Setting Boundaries at Work: How to Respond When Someone Repeatedly Crosses the Line
A boundary is not an attempt to control another person.
It clarifies what you will participate in, what conditions you require for cooperation, and what you will do when those conditions are not met.
That distinction becomes particularly important when you are dealing with:
- a difficult business partner
- a co-founder
- a demanding client
- a senior colleague
- a powerful executive
- someone who repeatedly ignores agreements
You may have explained the issue already.
Perhaps several times.
Yet the same pattern continues.
Then the central question changes.
It is no longer only:
“How can I make this person understand?”
It becomes:
“What do I need to do if understanding does not lead to different behavior?”
What Is a Professional Boundary?
In business, a boundary can concern:
- decision authority
- availability
- communication
- responsibilities
- information access
- money
- deadlines
- confidentiality
- respectful conduct
- what you are willing to approve or represent
A boundary might sound like:
“I will not approve expenditures above €50,000 without the agreed documentation.”
Or:
“If this conversation becomes personally insulting, I will end it and we can continue when we can discuss the issue professionally.”
Or:
“Client commitments in my area need my approval before they are communicated externally.”
These statements differ from:
“You need to respect me.”
The latter expresses a legitimate wish.
The former makes the required behavior more visible.
Useful boundaries translate principles into observable conditions.
A Boundary Is Not a Command
This distinction prevents many unnecessary power struggles.
You can say:
“You are not allowed to speak to me like that.”
The other person can still do it.
You cannot directly control their behavior.
You have greater control over your own response.
For example:
“If the conversation becomes personally insulting, I will stop it.”
Now the boundary includes an action that is actually available to you.
The strongest boundaries depend less on forcing another person to comply and more on knowing what you will do if they do not.
Do You Need to Call Someone “Toxic”?
The word toxic is widely used.
It can describe a relationship or environment that repeatedly has harmful effects.
It is not a clinical diagnosis.
And it can become so broad that it stops helping you think clearly.
Instead of asking:
“Is this person toxic?”
ask:
- What exactly are they doing?
- How often does it happen?
- What effect does it have?
- Which agreement is being violated?
- What have I already communicated?
- What changes when I address it?
Specific behavior gives you something to work with. Labels often do not.
And What About Narcissism?
Some boundary problems occur in relationships involving strong narcissistic traits.
Research has linked narcissistic traits with several potentially difficult workplace patterns, including greater workplace incivility under some conditions and higher psychological entitlement.
That does not mean every person who ignores a boundary is narcissistic.
Nor does narcissism tell you automatically what a particular person will do.
You usually do not need a diagnosis in order to respond to:
- repeatedly ignored agreements
- unreliable commitments
- personal attacks
- information withholding
- unauthorized decisions
- persistent pressure
Your professional decisions can be based on behavior, risk, and consequences.
Why Boundaries Become Difficult With Powerful People
It is easy to say:
“Just set a boundary.”
The real situation may contain:
- financial dependency
- hierarchy
- ownership
- career consequences
- important client relationships
- shared investments
- reputation
A boundary with a colleague is different from a boundary with your CEO.
A boundary with a client is different from a boundary with your co-founder.
A boundary between equal managing directors may still be complicated by ownership percentages or informal influence.
Good advice about boundaries needs to take power seriously.
Start With the Behavior
Suppose you say:
“You constantly disrespect my boundaries.”
The conversation can immediately turn into:
“No, I don’t.”
Now you are arguing about an abstraction.
Instead:
“We agreed that client commitments above €100,000 require both managing directors. You gave the client that commitment yesterday without involving me.”
Now the issue is visible.
The more consequential the boundary, the more concrete the language should become.
Separate Preference, Request, Agreement, and Boundary
These are different things.
A Preference
“I prefer meetings in the morning.”
A Request
“Please send me the figures before the meeting.”
An Agreement
“We agreed that the figures will be circulated 48 hours before the meeting.”
A Boundary
“I will not approve the proposal in the meeting unless I have had sufficient time to review the figures.”
Confusion between these categories causes problems.
You may believe you established a boundary when the other person heard only a preference.
Ten Principles for Setting Boundaries at Work
1. Decide What Actually Matters
Not every irritation deserves a boundary.
