Storytelling in Business: The Anatomy of Great Storytelling

,

This post explores the techniques storytellers use to hold attention, build credibility and leave audiences with ideas they remember. Then, we’ll compare their different storytelling styles and uncover the hidden structures that make both talks so compelling.

  • Reading time
  • 10 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Trainers, facilitators, leaders, managers and professionals who want to become a more engaging presenter or storyteller.

Let’s not talk about our storytelling solutions and how you could benefit from adding stories to your workplace communication. Instead, let’s watch 2 great storytellers in action and judge how they do it :-)

In this article, we’ll dissect two of the most influential TED Talks ever delivered: Andrew Stanton’s The Clues to a Great Story and Simon Sinek’s How Great Leaders Inspire Action. Although their styles are very different, both speakers consistently hold their audience’s attention and leave them with ideas that are remembered years later. Stanton, the Pixar filmmaker behind Toy Story, Finding Nemo and WALL-E, shows how stories create emotional connection. Simon Sinek, leadership author and creator of the Golden Circle, demonstrates how a simple framework can make a complex idea memorable and persuasive.

Rather than focusing on what they say, we’ll examine how they say it. We’ll look at the storytelling techniques, presentation structure, audience psychology and rhetorical devices that make each talk so compelling. Finally, we’ll compare their contrasting approaches to reveal an important insight: there isn’t one formula for great storytelling. Stanton persuades through emotion and narrative, while Sinek persuades through logic, patterns and a simple mental model.

Andrew Stanton: The clues to a great story

Andrew doesn’t merely describe storytelling—he performs it. The audience experiences curiosity, surprise, laughter, and emotional connection in the same sequence that his principles recommend. That’s why the talk remains one of TED’s most enduring presentations on communication.

 

Here are the techniques that make him so compelling.

1. He opens with a story, not thesis

Instead of explaining what is he about to do with his TED talk – he starts talking about someone called MacGregor and for the first half of the joke, you have no idea what’s going on. Using this approach, he’s creating what psychologists call an information gap. Humans dislike unfinished patterns, so we keep listening.

He lets you experience the idea before defining it. Only after the punchline does he explain: “Storytelling is joke-telling.”

2. He constantly creates unanswered questions

Throughout the talk he repeatedly makes you wonder:

  • Why does Pixar tell stories this way?
  • What is the one secret?
  • What does “make me care” actually mean?
  • Why does he keep mentioning his childhood?
  • Where is this leading?

Every answer leads naturally to another question. That’s what makes the talk feel like one continuous journey rather than a list of tips.

3. He never teaches in the abstract

Notice how few theoretical statements are made in this video. Instead, nearly every concept comes wrapped inside:

  • an anecdote
  • a childhood memory
  • a movie example
  • a quote
  • a joke
  • a personal confession

4. He earns authority instead of announcing it

He almost never says, “I’ve won two Oscars.” Instead, authority emerges naturally. He casually references:

  • writing Toy Story
  • directing Finding Nemo
  • making WALL-E
  • conversations inside Pixar

You think, “This person has actually lived this.” That makes the advice feel authentic rather than promotional.

5. His talk has emotional variety

Many presentations stay at one emotional level. Stanton constantly changes rhythm. He moves between humor, curiosity, surprise, nostalgia, vulnerability and inspiration, never allowing the audience to settle into predictability.

6. He trusts the audience

One of his biggest ideas is Pixar’s famous principle: “Don’t give the audience 4. Give them 2 + 2.” He believes audiences enjoy participating. He practices this throughout the talk. He rarely over-explains. Instead he gives enough pieces for listeners to connect themselves. When people arrive at an insight on their own, it feels like their discovery rather than his lecture.

7. Everything serves one central idea

Many storytellers try to include too many messages or lessons in their story. This one doesn’t. Everything points back to one overarching message: Great stories make people care.

Every anecdote, joke and movie example reinforces that single idea. Because there’s one clear thread, the audience never feels lost.

8. He mixes confidence with vulnerability

Toward the end, he shares the story of being born prematurely and how that shaped his outlook. Until then, he’s been the expert. Suddenly he’s simply another human being. That shift creates emotional connection. Many speakers reveal personal stories too early or too dramatically. Stanton waits until the audience already trusts him, so the story lands with greater impact.

9. He finishes with meaning, not information

Most presentations end with a summary. He ends with a belief. His closing message is essentially: Stories affirm that our lives matter. That is much bigger than “here are some storytelling techniques”. He elevates storytelling from a communication skill to something fundamentally human.

People don’t leave remembering everything he said. They leave remembering how he made them feel.

 

New Call-to-action

 

Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action

This is one of the most analyzed TED Talks ever, and for good reason. Like Andrew Stanton, Simon Sinek isn’t simply presenting an idea—he’s carefully constructing an experience that leads the audience to his conclusion. By the time he introduces his main idea, many listeners already feel that it “makes sense,” even before they’ve fully examined it. Unlike many presentations that offer a collection of tips, Sinek gives the audience a single mental model that they can apply across different situations. Whether or not every claim holds universally, the talk’s enduring appeal comes from its simplicity, consistency, and memorable structure.

 

 

1. He starts with a puzzle followed by examples

He begins his story with a mystery: “How do you explain when things don’t go as we assume?” Immediately he follows with examples:

  • Why is Apple consistently innovative?
  • Why did the Wright brothers succeed?
  • Why do some leaders inspire while others don’t?

Notice what happens. Your brain starts searching for an explanation before he’s provided one. He’s created a problem that demands a solution.

Only after establishing the mystery does he introduce his framework.

2. He uses one idea to explain many things

One hallmark of memorable speakers is that they reduce complexity. Sinek doesn’t present five leadership principles.

He presents one simple model:

WHY → HOW → WHAT

Then he uses that same framework to explain:

  • Apple
  • Martin Luther King Jr.
  • the Wright brothers
  • leadership
  • marketing
  • customer loyalty

Because one idea keeps solving different problems, it feels powerful.

3. He speaks in patterns

Much of the talk relies on repetition.

  • First:  Most companies communicate from the outside in.
  • Then: Great leaders communicate from the inside out.

He repeats this idea several times, each time with a different example. Every repetition strengthens the mental model. Instead of feeling repetitive, it feels increasingly convincing because each example adds another layer.

4. He uses contrast constantly

This is one of the most sophisticated techniques in Sinek’s talk, and it’s easy to miss because he uses it so naturally.  Most speakers explain an idea by definition. Sinek explains it by contrast. Instead of saying “Great leaders are people who inspire others through purpose” he repeatedly puts two examples side by side and lets the audience notice the difference. Comparison is so powerful in storytelling because our brains are much better at detecting differences than absorbing abstract definitions.

5. He explains abstract ideas with concrete examples

Purpose is abstract. Belief is abstract. Inspiration is abstract. Instead of defining them academically, Sinek uses stories everyone can visualize. Apple isn’t discussed as a technology company. It’s presented almost as a character. Concrete stories make abstract ideas easier to remember.

