Why women can be their own worst enemy at work

A side-eye. A raised brow. A condescending remark in response to a seemingly innocuous question during a meeting. Interns mocked for their attire behind closed doors by senior team members.

These moments may seem trivial, but they are examples of gendered microaggressions – subtle, everyday behaviours that communicate dismissal, exclusion or superiority, often without overt hostility and most frequently directed at women.

Importantly, what is often labelled “mean-girl” behaviour can occur at any level of a workplace hierarchy: between peers, from senior to junior, and even from junior to senior. The motivations – envy, insecurity, structural pressure or resistance to authority – may differ depending on direction, but the impact can be equally corrosive.

Coined by psychologist Derald Wing Sue of Columbia University, microaggressions describe behaviours that subtly demean, marginalise or discredit others. In the workplace, they often show up as tone policing, appearance-based judgement, social exclusion or quiet undermining.

What is commonly referred to as “mean-girl” behaviour is one of the most recognisable forms these gendered microaggressions take.

Rather than overt bullying, it typically involves indirect, relational tactics – gossip, backhanded compliments, silent treatment, selective support or strategically questioning someone’s competence or likeability.

These behaviours are frequently perpetuated by women, reinforcing hierarchies within workplaces already shaped by gendered expectations.

One reason such behaviours often replace direct conflict among women, explains psychologist Stephanie Chan from Annabelle Psychology, is that women are conditioned to maintain harmony and avoid open confrontation. Assertiveness or anger in women is often punished or negatively labelled.

“As a result, conflict may be expressed indirectly through subtle behaviours such as exclusion from conversations, withholding information or quiet undermining,” she adds.

Because these actions are subtle and easily deniable, they often evade formal policies. Yet their cumulative impact is significant. Over time, they erode trust, confidence and professional credibility – whether the behaviour comes from a peer competing for recognition, a senior protecting status, or a junior resisting new authority.

While verbal abuse is grounds for disciplinary action in many organisations, countless instances of microaggressions, gaslighting and quiet backstabbing continue to go unnoticed, unaddressed – or worse, enabled by management.

Researchers from the Campus Sexual Misconduct in a Digital Age (CASMIDA) project at the National University of Singapore note that these gendered microaggressions often operate invisibly and are “ultimately about enacting power”.

They further observe that women often police everyday judgements directed at other women – labelling them “too ambitious”, “too emotional”, “unlikeable” or “not feminine enough”.

These patterns emerge within organisational cultures still shaped by historically masculine standards of authority and professionalism.

Women in positions of power often occupy a structurally contradictory role. Having succeeded within institutions built on masculine norms, they may feel compelled to conform to maintain legitimacy.

In doing so, hierarchies can be unintentionally reinforced – through harsher judgements of other women, resistance to flexibility policies or distancing from feminist labels perceived as professionally risky.

This dynamic often appears most clearly in senior-to-junior relationships. What may look like personal pettiness can, in some cases, reflect pressure to survive within male-dominated spaces where women feel they must uphold existing norms to retain authority.

Lydia*, who works in the non-profit sector, has experienced this firsthand. She recalls a former boss who made inappropriate remarks about the appearances of female clients and collaborators, calling them “fat” or “ugly”.

Another colleague routinely policed what women wore to work, even as male colleagues showed up in shorts and slippers.

“It created a hostile atmosphere,” she says. “Like many experiences with mean-girl behaviour, it made me constantly wonder what was being said about me when I wasn’t present.”

When work becomes a Machiavellian game

These behaviours are not merely personal slights or the result of individual personality alone.

Between peers, they may stem from envy or fear – particularly in environments where opportunities feel scarce and recognition limited. A colleague’s success can be perceived not as collective progress, but as a personal threat.

From senior to junior, behaviour may be shaped by structural pressures within institutions that still reward traditionally masculine leadership traits.

From junior to senior – particularly when a woman steps into a new leadership role – subtle resistance can also emerge. Women have been quietly undermined or pushed out of leadership positions by teams unwilling to accept their authority, especially when they inherit teams they did not build themselves.

Rather than vilifying such behaviour outright, Stephanie suggests that some women put others down because they have been socialised to prioritise survival over thriving in historically exclusionary environments.