If everything becomes non-negotiable, cooperation becomes difficult.
Ask:
- Does this affect an important responsibility?
- Does it create material risk?
- Is the pattern recurring?
- Does it undermine an agreement?
- Does it interfere with my ability to do my job?
Use boundaries where something meaningful needs protection.
2. Be Specific
A boundary such as:
“You need to communicate better.”
is difficult to operationalize.
Try:
“Changes to the client proposal need to be discussed before they are sent externally.”
Specificity makes expectations easier to understand and easier to evaluate later.
3. Explain the Relevant Reason
You do not need to justify every personal preference endlessly.
In business, however, relevant reasoning often helps.
For example:
“I need final approval before this goes to the client because I carry responsibility for the commercial terms.”
This gives the boundary professional context.
4. Keep the Language Simple
Long explanations can weaken an important message.
You state the boundary.
Then explain it again.
Then defend it against an objection that has not yet been raised.
Then provide five examples.
The central point disappears.
Instead:
“I am not agreeing to that commitment today. I need the risk assessment first.”
Then stop.
5. Distinguish a Boundary From a Threat
A threat aims primarily to frighten or punish.
A boundary explains the consequence that follows from a condition.
Compare:
“If you do that again, you will regret it.”
with:
“If commitments continue to be made outside our approval process, I will ask the shareholders to clarify decision authority formally.”
The second may still be serious.
It is connected to the problem.
6. Choose Consequences You Can Actually Implement
A consequence you cannot or will not carry out weakens credibility.
Do not announce:
“Then I am leaving the company.”
unless you have thought through what that means.
Possible professional responses might include:
- ending a conversation
- moving communication into writing
- requiring joint approval
- involving the appropriate manager
- using a formal escalation process
- limiting discretionary access
- reconsidering the commercial relationship
The relevant consequence is the one you can responsibly implement.
7. Follow Through
If you repeatedly say:
“I will not continue this conversation if it becomes insulting.”
and then remain for another hour while the insults continue, the practical boundary remains unclear.
Your action completes the communication.
Consistency does not require rigidity.
It requires that your stated limits have some relationship to what you subsequently do.
8. Stay Open to New Information
A boundary is not proof that your interpretation is correct.
Perhaps you misunderstood an agreement.
Perhaps the other person has information you do not have.
Perhaps circumstances genuinely changed.
Listen.
Then decide whether the boundary still applies.
Being clear does not require becoming intellectually inflexible.
9. Document Important Boundaries
For consequential business issues, spoken understanding may not be enough.
Document:
- decision rights
- approval thresholds
- responsibilities
- deadlines
- confidentiality requirements
- agreed escalation routes
This reduces future disputes about what was supposedly agreed.
10. Know When Communication Is No Longer the Main Problem
You may have been clear.
The agreement may be documented.
The behavior continues.
Then another communication technique may not solve the problem.
You may have a:
- governance problem
- performance problem
- contract problem
- leadership problem
- compliance problem
- relationship problem
Do not keep treating a structural problem as though the perfect sentence will fix it.
Boundaries With a Co-Founder or Business Partner
These relationships are particularly difficult because personal trust and structural authority often overlap.
A recurring conflict may involve:
- who can hire
- who can spend
- who can sign contracts
- who communicates with investors
- who owns client relationships
- who makes strategic decisions
If these questions remain informal, every disagreement risks becoming personal.
Clarify the structure.
Good governance turns some interpersonal boundaries into organizational rules.
→ Narcissistic Co-Founder? Protect the Company Before You Diagnose the Person
A Boundary Is Stronger When Governance Supports It
Imagine you repeatedly tell your co-founder:
“Please involve me before making major investments.”
That remains partly dependent on goodwill.
Compare this with:
“Investments above €50,000 require the written approval of both managing directors.”
Now the organization helps carry the boundary.
Where possible, move important limits from personal requests into reliable processes.
Boundaries With a Powerful Client
A valuable client can create pressure.
They want:
- another discount
- an unrealistic deadline
- additional work outside the agreement
- constant availability
- a commitment you cannot responsibly make
The fear is obvious:
“If I say no, we may lose the client.”
Perhaps.
