing specific harmful behaviors, manipulation, gaslighting, explosive anger, in a structured, planned way. It is not about labeling a person. It is about naming the behavior, stating its impact, and setting a clear expectation for change.
Which communication medium is best for confronting toxic traits?
In-person is almost always the best medium for confronting toxic traits because it gives you full access to tone, facial expression, and body language. Video call is the next best option. Text and email are too lean for behavior this serious and should be avoided.
Why do text messages and emails fail when addressing toxic behavior?
Toxic traits thrive in confusion. Lean mediums like text and email strip away tone and non-verbal signals, making your message easy to misread, dismiss, or twist. Without vocal tone or facial expression, the person can claim you were attacking them, which hands them the advantage.
How do I prepare before confronting someone with toxic traits?
Use negative visualization: imagine everything that could go wrong and plan your response. Identify three specific behavioral facts. Choose your time and setting deliberately. Write a brief record of recent incidents. Then rehearse your opening two sentences aloud so you do not freeze in the moment.
What should I do if the person becomes explosive during the confrontation?
Do not match their energy. Stay calm and say clearly: I need us to have this conversation calmly. If you cannot lower your voice right now, I am going to suggest we pause and return to this when we are both ready. Then enforce that boundary if they escalate.
Can I confront toxic traits remotely if I cannot meet in person?
Yes. A video call is your next best option after in-person. It preserves tone and facial expression. Compensate for the leaner medium by being especially clear and specific in your language. Follow up with a written summary of what was agreed so there is a shared record.