Likewise:

  • Martin Luther King becomes an example of purpose.
  • The Wright brothers become an example of belief overcoming resources.

6. He keeps returning to one unforgettable sentence

Perhaps the most memorable line in the talk is: “People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.”

Whether you agree with it universally or see it as an oversimplification in some contexts, it’s an exceptionally effective communication device. It’s short, rhythmic, slightly surprising, and easy to repeat. It becomes the lens through which listeners interpret everything that follows.

7. His visuals are almost unbelievably simple

The Golden Circle is just three concentric circles.

WHY – HOW – WHAT

That’s it. Too many speakers create complex diagrams. Sinek creates a picture you can redraw from memory on a napkin.

The simpler the visual, the easier it is to remember—and the easier it is for the audience to reuse later.

8. He makes the audience feel clever

This is subtle.

Rather than saying, “Here’s the answer”, he says “think about it” repeatedly guiding the audience to discover the pattern themselves. When people feel they’ve reached the conclusion on their own, they’re more likely to accept and remember it.

9. His talk has remarkable structural discipline

Almost everything supports one central message. If you removed any example, the talk would still work. That’s because each part of the story serves exactly the same purpose: to reinforce the WHY → HOW → WHAT framework. There’s very little that feels like a tangent. This is one reason the talk remains easy to follow despite introducing examples from business, history, biology, and leadership.

A comparison: Andrew vs. Simon

What’s particularly interesting is that Sinek’s style is almost the opposite of Stanton’s.

  • Andrew Stanton tells stories that reveal ideas.
  • Simon Sinek tells ideas through stories.

Both are compelling, but they achieve it in different ways. Andrew Stanton relies heavily on emotional storytelling, while Sinek is primarily using argumentative storytelling. His examples are selected less to evoke emotion and more to persuade. Each one acts like another piece of evidence in a case he’s building.

Hidden structures

Stanton’s talk mirrors the structure of a good film:

  • Inciting incident – the Scottish joke sparks curiosity.
  • Rising action – he introduces clue after clue about storytelling, each one answering part of the puzzle while opening another.
  • Midpoint revelation – “Make me care.” The audience begins to see the unifying principle.
  • Deepening stakes – the talk shifts from craft (“how to tell stories”) to purpose (“why stories matter”).
  • Emotional climax – his personal reflections reveal that storytelling isn’t just a professional skill; it’s how we connect with each other.
  • Resolution – the audience leaves with both practical tools and a renewed appreciation for the role stories play in human life.

What makes Sinek’s talk so effective is that it follows the structure of a compelling argument.

  • Inciting question – Why do some leaders and organizations consistently inspire while others don’t?
  • Rising investigation – He presents case after case that challenges conventional explanations, building curiosity and tension.
  • Midpoint revelation – The Golden Circle is introduced. Suddenly, the audience has a simple framework that appears to explain the earlier mysteries.
  • Testing the theory – Rather than moving on, Sinek stress-tests the model with examples from technology, aviation, civil rights, and biology. Each example strengthens the audience’s confidence in the framework.
  • Broadening the implications – The talk expands from marketing into leadership, culture, communication, and decision-making. What began as a business puzzle now feels like a universal principle.
  • Resolution – The audience leaves not just with a slogan but with a new way of interpreting organizations, leaders, and even their own communication.

Key takeaways

After analysing both talks, one thing becomes clear: there is no single formula for great storytelling. Andrew Stanton and Simon Sinek take almost opposite approaches, yet both keep people engaged because they understand how audiences think.

As you have seen in the videos, great communicators design an experience. Whether that experience is emotional (Stanton) or intellectual (Sinek), the audience is taken on a journey. That’s a much more powerful takeaway than any individual storytelling technique.

Here are the lessons that any presenter, trainer or leader can apply:

  • Start with curiosity – Don’t begin by explaining. Begin by creating a question, a mystery or a reason to keep listening.
  • Have one clear message – Both talks are built around one memorable idea. Every story, example and detail supports that central message.
  • Show before you explain – Your audience experience the idea first. Stories and examples often communicate more powerfully than abstract explanations.
  • Make ideas concrete – Turn concepts into examples people can picture. Stories make abstract ideas easier to understand and remember.
  • Trust your audience – Don’t over-explain. Give people enough information to discover the insight themselves.
  • Design the journey – Stanton creates emotional connection through narrative. Sinek creates understanding through patterns and logic. Both succeed because they take the audience somewhere.
by

How to Help Other People Listen Better

, ,

This post explores the other side of the conversation: what speakers can do to make listening easier. It offers practical ways to prepare listeners, communicate more effectively, and increase the chances that your message is understood as intended.

  • Reading time
  • 9 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Anyone who wants to communicate more effectively at work, particularly managers, team leaders, project managers, and professionals who regularly explain ideas, solve problems, or influence others.

We deliver a lot of communication training. None the many sessions we deliver to our clients focus on listening skills. The topic of listening skills usually appears as part of a broader programme—effective communication in virtual teams, coaching skills for managers, giving feedback, difficult conversations. Is that because our clients think everyone is already a great listener? No. They know that poor listening causes problems at work every day. I think the reason is simpler: listening feels like a life skill. Unlike presenting, writing reports or leading a department, it’s something we assume we’ve learned simply by growing up.

The trouble is, research consistently suggests that we’re not nearly as good at listening as we think we are. Great listeners are rare. In leadership, some studies estimate they make up only a small percentage of people. Research on informational listening—the ability to accurately retain and understand information—shows that most of us overestimate our own ability. Which means there are probably people in your life who interrupt, jump to conclusions, filter what you say through their own experiences, get distracted halfway through the conversation or begin solving a problem before they’ve fully understood it.

Most articles and also our training solutions focus on becoming a better listener. This one takes the opposite perspective.

Consider for a moment, all those people who aren’t being listened to. The colleague whose explanation gets interrupted before they’ve finished. The project manager who keeps raising a scheduling conflict that nobody seems to hear. The employee who leaves a meeting thinking, I don’t think anyone actually understood what I was trying to say.

New Call-to-action

What can you do to help other people listen better?

We can’t control how someone else listens. We can, however, make it easier for them to succeed.

Here are nine ways to do that.

  • Prepare them for listening.
  • Ask whether they have time to listen.
  • Look for the type of listener you need.
  • Tell them how you need them to listen.
  • Ask them where they’d like to start.
  • Highlight what matters most.
  • Give them time to process.
  • Ask them to summarise what they heard.
  • Acknowledge the listening.

Prepare them for listening

We often assume that if someone doesn’t understand us, they’ll simply ask questions. They don’t always do that.  At work we explain complex situations, hoping the other person will recognise the issue, validate our concerns or arrive at the same conclusion we have. If we’re still organising our own thoughts—or we’re communicating something emotionally charged—that makes listening even harder. A listener has to separate facts from feelings, context from content and assumptions from evidence.

