The third post in our series exploring John Gottman’s Four Horsemen in the workplace. This post looks at contempt and stonewalling — why they happen, how they can affect working relationships and psychological safety, and what we can do to break these patterns.
Target audience
- Managers, team leaders and professionals who want to build more open, constructive and productive working relationships — particularly when conversations become difficult.
In the first post of this series, we introduced John Gottman’s Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling — and explored how these behaviours can gradually undermine trust, communication and collaboration in the workplace. In the second post, we took a closer look at criticism and defensiveness: why they happen, how they can reinforce each other, and what we can do to break the cycle.
In this post, we turn to the remaining two Horsemen: contempt and stonewalling.
These behaviours can be particularly damaging because they can signal that a working relationship has moved beyond a disagreement about an issue. Contempt attacks the relationship itself, while stonewalling withdraws from it. Both can make it increasingly difficult to have the open, constructive conversations that teams need.
So, why do contempt and stonewalling happen? What impact can they have on working relationships? And, if you recognise these behaviours in yourself, a colleague or your team, what can you do to change the pattern?
Why do we show contempt?
Contempt is when our behaviour communicates that we see someone as inferior, unworthy of respect, or simply not worth taking seriously. As it has been built brick-by-brick over time, it is tough to dismantle, and is probably the most destructive behaviour amongst Gottman’s “Four Horsemen”.
-
- We’re frustrated. We may have reached the point where we feel that the same issues keep happening and nothing seems to change.
- We’ve lost respect. Repeated disappointments or difficult interactions can gradually change how we see someone. We may start to question their judgement, competence or commitment.
- We’re making assumptions. We might begin to interpret someone’s behaviour through a negative lens — assuming they’re simply “not getting it.”
- We feel superior. Sometimes contempt comes from believing that we know better or that our way of doing things is the only sensible approach. This can make it tempting to dismiss or belittle another person’s ideas.
- We’re trying to protect ourselves. Sarcasm, mockery or dismissiveness can sometimes be a way of covering up our own frustration, insecurity or vulnerability.
- It has become a habit. In teams where sarcasm, eye-rolling or dismissing opinions has become normal, we may not even realise how disrespectful our behaviour has become.
- We don’t know how to express our frustration constructively. When we haven’t found a productive way to address an ongoing problem, contempt can become an outlet for emotions that have been building up.

How does contempt show up in the workplace?
Contempt can be surprisingly easy to miss, particularly when it is disguised as “just the way we talk to each other.” It can manifest itself as ongoing sarcasm, cynicism, and aggressive, belittling or mocking humour.
Sometimes it appears in small gestures rather than words: an eye-roll when a colleague starts talking in a meeting, a smirk at the mention of a project, or a quiet “hah” when a colleague’s name is mentioned. Contempt can also be much more direct. It might involve dismissive comments about someone’s ideas, mocking their mistakes, questioning their competence, or making insulting statements about their character.
It can also show up in the way we treat someone’s work, time or requests. Repeatedly ignoring a colleague’s emails or requests, failing to deliver something we have agreed to do, consistently missing deadlines without explanation, or treating another person’s priorities as unimportant can all communicate a similar message: your needs, your time or your work don’t matter enough to me.
And contempt isn’t necessarily directed at people. We can also develop contempt for ideas, decisions, processes or the organisation itself. We might routinely dismiss a particular process as “ridiculous”, roll our eyes whenever a certain procedure is mentioned, or talk about leadership, policies or other teams as though they are inherently incompetent. A degree of healthy scepticism is important in any organisation, and processes should absolutely be challenged when they aren’t working. But when criticism becomes habitual cynicism or blanket dismissal, it can have a similar corrosive effect.
This matters because contempt towards a process or decision can easily become contempt towards the people associated with it. “This process makes no sense” can gradually become “the people who designed this process have no idea what they’re doing.” Once that happens, it becomes much harder to have a constructive conversation about how the process could actually be improved.
Again, context is important. Everyone misses a deadline occasionally, forgets an email or has competing priorities. These behaviours become more significant when they form a repeated pattern.