Yet repeatedly saying yes can create another risk:
the commercial relationship becomes increasingly unattractive or impossible to deliver.
A professional boundary might sound like:
“We can deliver by May 15 with the current scope. If April 30 is essential, we need to reduce the scope.”
That is both a boundary and an option.
Boundaries With a Senior Executive
Hierarchy requires judgment.
You cannot pretend that a conversation with your CEO is identical to a conversation with a peer.
Yet hierarchy does not eliminate professional limits.
You might say:
“I can prepare the recommendation by tomorrow. I cannot responsibly sign off on the figures until finance has verified them.”
Or:
“I understand that you want this announced today. I cannot state that the project is on schedule because the current data does not support that.”
A professional boundary can protect responsibility as much as personal well-being.
Boundaries Around Availability
Modern work makes availability unusually ambiguous.
Email.
Slack.
WhatsApp.
Calls.
Messages late at night.
A boundary may simply clarify the operating model.
For example:
“For genuine emergencies, call me. Messages sent after 7 PM will normally be handled the next working day.”
The point is not to impose a universal rule.
The point is to remove unnecessary ambiguity.
Boundaries Around Meetings
You can also set boundaries around how decisions are made.
For example:
“I am happy to discuss the proposal today. I will not make the final decision until I have reviewed the financial assumptions.”
Or:
“I am not willing to decide this under a five-minute deadline.”
This is particularly useful when pressure itself becomes part of the decision strategy.
Boundaries Around Personal Attacks
A disagreement about the business can become personal.
You hear:
“You are impossible.”
“You clearly cannot handle leadership.”
“Nobody trusts you.”
You can bring the discussion back to the issue.
For example:
“I am willing to discuss my decision. I am not going to continue a conversation based on personal insults.”
If the attacks continue, pause or end the conversation.
You can discuss difficult behavior without accepting unlimited forms of discussion.
Boundaries Around Interruptions
Repeated interruption can also become a boundary issue.
You might say:
“I want to hear your response. Let me finish this point first.”
If the pattern continues:
“We are repeatedly talking over one another. I want us to take the points one at a time.”
→ How to Handle Interruptions in Important Conversations
Boundaries Around Confidential Information
Sometimes the relevant boundary concerns information.
A colleague may pressure you to share:
- personnel information
- financial information
- client data
- negotiation positions
- board discussions
You do not need a lengthy defense.
“I cannot share that information.”
may be enough.
Where legal, contractual, or regulatory duties apply, those requirements determine the boundary.
When Someone Keeps Testing the Boundary
You state the agreement.
The other person tests it.
You state it again.
Another exception appears.
At some point, stop treating every new incident as though it were the first.
Ask:
What does the repetition tell me?
Perhaps:
- the boundary was unclear
- the person genuinely disagrees with it
- the incentive structure works against it
- the consequence has no credibility
- the person has little interest in respecting the agreement
The appropriate response depends on which explanation fits.
Do Not Keep Explaining Forever
One common reaction to boundary resistance is more explanation.
You hope that if the other person finally understands:
why it matters,
how it affects you,
why your position is reasonable,
then they will cooperate.
Sometimes explanation helps.
Sometimes the person already understands.
They simply want a different outcome.
A disagreement is not always a failure of understanding.
Do Not JADE Yourself Into a Negotiation You Never Intended
You may have encountered the advice not to endlessly:
- justify
- argue
- defend
- explain
The acronym JADE comes from self-help culture rather than a formal scientific framework, yet the underlying observation can be useful.
If you have already communicated a clear, legitimate position, excessive explanation can accidentally turn the boundary into a debate about whether you are entitled to have it.
In professional settings, provide the reasoning that is relevant.
Then return to the decision.
A Boundary Can Be Negotiated
Not every boundary needs to be permanently fixed.
Business requires flexibility.
You might say:
“Normally I need 48 hours to review the documents. For this situation I can do it by tomorrow afternoon.”
You have chosen an exception.
The exception does not automatically eliminate the general rule.
Flexible boundaries are still boundaries when the flexibility is deliberate rather than coerced.
Know What Is Negotiable
Before an important conversation, separate:
Preferences
Things you would like.
Interests
Things that matter and may be satisfied in several ways.