If you know what kind of conversation you want to have, you can set expectations with your listeners.

For example:

  • “Would you mind if I just talked for a few minutes before we start troubleshooting this problem?”
  • “I’m nervous about Tuesday’s meeting. Could I talk it through with you?”

Those simple introductions prepare people for the kind of listening you’re asking them to do.

Ask whether they have time to listen

Listening requires space, attention and willingness. Those three things aren’t always available. If someone is rushing between meetings, answering emails or thinking about the next deadline, they probably aren’t going to give you their best attention, however willing they may be. Sometimes the simplest question produces the biggest improvement.

For example:

  • “Is now a good time to talk about something?”
  • “When would you have ten minutes to properly listen to this?”

Look for the type of listener you need

Listening is a skill, but people don’t all listen in the same way. The right listener often matters just as much as the right message.

Some listeners are naturally time-oriented. They appreciate concise explanations and want you to get to the point. Others are people-oriented. They naturally focus on relationships, emotions and experiences. Some enjoy analysing ideas, identifying risks and solving problems. Others excel at helping you think aloud without rushing to conclusions.

So, If you need someone to challenge your thinking and pressure-test an idea, look for a critical listener. If what you really need is someone who understands your frustration before suggesting solutions, look for an empathetic listener.

Tell them how you need them to listen

Don’t assume people know what you need simply because they’ve heard your words. Do you want understanding? Reflection? Practical advice? A decision? Emotional support? Giving people a listening role helps them listen with purpose.

Imagine you’re presenting a new idea to six colleagues. Everyone hears the same words, but they process them differently. Some notice your enthusiasm. Others immediately start evaluating the risks. Someone else begins reflecting your ideas back to you, while another starts thinking about implementation.

People can listen in different ways – they have a preferred style and type but for many listeners, the situation and the speaker determine which listening style they use.

So, tell them which listening style or type to use. For example: “I would like everyone to use their best critical listening skills, do you think this idea has any merit, and if yes, how can we get it implemented?”

Ask them where they’d like to start

How do you get someone to listen? By presenting the information in the way they prefer it. This is especially useful when you’re communicating something complex. Perhaps you need to explain the background, the data, the risks, your recommendation and the impact on the team. Rather than deciding where to begin yourself, ask your listener.

For example: “Would you prefer the short version first, or would it help if I explained the background?”

Some people want the conclusion before the detail. Others need the context before the recommendation makes sense. Starting where your listener is naturally interested makes it much easier for them to stay engaged.

Highlight what matters most

Conversations rarely stay on track by themselves. A discussion about a project suddenly becomes a discussion about workload, customer satisfaction or team morale. All of those topics may be important, but they can also distract from the reason you started talking in the first place. When you notice the conversation drifting, gently bring it back.

For example: “Those are all important conversations, and I’d like to come back to them. Right now, the priority for me is resolving the issues with this project because my team have been waiting for feedback.”

Your listener doesn’t have to remember everything. They won’t. Help them remember the part that matters most.

Give them time to process

Listening doesn’t stop when you stop talking. Many people need a few moments to organise what they’ve heard before responding.

Resist the temptation to fill every silence. Don’t immediately ask, “Does that make sense?” after two seconds. Don’t jump back in because you’ve thought of one more thing to add.

Sometimes the most helpful thing you can do is simply wait.

Ask them to summarise what they heard

Great listeners often summarise naturally. “So what I’m hearing is…”

But you don’t have to wait for that to happen. Especially in important conversations, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask: “Just so I know I’ve explained this clearly, would you mind summarising what you’ve understood?”`

If their summary differs from what you intended, you’ve discovered a misunderstanding while there’s still time to correct it.

Acknowledge the listening

Finally, recognise that listening has taken place—even when the other person hasn’t interpreted your message the way you hoped. Perhaps you wanted to discuss a solution, but your listener focused on the problem instead. Perhaps they heard additional work where you saw opportunity. That doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t listening.

Listening is an active process of interpretation. People hear your words through the lens of their own experiences, assumptions, priorities and concerns. You can’t completely control what someone hears.

What you can do is acknowledge where they have understood you, clarify where they haven’t and continue the conversation from there.

Conclusion

Listeners have different needs, different attention spans, different ways of processing information, and different expectations about the conversation. The more we can prepare them, guide them, and make it easier for them to listen well, the more likely we are to achieve understanding.

Listening will always be a shared responsibility. While we should all continue to develop our own listening skills, we can also become better communicators by taking some responsibility for how our message is received.

Key Takeaways

  • Listening is a shared responsibility. Yes, we should all try to become better listeners. But if we only think about listening from the listener’s perspective, we miss half of the conversation.
  • As speakers, we have more influence than we sometimes realise.
  • By preparing people for the conversation, choosing the right listener, explaining what kind of listening you need and making your message easier to process, you dramatically increase the chances of being heard.
  • Sometimes the difference between feeling listened to or not listened to isn’t finding a better listener. It’s helping the listener you already have.
by

The power of SCARF and how to make feedback work better, and feel better

,

This post explores how the SCARF model can help managers make feedback conversations more effective and meaningful and provides practical tips and insights on how managers can better understand reactions, build stronger connections and influence future behaviour.

  • Reading time
  • 7 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Managers and leaders who want to better understand how to influence others, have better feedback conversations, and bring about positive change in the workplace.

The intention behind giving feedback is to bring about positive change in the workplace by influencing future behaviour and outcomes. Sometimes that means helping someone improve. At other times, it’s about recognising success, reinforcing effective behaviours, clarifying expectations, or addressing issues before they become bigger problems.

Whether a feedback conversation achieves its goal depends on many factors, but two stand out: the person giving the feedback and the person receiving it. Both play an active role in determining whether the conversation leads to understanding, acceptance and ultimately, positive change. When both have the skills and confidence to engage in an open, constructive dialogue, the chances of success increase significantly.

Of course, not all feedback conversations are equally challenging. Positive feedback—recognising good work or encouraging someone to continue doing what’s working well—is generally easier to give and easier to receive.

 

New Call-to-action

 

When the feedback is critical or corrective, the chances of success decrease because people are more likely to feel threatened or misunderstood.  The key word here is “feel”.

In feedback conversations, people don’t simply respond to the words they hear. They respond to what those words mean to them. A comment intended to be helpful can be interpreted as criticism. A suggestion can feel like a personal attack. When people perceive a threat—whether that threat is real or not—their ability to listen, reflect and respond is limited. Perceived threat invokes a primal response (fight or flight) and we can no longer hear what the rational brain is saying.

This is where the SCARF model, developed by neuroscientist David Rock, helps us understand what is happening beneath the surface.

The SCARF model: Minimize danger – Maximize reward

David Rock believes that our response has its roots in the way our brains deal with perceived danger and how we always seek to minimise threats and maximise rewards. He developed it into a model of 5 areas that influence our behaviour, the SCARF model.