The important thing is to look at the pattern and the message behind the behaviour. Healthy teams can use humour, challenge each other and disagree. Contempt is different because the humour or criticism is being used to diminish another person rather than address the issue.
When contempt is high, psychological safety is low
One of the challenges with contempt is that it can be easy to mistake it for a sign of a close, comfortable team. A team can look relaxed, confident and full of laughter on the surface while psychological safety is actually declining underneath.
A dismissive or cynical comment gets called “banter” or “team dynamics” and these comments can give the impression that psychological safety is high. After all, people are comfortable enough to joke, tease and challenge each other. But there is an important difference between banter that everyone enjoys and using humour to put ideas down or make people feel uncomfortable.
When contempt becomes part of a team’s culture, people start to censor themselves. They may stop sharing an idea or avoid asking a question because they don’t want to look foolish. If people feel they have to laugh along, stay quiet or avoid difficult conversations to belong, psychological safety is already low — however friendly the team might appear.
And this is where contempt becomes particularly damaging. It doesn’t just affect the person on the receiving end. It can change the behaviour of everyone watching. People learn what happens when someone speaks up, gets something wrong or challenges the status quo — and they adjust their own behaviour accordingly.
Contempt: How can we change our behaviour and mindset?
Treating someone with contempt and explaining it away with “Well, I was frustrated with him because of how the meeting went” is a tempting trap. We may have good reasons to be frustrated or disappointed but someone else’s behaviour does not make contempt inevitable — or excuse how we choose to treat others. Contempt comes from the way we see others and the way we choose to behave towards them.
Changing contempt is about choosing not to reduce a person or situation to our frustration. The first step is to separate the person from the problem. We can be deeply frustrated by someone’s behaviour without disrespecting or dismissing them.
That shift matters because it moves us away from judging the person and towards addressing the behaviour.
It also helps to challenge the story we have built around the other person. When repeated frustration turns into contempt, we start filtering everything they do through what we already believe about them. For example: A missed deadline becomes evidence that they are unreliable. Once we start seeing someone this way, it becomes much easier to respond with contempt.
It also means challenging our own assumptions. If we find ourselves thinking, “They never listen,” “They don’t care,” or “They often make things more complicated,” we can pause and ask ourselves whether we are responding to what is actually happening now or to a story we have built up over time.
We can also make a conscious effort to replace contempt with respect. Respect doesn’t require us to agree with someone, like their approach or overlook problems. We can challenge, disagree and hold people accountable while still treating them as someone whose perspective and dignity matter.
Changing contempt starts with recognising when frustration about someone’s behaviour has become a judgement about the person.
The mindset shift is from judgement to curiosity, and from the person being the problem to the problem being the problem.
Why do we stonewall?
- We feel overwhelmed. Difficult conversations can trigger strong emotions, and sometimes our instinct is to shut down rather than risk saying something we will regret.
- We’re trying to avoid conflict. If previous conversations have ended badly, avoiding the conversation can feel safer.
- We feel criticised or attacked. When we feel blamed or judged, we may retreat as a way of protecting ourselves rather than continuing a conversation that feels threatening.
- We don’t know what to say. Sometimes we genuinely don’t have an answer or don’t know how to respond, so silence feels easier.
- We’re frustrated. If we believe we’ve already explained ourselves or that the other person isn’t listening, we may decide that there is no point continuing the conversation.
- We want to regain control. Withdrawing from a conversation can sometimes be a way of taking back a sense of control when we feel powerless or uncomfortable.
- It has become a habit. If withdrawing has worked for us in the past, we may start doing it automatically whenever a conversation becomes uncomfortable.
- We’re using silence to punish or control. In some cases, stonewalling is deliberate. We may ignore messages, refuse to respond or deliberately withhold engagement because we want the other person to feel frustrated, excluded or powerless.
The important distinction is between taking a healthy pause and refusing to engage. Saying, “I’m getting frustrated and need 20 minutes to clear my head. Can we come back to this afterwards?” is very different from simply walking away, going silent and leaving the other person wondering whether the conversation will ever happen.