Limits
Things you are not willing or able to accept.
This helps you avoid two mistakes:
- turning every preference into a non-negotiable boundary
- giving away something essential because you never identified it beforehand
Boundaries Are Not Punishment
A professional consequence should serve a purpose.
For example:
If verbal agreements are repeatedly disputed, move important agreements into writing.
If authorization rules are ignored, strengthen approval controls.
If conversations become abusive, change the conditions under which those conversations take place.
If a client repeatedly exceeds scope, clarify commercial terms.
The purpose is to create workable conditions, not to teach another adult a lesson.
Do Not Announce Consequences You Secretly Hope Never to Use
Sometimes people use a dramatic consequence because they hope it will frighten the other person into cooperation.
“If you do that again, I quit.”
“Then the partnership is over.”
“I will take this to the board.”
If the other person tests the statement, you now have a problem.
Before stating a consequence, ask:
Am I prepared to follow through?
What If the Boundary Makes the Other Person Angry?
They may be angry.
That alone does not tell you whether your boundary is appropriate.
At the same time, their anger does not prove that they are narcissistic or manipulative.
People can dislike reasonable limits.
They can also object because your limit is unreasonable.
Listen to the objection.
Then evaluate it.
Another person’s emotional reaction is information. It is not automatically an instruction.
What If You Feel Guilty?
You may feel uncomfortable saying no.
You may worry that you are:
- being difficult
- disappointing someone
- creating conflict
- damaging the relationship
That discomfort does not automatically mean the boundary is wrong.
Nor does it prove the boundary is right.
Return to:
the responsibility,
the agreement,
the consequence,
and your alternatives.
Make the decision from those factors rather than from the temporary wish to make tension disappear.
Boundaries and Manipulation
Some people respond to a limit by changing the subject.
You hear:
“After everything I have done for you…”
“So you clearly don’t trust me.”
“Everyone else manages to work with me.”
“I thought we were partners.”
These statements may express genuine feelings.
They may also shift attention away from the original issue.
You can acknowledge the concern and return to the point.
“I understand that you experience this as a question of trust. I still need both approvals before the expenditure is made.”
You can respond to emotion without abandoning the issue.
→ 11 Manipulation Techniques at Work — and How to Respond
Boundaries and Narcissistic Traits
If the person has strong narcissistic traits, certain situations may become more difficult.
Research has linked narcissism with stronger anger reactions under some conditions involving perceived unfairness or lack of reciprocity and with greater workplace incivility.
Psychological entitlement can also contribute to workplace deviance.
These are group-level associations.
They do not allow you to predict the response of an individual.
The practical implication remains straightforward:
Prepare for observable behavior rather than assuming you know the person’s internal motives.
Do Not Use Boundaries as a Personality Test
You sometimes hear:
“Set a boundary and you will immediately discover who the narcissist is.”
That is too simple.
Many people push back against boundaries.
Perhaps they:
- see the situation differently
- believe your request is unreasonable
- fear losing something
- have different expectations
- are accustomed to another arrangement
Resistance tells you that there is disagreement.
The pattern that follows gives you more information.
Watch What Happens After the Boundary Is Clear
This is more informative.
Does the person:
- ask questions?
- negotiate?
- respect the agreement?
- find legitimate alternatives?
- ignore it?
- punish you indirectly?
- repeatedly reinterpret what was agreed?
Over time, behavior provides evidence about the reliability of the relationship.
One Incident Is Different From a Pattern
People forget.
They misunderstand.
They make poor decisions under pressure.
One boundary violation does not establish a personality pattern.
Pay attention to:
- frequency
- severity
- response to feedback
- willingness to repair
- whether behavior changes afterwards
The response after a problem often tells you more than the problem itself.
When Boundaries Need to Become Systems
This is particularly important in companies.
If the same boundary repeatedly depends on one difficult conversation, ask whether the organization can carry more of the load.
Examples:
- dual signatures
- approval workflows
- documented decision rights
- clear reporting structures
- contractual scope
- access controls
- formal escalation procedures
A process can be more reliable than repeatedly asking someone to respect an informal limit.
When Reduced Contact Is Realistic — and When It Is Not
Popular advice often recommends:
“Just go no contact.”