Watch the video here:

 

Managers who want to influence others, their job is to find just the right levers to move people into that ‘maximize reward’ state. Leaders tend to know all about the carrot and stick. They use money and other external rewards to try to motivate people. Turns out there are often far more powerful rewards and threats going on inside people’s heads that are generating their behavior. So if you want to be the best that you can be at influencing others, you need to better understand what makes people tick.

Dr. David Rock

 

As Dr. Rock explains in the video, these five factors have a tremendous impact on our motivation on whether we are in a “reward” state or a “danger” state.

  • Status – our relative importance to others
  • Certainty – our ability to predict the future
  • Autonomy – our sense of control over events
  • Relatedness – how safe we feel with others
  • Fairness – how fair we perceive the exchanges between people to be

Understanding what happens beneath the surface is only valuable if it changes what we do above the surface. The SCARF model gives us insight into why people may react the way they do during feedback conversations, but the real benefit comes from using that understanding to adapt our approach. Small changes in how we prepare, communicate and involve others can make all the difference between feedback that creates resistance and feedback that creates positive change.

S – Status 

How we see ourselves in relation to others – do we feel respected, valued and competent.

Research shows that a perceived loss of status activates many of the same brain regions associated with physical pain. When people feel that their competence or value is under threat, they’re far less likely to listen openly to feedback.

The opposite is equally true. When feedback reinforces our sense of competence or recognises our contribution, it activates the brain’s reward response. That’s why genuine recognition from someone we respect can be so motivating.
Before giving feedback, ask yourself:

  • How might this person perceive my status in relation to theirs?
  • Am I reinforcing their sense of value, or unintentionally threatening it?
  • What can I do to reduce unnecessary status differences before giving the feedback?

Practical tips: 

  • Remember that status is personal. It isn’t only determined by job title or hierarchy; it’s also influenced by experience, expertise, reputation and how valued people feel.
  • Status derives from credibility but also from knowledge and competence, so if you lack credibility with a specific audience you can gain it from demonstrating what you know/can do
  • Build credibility before offering challenge. People are more receptive when they trust your intentions and believe you understand their work.
  • Use inclusive language. Words like we, us and our encourage collaboration, while excessive use of <emI and you can reinforce unnecessary hierarchy.
  • Protect status by recognising the person’s value, experience and contribution before addressing concerns. Genuine recognition helps protect a person’s sense of competence and reduces defensiveness.
  • Help people feel valued. Everyone wants to know that their contribution matters, regardless of their role.

C – Certainty

The brain is a certainty-seeking machine, constantly trying to predict what’s going to happen. When we have a clear understanding of what to expect, we generally feel safer and more able to focus on the conversation. When we don’t, uncertainty can quickly become a threat.

This is particularly relevant in feedback conversations. When people know why the conversation is happening, what will be discussed, or what is expected of them, they may spend less energy trying to interpret the situation and more on listening to the feedback. By creating clarity around the purpose, process and desired outcome of the conversation, managers can help people feel more prepared and more open.

Practical tips: 

  • Explain the purpose of the conversation. Don’t leave people guessing why you want to talk. A simple explanation can reduce unnecessary uncertainty.
  • Set expectations about the process. Let the person know what you would like to discuss and how the conversation will work.
  • Be clear about what is expected. People feel more confident when they understand their role, responsibilities and what success looks like.
  • Communicate even when there is uncertainty. If you don’t have all the answers, explain what you know, what you are still exploring and when you expect to know more.
  • Focus on what can be influenced. When outcomes are uncertain, clarity about purpose, priorities and next steps can provide stability.

A – Autonomy

Autonomy is our need to feel that we have some control over our work, our choices and the way we approach challenges. It is closely linked to motivation because people are more engaged when they feel they have ownership.

Autonomy is also closely connected to certainty. When we cannot predict what will happen, it can be difficult to feel that we have any control over our situation.

Autonomy is particularly important in feedback conversations. If feedback is intended to create growth and development, managers need to avoid simply prescribing the solution. Telling someone exactly what to do may create short-term compliance, but helping them reflect, explore options and find their own path builds greater ownership and commitment. The idea of having options, i.e. making choices, is important to a person’s sense of control.

Practical tips: 

  • Focus on the outcome, not every step. Be clear about needs to be achieved while allowing the person to consider how they will get there.
  • Ask before telling. Encourage reflection by asking questions such as, “How do you see the situation?” or “What options do you think would work?”
  • Offer choices where possible. Even small opportunities to make decisions can strengthen a person’s sense of ownership.
  • Create psychological safety. People need to feel they can share their perspective, admit mistakes and express concerns without fear of negative consequences.
  • Balance support with independence. Provide guidance and resources while allowing the person to take responsibility for their development.
  • The idea of having options, i.e. making choices, is important to a sense of control

R – Relatedness

Relatedness is about our sense of connection and belonging with others. It is the feeling that we are understood, respected and valued as individuals.

When we feel connected with the people around us we are more likely to be open, share our thoughts, and reflect on our own behaviours.

Relatedness is often communicated through small interactions: listening attentively, showing interest, acknowledging someone’s perspective, or simply demonstrating that their contribution matters. These signals help people understand that they are part of a supportive relationship rather than being evaluated.

Practical tips: 

  • Build trust before you need it. A strong relationship makes feedback conversations easier and more productive.
  • Show that you understand the person, not just the performance issue. Consider their perspective, circumstances and intentions.
  • Listen before responding. People are more open to feedback when they feel genuinely heard.
  • Use feedback as a two-way dialogue. Invite discussion and encourage the person to share their view.
  • Create connection across teams. Help people understand how their work contributes to a wider purpose and shared goals.

F – Fairness

Fairness is about our perception of whether things are reasonable, consistent and just. Importantly, fairness does not mean treating everyone exactly the same. People have different roles, responsibilities, experiences and circumstances. What matters is that people understand the principles behind decisions and feel they are being treated with respect.

Because fairness is subjective, two people can experience the same situation very differently. What feels reasonable to one person may feel unfair to another. When we perceive unfairness, our brain quickly moves into a defensive response. This is particularly relevant in feedback conversations; If someone believes they are being singled out, judged more harshly than others, or held to unclear standards, they are less likely to focus on the feedback . Instead, they may focus on whether the process feels fair.

Managers can reduce this threat by being clear about expectations, explaining the reasons behind decisions, and applying standards consistently. When exceptions are necessary, explaining the context helps people understand why a different approach is appropriate.

Practical tips:

  • Explain the “why”. Help people understand the reasoning behind decisions, expectations or changes.
  • Apply clear and consistent standards. People are more accepting of different outcomes when they understand the principles behind them.
  • Recognise contribution, not preference. Ensure rewards, opportunities and recognition are linked to achievements and behaviours rather than personal relationships.
  • Be transparent about decisions. Sharing the factors considered can help people see that decisions were thoughtful rather than arbitrary.
  • Consider different perspectives. Encourage people to explore situations from multiple viewpoints to build understanding and reduce assumptions.