“When opportunities or leadership roles feel scarce, self-preservation can take over and comparison becomes heightened,” she explains. “Rather than seeing other women as allies, they may be unconsciously perceived as threats. These behaviours are often rooted more in fear – fear of inadequacy, rejection or invisibility – than in malice.”

These fears can manifest as power plays – attacking another’s self-esteem, being overly critical to feel superior or engaging in “pick-me” behaviour. At their core, such patterns reflect internalised misogyny.

“Internalised misogyny occurs when women unconsciously absorb and perpetuate societal beliefs that devalue women,” Stephanie adds.

“In the workplace, this can show up as judging other women more harshly than men, questioning their competence, criticising their leadership styles or distancing oneself from women who appear ambitious or highly visible.”

Why survival logic keeps failing us

In the corporate jungle, survival of the fittest is a narrative many of us are taught to accept. It’s little surprise, then, that such a mindset breeds environments where power imbalances thrive and insecurity is rewarded with influence.

When workplaces are structured around scarcity, silence and unchecked authority, women are positioned not to support one another but to compete and self-protect.

Left unaddressed, toxic behaviour erodes trust, morale and productivity – costs that far outweigh the discomfort of confronting problems early.

Kim’s* first internship illustrates how damaging this can be. Bullied and repeatedly put down by her supervisor and colleagues, she experienced an emotional breakdown.

“I was completely burned out. I remember crying almost every day – anything would set me off,” she recalls. “I was exhausted, anxious and constantly worried about whether I was doing enough to gain my supervisors’ approval. I was either sleeping or working, often over weekends, trying to overcompensate just to be seen as competent.”

Lydia left after a few months, but the impact lingered. “My confidence and trust took a hit, and I struggled to perform well in my new role,” she says. “It took me more than a year to feel like myself again.”

While gendered microaggressions most often target women, men are not immune – particularly when office politics and power are involved.

Louis*, who works in media, was pushed out by a junior colleague he managed. While he was away on work trips, she approached his manager with complaints, undermining his work through selective narratives and half-truths.

The manager, newly installed and eager to reshape the team, did not question the pattern. The junior colleague positioned herself as vulnerable and wronged – a performance that can make selective accounts appear credible.

Within months, Louis was retrenched with one month’s salary – a scenario many workers will recognise, where decisions are made behind closed doors.

Although Louis was the target, he notes such behaviour is still more frequently directed at female colleagues. What made it especially difficult to challenge was weak leadership. “When patterns of bullying are visible but ignored, silence becomes complicity,” he adds.

What needs to change

If workplaces are serious about equity, performance and retention, they must confront the conditions that allow these dynamics to flourish – and the leaders who enable them through silence.

Office politics is not inherently the problem. As John Rudd, Professor of Management at Warwick Business School, notes, it is almost always present in strategic decision-making and can be constructive when well managed. 

Trouble arises when political behaviour is driven by unchecked self-interest, distorting decisions to serve individuals rather than the organisation.

Leadership matters. Teams that prioritise collective goals are better able to contain corrosive office politics. Leaders must name harmful behaviour clearly, reward collaboration and intervene early when toxic patterns emerge.

They must also examine how their own actions – whether favouritism, silence or excessive control framed as care – enable the problem. Culture is shaped less by what leaders say than by the examples they set.

But change cannot come from the top alone.

Many of us have, at some point, played a role in “mean-girl” behaviour – aligning with power, looking the other way or laughing at someone else’s expense.

Opting out begins with small choices: refusing to reward cruelty with laughter, naming behaviour calmly when it crosses a line or backing a colleague who has been sidelined.

Strengthening internal self-worth and self-compassion is equally important. Identifying emotional triggers, challenging scarcity beliefs and reconnecting with personal values can regulate comparison and insecurity.

Building supportive peer relationships, seeking mentorship and reframing another woman’s success as possibility rather than competition can reduce rivalry and strengthen resilience.

As Stephanie puts it, healthier workplace dynamics between women are shaped by an abundance mindset – the belief that multiple women can succeed without diminishing one another – and the understanding that collective empowerment is more sustainable than individual survival.

*Names have been changed.