That may be possible in some private relationships.
Business can be different.
The person may be:
- your co-owner
- your CEO
- a major client
- a board member
- a crucial supplier
You may need continued interaction.
Then instead of simply reducing contact, consider reducing unnecessary exposure.
For example:
- use written communication for important agreements
- keep meetings focused
- clarify agendas
- involve appropriate stakeholders
- separate responsibilities
- reduce unnecessary discretionary access
The objective is not maximum distance. It is workable exposure under the actual conditions.
Sometimes Ending the Relationship Is a Business Option
There are situations in which continued cooperation no longer makes sense.
Perhaps:
- trust is no longer sufficient
- agreements repeatedly fail
- risk has become unacceptable
- the commercial relationship is no longer viable
- governance cannot be repaired
Ending a business relationship can involve substantial consequences.
Prepare carefully.
Where contractual, shareholder, employment, liability, or other legal issues are involved, obtain qualified legal advice.
A boundary can clarify the conditions for staying. Sometimes those conditions reveal that leaving deserves consideration.
Do Not Wait Until You Are Furious
Boundaries become harder to communicate once months of resentment have accumulated.
Then a relatively small event can trigger an enormous response.
Address relevant patterns early enough that you can still discuss them with precision.
Instead of:
“You always do whatever you want!”
you may still be able to say:
“This is the second time this month that a client commitment was made without the approval we agreed on. We need to clarify the process now.”
Five Useful Boundary Sentences
Simple language is often easier to use under pressure.
1. “I am willing to discuss the issue. I am not willing to continue the conversation with personal insults.”
2. “I cannot approve this until I have the information required for the decision.”
3. “That decision falls within my responsibility. Please involve me before committing externally.”
4. “We have discussed this several times. If the agreement cannot be maintained, we need to change the process.”
5. “I understand that you disagree. My position on this point remains the same.”
Boundary or Ultimatum?
Sometimes a genuine decision point exists.
You may need to say:
“I am willing to continue the partnership if joint decision rights are respected. If that is no longer workable for you, we need to discuss another ownership arrangement.”
That is serious.
It may also be accurate.
An ultimatum becomes problematic when it is used as a bluff.
Do not manufacture consequences simply to gain leverage.
Prepare for Pushback
If the boundary changes an established pattern, resistance is possible.
You may hear:
“You never had a problem with this before.”
“You have changed.”
“This is completely unnecessary.”
“So now everything has to be formal?”
You do not need to improvise under pressure.
Prepare your answer.
For example:
“The previous arrangement is no longer reliable enough for the decisions we are making. That is why I want the approval process documented.”
Do Not Overexplain Under Pressure
Pressure can make people talk too much.
You explain.
The other person objects.
You produce another reason.
They challenge that reason.
Eventually you are defending twelve secondary points instead of the original boundary.
Return to the core.
“I understand your argument. I still need the written approval before proceeding.”
When the Conversation Becomes Circular
You may reach a point where neither side has new information.
Then you can say:
“I think we understand each other’s positions. Repeating them will not change the issue. We now need to decide which process applies.”
Or:
“We are not going to resolve this tonight. Let us continue tomorrow with the relevant documents.”
A boundary can also apply to how long an unproductive conversation continues.
Do Not Fight for Respect as an Abstract Concept
You may feel disrespected.
That matters.
In a business conversation, translate it into something concrete where possible.
Instead of:
“You need to show me more respect.”
perhaps:
“When I am responsible for this area, I need to be included before a decision is communicated externally.”
Or:
“If you disagree with my recommendation, challenge the recommendation. Personal comments are not part of this discussion.”
Concrete conditions make respect operational.
What If You Have Contributed to the Pattern?
This question is worth asking.
Perhaps you:
- accepted exceptions repeatedly
- avoided the difficult conversation
- communicated inconsistently
- made threats you did not follow through on
- left responsibilities unclear
Acknowledging your contribution does not transfer responsibility for another person’s behavior to you.
It improves your ability to change what is within your control.
You might say:
“I have allowed this to remain too informal. I want to change that now.”
When the Other Person Calls Your Boundary Controlling
Examine the criticism.