Summary & Key Takeaways

Feedback conversations are about much more than the words being exchanged. Beneath every conversation, people are also responding to what the feedback means for them. Do they feel valued? Do they understand what is happening? Do they feel they have a voice? Do they trust the person giving the feedback? Do they believe the process is fair?

The SCARF model helps us understand these underlying responses through five social needs: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness.

When these needs are supported, people are more likely to feel safe, listen openly and engage constructively. When they are threatened, even well-intentioned feedback can trigger defensiveness, resistance or disengagement.

  • Remember the person behind the performance – Feedback is received by a person, not just a role or job title. Consider how your message may be experienced, not just what you intend to communicate.
  • Reduce unnecessary threats – People are less likely to engage when they feel their status, security, independence, relationships or sense of fairness are under threat.
  • Create clarity – Explain why you are having the conversation, what you want to discuss and what happens next. Reducing uncertainty helps people focus on the feedback itself.
  • Protect ownership – Don’t just provide answers. Where possible, involve people in finding solutions and deciding how they can move forward.
  • Build relationships – Strong relationships make it easier to have feedback conversations.Trust and connection make feedback easier to give and easier to receive.
  • Make fairness visible – Explain your reasoning, apply standards consistently and recognise that fair does not always mean identical.
  • Focus on the outcome, not just the conversation – The goal of feedback is not simply to deliver a message. The goal is to create understanding, encourage reflection and influence future behaviour.

To wrap up

We hope you’ll consider using the power of SCARF in your next feedback conversation. For more feedback content, these posts might be of interest to you:

by

Building Trust in Working Relationships: The Behaviours That Make People Trust You

, ,

This post provides a practial framework for understanding trust and explores the everyday behaviours that increase and weaken it. 

  • Reading time
  • 5 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Leaders, managers, facilitators, and professionals who want to improve collaboration, strengthen relationships, and build trust within their teams.

Introduction

Trust is one of those things we know is important, but often struggle to define. We know when we don’t have it. A lack of trust is easy to define. Conversations feel guarded, commitments are questioned, and collaboration becomes harder. But when someone asks us “How exactly do you build trust?”, the answer is often surprisingly vague.

In this article, we’ll explore a practical way to understand trust in working relationships: the Trust Equation. Developed by David Maister, Charles Green and Robert Galford, this model breaks trust down into four elements that influence how trustworthy others perceive us to be: credibility, reliability, intimacy and self-orientation.

By understanding these elements, we can move beyond the idea that trust is simply something we “have” or “don’t have” and instead focus on the everyday behaviours that build stronger professional relationships.

Why use it?

For the teams we work with, being able to break down trust into specific and easy-to-understand elements is always a great first step to identifying how to demonstrate behaviours that can build more trust. In short: the Trust Equation helps teams move from “we need more trust” to understanding exactly what behaviours create it, because it:

  1. creates a shared language
  2. shows trust can be developed
  3. improves collaboration
  4. helps leaders understand their impact
  5. diagnoses relationship challenges
  6. supports modern, distributed teams

New Call-to-action

The Trust Equation: Four factors that influence trust 

The Trust Equation is useful in the workplace because it turns something that often feels vague and personal (“I trust this person”) into something we can understand, discuss and improve. Many organisations talk about the importance of trust, but people often mean different things by it. One person might think trust means competence. Another might think it means honesty. Someone else might define it as feeling safe enough to speak openly.

The Trust Equation (David Maister, Charles Green & Robert Galford, 2004, The Trusted Advisor) breaks down trust (T) into an equation of 4 elements:

  • C = Credibility – Do people believe I know what I’m talking about?
  • R = Reliability – Can people count on me?
  • I = Intimacy – Do people feel safe being open with me?
  • S = Self-Orientation – Do people believe I care about their needs, or mainly my own?

 

For trust to “work” in the workplace, it requires high scores in the first three elements (C, R, I) but a low score in the final one (S). In other words, the Trust Equation tells us that high self-orientation undermines the other elements that are essential for trust.

How to Build (or Lose) Trust in the Workplace

Credibility – “Do people believe I know what I’m talking about?”

Credibility is about the confidence others have in your knowledge, skills and judgement. You don’t need to have all the answers but that you are as competent and honest about your abilities.

You build credibility by:

  • demonstrating your expertise through your work
  • communicating clearly and confidently
  • backing up your opinions with evidence or experience
  • admitting when you don’t know something and finding the answer

You lose credibility by:

  • exaggerating your knowledge
  • making claims you can’t support
  • giving inconsistent information
  • pretending to know more than you do

Reliability – “Can people count on me?”

Reliability is about consistency. People trust colleagues who do what they say they will do. Reliability isn’t about doing everything perfectly or always being available. It’s about being dependable and communicating clearly.

You build reliability by:

  • meeting deadlines
  • following through on commitments
  • preparing for meetings
  • communicating early if plans need to change
  • doing the small things consistently well

You lose reliability by:

  • frequently missing deadlines
  • overpromising and underdelivering
  • forgetting commitments
  • failing to keep people informed

Intimacy – “Do people feel safe being open with me?”

Intimacy in the workplace means creating a sense of psychological safety where people feel comfortable being honest, asking questions or admitting mistakes. People trust those who make them feel respected rather than judged.

You build intimacy by:

  • listening without interrupting
  • showing empathy
  • respecting confidentiality
  • asking genuine questions
  • admitting your own mistakes
  • giving people your full attention

You weaken intimacy by:

  • dismissing concerns
  • interrupting frequently
  • gossiping
  • reacting defensively
  • criticising people rather than ideas

Self-orientation – “Whose interests come first?”

Self-orientation is about where people believe your attention is focused. When people believe you’re primarily interested in helping yourself, trust declines—even if you’re highly competent.

You reduce self-orientation by:

  • asking more questions than you answer
  • being curious about other people’s priorities
  • sharing credit
  • listening before offering solutions
  • making decisions that benefit the team, not just yourself

High self-orientation often looks like:

  • dominating conversations
  • constantly promoting your own ideas
  • taking credit for shared success
  • ignoring other people’s concerns
  • focusing on being right

Final thoughts

Trust is built through hundreds of small, everyday interactions. The Trust Equation reminds us that trust is less about intention and more about experience. People trust us when they see consistent competence, reliability, openness and genuine concern for their interests.

The good news is that every element of the equation can be strengthened through deliberate behaviour. Rather than asking, “How can I get people to trust me?”, a better question is, “Which part of the Trust Equation should I improve today?”

Trusted Advisor offers a free Trust Quotient Assessment which we highly recommend because the results include feedback on which elements are strengths and weaknesses for you.

by

The Manager’s Guide to Building Trust: Understanding Emotional Bank Accounts

, ,

This post explores Stephen R. Covey’s Emotional Bank Account concept and how managers can use it to strengthen relationships, improve communication, and create higher-performing teams. It includes practical ways to make more positive deposits, repair trust when withdrawals happen, and a 10-minute reflection activity to help you assess your own team relationships.