How does stonewalling show up in the workplace?
Stonewalling is the repeated pattern of withdrawing from communication or cooperation in a way that makes it difficult for the other person to move the conversation or work forward. When that happens, stonewalling becomes more than taking a break — it becomes a barrier that negatively impacts everyone in the team.
As with the other Horsemen, context and pattern matter. Not responding in a meeting doesn’t mean someone is stonewalling. Nor does taking a while to respond to an email. People get busy, need time to think and sometimes need a break from a difficult conversation. The difference is what happens next. A healthy pause has a way back in. We might say, “I need some time to get my thoughts straight on this. Can we pick it up tomorrow?” Stonewalling leaves the other person with no clear route back into the conversation.
Stonewalling can be obvious. Someone may simply refuse to engage in a conversation or make it clear that they are not prepared to discuss an issue. They refuse to answer when a question is asked or an issue is raised, walk away from a meeting when something difficult comes up, or shut down the conversation with comments such as, “I’m not discussing this,” “There’s nothing more to say,” or “Whatever.” They may deliberately stop speaking to a colleague altogether, or refuse to participate in a discussion, meeting or problem-solving process because they don’t want to engage with the person or the issue.
However, in the workplace, stonewalling can be much more subtle and can easily be mistaken for being busy, distracted or simply not interested. It might look like repeatedly putting off responding to messages or requests, particularly when they involve a difficult issue or a colleague we are frustrated with. We say, “Let’s talk about it later,” without ever making the time to do so. We might technically respond to a colleague, but give only one-word answers, vague replies or just enough information to end the conversation.
Stonewalling can also show up in how we collaborate. Following a disagreement, we stop offering ideas, contributing in meetings or engaging with a colleague’s work. We might withhold information, fail to provide input or delay completing something another colleague needs, without a legitimate reason.
Sometimes, nothing needs to be said at all. Avoiding eye contact, no longer acknowledging someone, or becoming noticeably colder towards them can communicate displeasure and create distance without a single word being spoken.
Stonewalling: How can we change our behaviour and mindset?
If we recognise stonewalling in the team, the first step is to understand what is happening before we try to change it. Are we genuinely overwhelmed and in need of a pause, or are we avoiding a conversation because it feels uncomfortable? Are we taking time to think, or are we using silence to punish, frustrate or control the other person?
If stonewalling has become part of a team’s way of dealing with conflict, changing it starts with creating a different expectation around difficult conversations. Taking a break from the situation / conversation shoFuld create space to think, not become a way of avoiding the issue. The goal is to create a team where people can take a pause, ask for time to think and step away when necessary — but where there is always a route back into the conversation.
The mindset shift is from avoidance to engagement: “We need to find a way to stay engaged, even when the conversation is uncomfortable.”
This means making “I need some time to think” an acceptable response, while making sure that “I’ll get back to you” actually means something. If someone needs to step away from a difficult conversation, agree when and how it will be picked up again. A manager can model this themselves: “We’re not going to resolve this right now. Before everyone gets more frustrated, let’s take a break and come back to it at 3pm.”
Key takeaways
- Contempt is more than frustration. It happens when frustration turns into judgement, dismissal or a belief that someone is not worthy of our respect.
- Look for patterns, not isolated incidents. An eye-roll, missed deadline or delayed response doesn’t automatically mean contempt or stonewalling. Context and repetition matter.
- Contempt is ours to own. Other people’s behaviour may frustrate or disappoint us, but it doesn’t excuse treating them with contempt. The change starts with the person showing it.
- Healthy challenge isn’t contempt. Teams need to question decisions, challenge processes and disagree. The difference is whether we are addressing the issue or diminishing the person behind it.
- A pause isn’t stonewalling. Taking time to calm down or think can be healthy. The important thing is to create a route back into the conversation.
- Both behaviours affect more than the people involved. Contempt can undermine psychological safety, while stonewalling creates uncertainty and makes it harder for teams to communicate and collaborate.
- The goal isn’t to avoid difficult conversations. It’s to stay respectful and engaged when those conversations become difficult.