A legitimate boundary governs primarily your own participation, responsibility, or conditions for cooperation.
Control attempts go further and try to dictate another adult’s legitimate choices.
Compare:
“You are not allowed to work with that supplier.”
with:
“I will not approve that supplier under the current due-diligence conditions.”
Depending on your role, either statement may or may not be appropriate.
The important question is:
What authority do you actually have?
Authority Matters
A manager can legitimately set some conditions that a peer cannot.
A board may set conditions for management.
A shareholder agreement may define rights that personal preference cannot override.
A client contract may specify responsibilities.
Professional boundaries therefore operate inside:
- roles
- contracts
- law
- governance
- organizational authority
“My boundary” does not automatically override another person’s legitimate rights or responsibilities.
When Formal Advice Is Needed
If the situation involves:
- employment law
- shareholder rights
- directors’ duties
- harassment
- discrimination
- compliance
- financial misconduct
- contractual obligations
- personal safety
communication coaching is not a substitute for the relevant professional advice or formal organizational processes.
You may need legal, HR, compliance, security, or other specialist expertise.
Communication preparation can complement that expertise.
Ten Questions Before You Set an Important Boundary
- What exactly is happening?
- What part of the situation can I actually control?
- Which responsibility, agreement, or interest am I protecting?
- What do I want the other person to understand?
- What am I asking for?
- What is negotiable?
- What is not?
- What will I do if the pattern continues?
- Am I genuinely prepared to do that?
- Does this require a conversation, a process change, or both?
The Bottom Line
Setting boundaries at work is not about winning a power struggle.
It is not about controlling another person.
And it does not require deciding whether someone is “toxic” or narcissistic first.
A professional boundary clarifies:
- what matters
- what you require
- what you are responsible for
- what you will participate in
- what happens when an important condition is not met
Be specific.
Make the boundary realistic.
Connect it to the actual business issue.
Follow through when necessary.
And when the same boundary needs to be defended repeatedly, ask whether the problem now requires a different structure rather than another conversation.
A useful boundary does not control the other person. It clarifies your own next move.
Dealing With a Difficult Business Relationship?
If you are dealing with a co-founder, shareholder, managing director, senior colleague, client, or other important professional counterpart who repeatedly crosses important limits or disregards agreements, we can work directly with the real situation.
Depending on what matters, Executive Sparring may include:
- clarifying the actual issue
- separating behavior from interpretation
- identifying what is negotiable
- clarifying responsibilities and decision rights
- examining power dynamics
- developing appropriate boundaries and consequences
- preparing difficult language and questions
- anticipating resistance
- rehearsing the conversation
- considering your options if the pattern continues
I work primarily with business owners, managing directors, executives, and senior leaders.
In person in Berlin. Online throughout Germany.
→ Executive Sparring
→ Conversation & Negotiation Preparation
→ High-Stakes Communication
→ Fees & Booking
→ Discuss Your Situation
Research Note
“Toxic person” is an informal description rather than a clinical category. Research therefore does not provide a scientific test for identifying a “toxic person.”
There is, however, substantial research on specific workplace behaviors such as incivility, interpersonal mistreatment, entitlement, and counterproductive behavior.
A large meta-analysis covering 253 independent samples from 219 studies found that workplace incivility is associated with a range of negative affective, health-related, social, and behavioral outcomes.
→ Meta-Analysis of 20 Years of Workplace Incivility Research
A more recent review describes workplace incivility as a widespread workplace stressor with relevance for both employee well-being and organizational effectiveness.
→ Workplace Incivility: Annual Review
Research also suggests relationships between narcissistic traits, psychological entitlement, and some forms of uncivil or counterproductive workplace behavior. These are statistical associations at group level, not a diagnostic method for judging an individual colleague.
→ Narcissism, Anger, and Workplace Incivility
The practical implication is straightforward: focus on observable behavior, organizational conditions, and workable responses rather than relying on broad personality labels.
About Karsten Noack
I work with business owners, managing directors, executives, and senior leaders on difficult professional relationships, important decisions, leadership situations, negotiations, boundaries, and communication under pressure.
My background combines engineering, management, business consulting, marketing, psychology, communication, and more than 25 years of coaching and consulting work.
→ About Karsten Noack