  • Reading time
  • 8 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Managers, team leaders, and anyone responsible for building trust, engagement, and performance within a team.

Whether you’re leading a team through change, managing a hybrid workforce, or trying to improve performance, the quality of your relationships has a direct impact on your success as a manager. When there is trust between people, they are more likely to share ideas, raise concerns, accept feedback, and work collaboratively. When trust is lacking, even routine conversations can become difficult.

One of the most useful ways to think about trust in the workplace comes from Stephen R. Covey’s concept of the Emotional Bank Account, from The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Every interaction either makes a deposit or a withdrawal. In Covey’s own words:

 

“An emotional bank account is a metaphor that describes the amount of trust that’s been built up in a relationship.  It’s the feeling of safeness you have with another human being.  When the trust account is high, communication is easy, instant, and effective.”

 

Deposits are made through positive actions—such as keeping promises, listening with empathy, recognising good work, and treating people with respect. Withdrawals are made through negative actions: dismissing concerns, breaking commitments, or failing to communicate openly.

For managers, this analogy is a practical leadership tool. Every conversation, decision, and action either strengthens or weakens the relationships that underpin team performance. Understanding how to make regular deposits into your team’s emotional bank accounts can help create an environment where people feel valued, supported, and motivated to do their best work.

New Call-to-action

Why should managers care about emotional bank accounts?

Few managers would argue against the importance of trust. Most leaders want to build positive, productive relationships where people feel respected, valued, and motivated to do their best work. Leadership qualities such as authenticity, credibility, empathy, and trust continue to be recognised as essential for effective management.

Building strong relationships is about much more than being a “nice” manager. Trust has a measurable impact on performance. Meaningful and strong relationships in the workplace lead directly to tangible results. Teams with high levels of trust tend to experience better communication, stronger engagement, and higher levels of commitment.

As a manager, your success is closely linked to the success of your team. Every interaction—whether you’re delegating work, coaching, recognising achievements, resolving conflict, leading meetings, or having a difficult conversation—either strengthens or weakens the relationships that support high performance. These everyday moments are opportunities to make deposits into, or withdrawals from, your team’s emotional bank accounts.

Managers who consistently invest in relationships build the trust needed to navigate challenges, encourage innovation, and sustain performance over the long term. Conversely, when withdrawals outweigh deposits, trust begins to erode. Without that foundation, even the most capable teams can struggle with engagement, collaboration, and accountability.

How do you build a healthy emotional bank account with your team?

Trust is built through consistent, everyday behaviour. While every individual and team is different, Stephen Covey identified several practical ways managers can make regular “deposits” into their team’s emotional bank accounts.

Understand the individual

Everyone values different things. One employee may appreciate public recognition, while another would rather receive a quiet thank you. Taking time to understand what motivates each person, how they like to be recognised, and what matters to them allows you to build stronger, more meaningful relationships.

Keep your commitments

One of the quickest ways to build trust is to do what you say you’ll do. Keeping promises, following through on commitments, being reliable, and respecting deadlines all demonstrate that people can depend on you. Equally, broken promises and missed commitments quickly become withdrawals.

Clarify expectations

Misunderstandings often arise because people make different assumptions. Taking time to agree on priorities, responsibilities, deadlines, and expected outcomes helps prevent confusion and reduces unnecessary frustration—particularly when working remotely or across different locations.

Pay attention to the little things

Small actions can have a lasting impact. Saying thank you, checking in on someone’s wellbeing, remembering important milestones, listening without distractions, or simply making time for a conversation all help strengthen relationships. These everyday moments often matter more than grand gestures.

Demonstrate personal integrity

Trust grows when managers act consistently and fairly. Being honest, admitting mistakes, treating people with respect, and behaving in line with your values all reinforce your credibility. Integrity isn’t something you switch on when it’s convenient—it’s reflected in your actions every day.

When you make a withdrawal, apologise sincerely

Every manager makes mistakes, misses commitments, or says the wrong thing. What matters is how we respond.

A sincere apology can be one of the most powerful deposits you make after a withdrawal. Acknowledging your actions, taking responsibility, and making amends demonstrates humility, integrity, and respect. It also shows your team that accountability applies to everyone—not just them.

Managers who apologise when they’ve got it wrong don’t lose credibility—they often strengthen it. Admitting mistakes builds trust and creates a culture where people feel safe to learn, take responsibility, and support one another.

Putting emotional bank accounts into practice – A 10-minute activity for managers

Understanding the idea of emotional bank accounts is useful, but the real value comes from applying it to your own relationships. Every manager has relationships that are strong, relationships that need attention, and moments where they may have made more withdrawals than deposits.

The following activity is designed to help you reflect on your current relationships with your team and identify practical actions you can take to build more trust. It isn’t about judging yourself or creating a perfect balance sheet—it is about increasing your awareness and making intentional choices about how you lead.

Step 1: Choose five people

Write down the names of five team members who are critical to your team’s success.

Step 2: Review your recent interactions

Look back over the past two weeks. Use your calendar, emails, messages, and memory to identify moments that were likely to be deposits or withdrawals.

For each person, create two simple lists:

**Deposits**

  • Listened without interrupting
  • Recognised good work
  • Kept a commitment
  • Offered support or coaching
  • Showed appreciation

**Withdrawals**

  • Cancelled or rushed a meeting
  • Failed to follow through
  • Gave unclear expectations
  • Dismissed a contribution
  • Had a difficult conversation that didn’t go well

Don’t worry about making the list perfect—you’re looking for patterns rather than keeping score.

Step 3: Think about what matters to them

Now put your notes aside for a while. When you come back, write down what you know about each person.

  • What motivates them?
  • What gives them energy?
  • How do they prefer to receive recognition?
  • How do they like to communicate?
  • What behaviours from a manager help them feel trusted and valued?

Remember, deposits are personal. What builds trust with one employee may have little impact—or even feel like a withdrawal—to another.

Step 4: Make a plan

Looking at your notes, ask yourself:

  • Which relationships need more deposits?
  • What could I do differently over the next month?
  • What specific opportunities already exist in my calendar?

Rather than making a vague commitment to “be a better listener”, identify real moments where you can put it into practice. For example, use your next one-to-one meeting to ask more questions before offering solutions, or take time to recognise a recent achievement.

Small, consistent deposits build trust over time. Choose one or two actions and commit to making them part of your everyday leadership.

Key takeaways

Building healthy emotional bank accounts is not about occasional big gestures. It is about the small, consistent actions that shape how people experience working with you.

The key points to remember are:

  • Trust is built through everyday interactions. Every conversation, decision, and action can either strengthen or weaken a relationship.
  • Deposits are personal. What one person experiences as recognition or support may not have the same impact on someone else. Take time to understand the individuals in your team.
  • Reliability matters. Keeping commitments, clarifying expectations, and following through are some of the simplest ways to build trust.
  • Mistakes happen. Effective managers recognise when they have made a withdrawal, take responsibility, and work to rebuild trust.
  • Strong relationships enable performance. Emotional bank accounts are not separate from results—they are one of the foundations that allow teams to collaborate, adapt, and succeed.

Great managers don’t build trust through one big action. They build it through hundreds of small deposits made consistently over time.

by

The Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse at Work: Contempt and Stonewalling

, ,

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.

  • Reading time
  • 10 Minutes
  • 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.

New Call-to-action

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.

 

by

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse at Work: Criticism and Defensiveness

,

This post explores the patterns behind the two “Horsemen” criticism and defensiveness— and offers practical ways to break the cycle.

  • Reading time
  • 8 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Managers, team leaders and professionals who want to build more open, constructive and productive working relationships — particularly when conversations become difficult.

In our previous post, we introduced the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling — and looked at how these behaviours can undermine trust, communication and collaboration in the workplace. In this post, we’re going to take a closer look at the first two: criticism and defensiveness, and the relationship between them. We’ll explore why criticism and blame can so easily trigger defensiveness, and what we can do to break this pattern and have more constructive conversations at work.

Changing patterns of behaviour is about much more than finding the perfect words or following a set of communication rules. It starts with a shift in mindset — noticing our instinctive reactions and choosing a more constructive way to respond.

For criticism and defensiveness, that mindset shift can be summed up in two simple principles:

  • Criticism: Focus on the issue, not the person.
  • Defensiveness: Get curious before getting defensive.

New Call-to-action

Why do we criticise?

Often, criticism comes from perfectly understandable instincts:

  • We want things to improve. We notice a problem and point it out because we believe doing so will help.
  • We have high standards. We see what could be better and feel responsible for making sure standards are maintained.
  • We want to prevent mistakes. After something goes wrong, identifying what someone did incorrectly can feel like a way of stopping it happening again.
  • We’re frustrated. When the same problem happens repeatedly, our patience wears thin and our language can become more personal.
  • We feel threatened or challenged. Someone else’s mistake, different approach or disagreement can make us question our own position, competence or authority.
  • We’re trying to make sense of what happened. When something goes wrong, finding someone or something to blame can give us a simple explanation, even when the reality is more complicated.
  • It’s become a habit. Some people are naturally more focused on problems and gaps. If pointing out what’s wrong has worked for them in the past, it can become their default response.

Criticism: when does the pattern emerge?

1. When someone feels criticised

Criticism often starts with something legitimate. Someone misses a deadline, makes a mistake, doesn’t follow through on an agreement or approaches a task differently from how we expected. Raising the issue is perfectly reasonable. Having the conversation is necessary.

You don’t need to be communicating badly for the other person to experience criticism. Criticism is much more subtle — your words can be experienced as criticism even when you believe they are simply addressing a problem.

Imagine saying to someone: “The report was due yesterday, and I still haven’t received it. We need to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

On the surface, this is a reasonable conversation about performance and expectations. But imagine that to someone who already feels under pressure, it sounds like critisism: They think I’m unreliable. They don’t trust me to do my job.

That is an important distinction. Criticism is not only about the words that are used; it is also about the judgement the other person feels is being made about them.

The pattern can emerge when a person begins to feel that individual mistakes or behaviours are being interpreted as evidence of a wider problem with who they are, their competence or their commitment. Once that happens, even legitimate feedback can feel personal — and the receiver may become more concerned with defending their reputation than addressing the original issue.

2. When criticism becomes part of the team dynamic

Criticism can also emerge as a pattern between team members. It may start with legitimate differences of opinion, frustration about how work is being done or repeated problems with a colleague. Raising concerns and challenging each other is perfectly reasonable. In fact, healthy teams need people who are willing to do this.

The pattern emerges when criticism becomes a regular part of how people interact. One person may frequently point out another’s mistakes, question their decisions or focus on what they could have done better. The comments may not always be unreasonable, and the person making them may genuinely believe they are helping the team improve.

But when someone is repeatedly on the receiving end, the dynamic can change. They may start to feel that their work is being scrutinised, that their colleague is looking for faults, or that whatever they do will be judged. They become more cautious, less willing to share ideas or admit mistakes — and may start anticipating criticism before it even happens.

This can create a cycle. The more criticised someone feels, the more defensive they may become. The more defensive they become, the more the other person may feel that they are unwilling to listen, take responsibility or improve. And that can lead to even more criticism.

Over time, what began as an attempt to address individual issues can become a relationship pattern. The conversation is no longer simply about what happened; the people involved have developed expectations about each other.

The mindset shift here is to recognise when challenge has become criticism. Healthy teams need people who question, challenge and give feedback. But when one person consistently becomes the focus of another person’s criticism, it is worth stepping back and asking: Are we actually addressing the issue, or are we simply following a pattern that has developed between us?

3. When criticism is a personal habit

There’s probably someone in every team who has developed a habit of spotting what’s wrong. The person who is quick to point out the flaw in an idea, the mistake in a report or what could have been done better. They may be the first to ask, “But what about…?” or to explain why something won’t work.

And sometimes, they are right. They may a good eye for detail or a genuine desire to help the team avoid mistakes. Their intention may be to improve things, not to criticise people.

The pattern emerges when pointing out what’s wrong becomes their default response. Whatever the situation, the focus tends to go to the problem, the omission or the mistake. Over time, colleagues may start to anticipate the criticism and become less willing to share ideas, take risks or speak up.

The person doing the criticising may not even realise that this pattern is impacting the team. From their perspective, they may simply be contributing, being honest or making sure standards are maintained. But if the first response to an idea is always to find the flaw, it can have an impact on how others experience working with them.

The mindset shift is to become aware of that instinct and create some space before responding. Do I need to point this out right now? What else is worth noticing? And will what I’m about to say help the person or the team move forward?

When does criticism become one of the Four Horsemen?

It’s worth making a distinction here. Criticism isn’t the same as raising a concern, giving feedback or pointing out something that needs to improve. Teams need people who are willing to do all of these things.

Criticism becomes problematic when a concern about a specific behaviour starts to become a negative judgement about the person. Instead of focusing on what happened, we start making assumptions about who they are, their character, their competence or their intentions.

This is what makes criticism one of Gottman’s Four Horsemen. The problem isn’t that we notice faults or disagree with someone’s actions. It’s when the message shifts from “There’s a problem with what happened” towards “There’s a problem with you.”

That shift can be obvious, as in “You’re unreliable,” but it can also be much more subtle. A person can feel judged even when no explicit personal criticism is made. Context, tone, history and the relationship between the people involved can all influence how a comment is experienced.

And once criticism enters the interaction, it can easily trigger another of the Horsemen: defensiveness. When people feel that their competence, intentions or character are being questioned, protecting themselves can become more important than addressing the original issue.

Defensiveness: when does the pattern emerge?

Defensiveness is often an understandable response. When we feel criticised, blamed, misunderstood or unfairly judged, our instinct may be to protect ourselves. We explain, justify, correct the facts, point out what someone else did wrong or try to prove that we are not responsible.

The problem in teams is not necessarily the first defensive reaction. We all have moments when we feel the need to explain ourselves. The pattern emerges when protecting ourselves becomes more important than understanding what the other person is trying to tell us.

1. When we feel criticised or blamed

Defensiveness can be triggered surprisingly easily, particularly when we hear something that threatens our sense of competence, professionalism, good intentions or sense of self.

Any explanation that you give in defense may be completely valid. But if the conversation continues with more explanations, justifications or about whose fault it was, he original issue can quickly get lost. This is where defensiveness can become unhelpful. Instead of hearing the feedback and considering what might be useful in it, we become focused on not taking the blame or proving that we are not at fault.

And the more we feel the need to defend ourselves, the less space there is to be curious about the other person’s perspective. The mindset is to pause before defending and ask yourself: “What can I understand from what they’re saying?”

2. When defensiveness is part of the team dynamic

Defensiveness can also become a pattern between people. If one colleague regularly feels criticised by another, they may begin to expect criticism and automatically prepare to defend themselves. A simple question can then feel like a challenge. A request for an explanation can feel like an accusation. Feedback can feel like an attack.

The other person may notice this and become frustrated: “I can’t say anything without them getting defensive.” They may then become more direct, provide more evidence or push their point harder. In response, the other person becomes even more defensive.

Over time, both people can become locked into their roles. One becomes the person who is always “raising the issue”, while the other becomes the person who is always “making excuses”. Each sees their own behaviour as a reasonable response to the other.

The mindset shift here is to recognise when you’re no longer responding to what is being said, but to what you expect the other person to say. Before reacting, ask: “What are they actually saying right now?”

3. When defensiveness is a personal habit

There’s probably someone in every team who finds it difficult to receive feedback. Whatever the issue, they have an explanation. If something goes wrong, there is a reason. If someone raises a concern, they can quickly explain why it isn’t really their responsibility. Again, the explanations may be perfectly legitimate. Sometimes we genuinely are being misunderstood or unfairly blamed.

But if the instinctive response is always to explain, justify or counter, it can become a habit. Other people may eventually stop offering feedback because they expect a defensive response, or they may feel they need to build an increasingly strong case before raising an issue.

The person themselves may not recognise the pattern. From their perspective, they may simply be making sure the facts are understood or defending themselves against unfair criticism.

The mindset shift is to create some space between hearing something we disagree with and responding to it. Try asking a question before offering an explanation: “Can you tell me more about what you mean?” or “What was the impact from your perspective?”

You don’t have to agree with everything you hear. Getting curious simply gives you the opportunity to understand before you defend.

When does defensiveness become one of the Four Horsemen?

It’s worth making the same distinction here. Defending yourself isn’t necessarily a problem. If you’re being unfairly blamed or misunderstood, explaining your perspective is perfectly reasonable. We all need to be able to clarify facts, correct misunderstandings and challenge unfair assumptions.

Defensiveness becomes problematic when protecting ourselves takes priority over engaging with the issue. Instead of listening to what the other person is saying, we immediately justify our actions, explain why it wasn’t our fault, shift responsibility elsewhere or point out what the other person has done wrong.

This is what makes defensiveness one of Gottman’s Four Horsemen. It’s not simply about disagreeing or standing up for yourself. It’s about responding to a perceived criticism in a way that closes down the possibility of taking anything from the conversation.

And, like criticism, defensiveness doesn’t always have to be obvious. It can be subtle: “Yes, but…”, “I only did that because…”, “Nobody told me,” or “Well, you did exactly the same thing.” Each response may contain some truth. The question is whether we’re using that truth to understand the situation or to protect ourselves from having to engage with the feedback.

There is also a strong connection between the two behaviours. Criticism can trigger defensiveness, and defensiveness can trigger more criticism. One person feels judged and starts defending themselves; the other experiences that defence as unwillingness to listen or take responsibility and pushes harder. Before long, both people are responding to each other rather than addressing the original issue.

The mindset shift is therefore not “I must never defend myself.” It is: “Can I stay curious long enough to understand what is being said before I decide how I need to respond?”

What can a manager do when they see criticism and defensiveness within their team?

When criticism and defensiveness become part of a team dynamic, it can be tempting for a manager to step in and decide who is right. But this rarely solves the underlying problem. The more useful role is to help people recognise the pattern, understand what is happening and find a more constructive way forward.

Name the pattern, not the person

If you notice the same interaction happening repeatedly, describe what you are seeing without assigning blame. For example: “I’ve noticed that when this issue comes up, one of you raises the concern and the other immediately starts explaining why it happened. Then the concern gets repeated more strongly, and the conversation goes around in circles.”

This makes the pattern visible without labelling either person as “the critic” or “the defensive one”.

Bring the conversation back to the issue

When people become caught up in criticism and defensiveness, the original problem can disappear. Help them return to the specific issue: What happened? What was the impact? What does each person see differently? What needs to happen next?

Keeping the conversation grounded in facts and future actions can make it easier to move away from personal judgements and self-protection.

Give both sides space to be heard

It’s important that the person raising the concern feels able to do so, while the person receiving it has an opportunity to explain their perspective. One shouldn’t automatically cancel out the other.

Ask: “What do you need the other person to understand?” And then ask: “What would you like them to understand about your perspective?”

The aim is to make sure both people understand what the other is experiencing.

Challenge the behaviour when necessary

Sometimes the manager needs to be more direct. If criticism becomes personal or dismissive, address it. If someone repeatedly refuses to engage with legitimate feedback, address that too.

The message can be simple: “It’s okay to challenge the feedback. It’s not okay to dismiss the person giving it.”

Or: “You can explain your perspective, but I also need you to consider the feedback rather than immediately explaining why it isn’t your responsibility.”

This reinforces an important distinction: being accountable and being blamed are not the same thing, and being challenged is not the same as being attacked.

Help people change the pattern

Finally, don’t expect one conversation to fix an established dynamic. If criticism and defensiveness have become habitual, people may need to practise responding differently.

Encourage small mindset shifts: focus on the issue rather than the person; get curious before becoming defensive; ask questions before making assumptions; and pause when emotions start to take over.

The manager’s role is to create a team where people can notice these patterns, interrupt them and get back to having the conversation that actually needs to happen.

Key takeaways

  • Criticism isn’t the same as feedback. Healthy teams need people who can raise concerns, challenge ideas and address problems. Criticism becomes problematic when the focus shifts from the behaviour to a judgement about the person.
  • Criticism can be experienced even when it isn’t intended. Context, tone, history and relationships all influence how feedback is received. A reasonable comment can still feel personal to someone who already feels under pressure or judged.
  • Criticism and defensiveness can create a cycle. One person feels criticised and becomes defensive; the other experiences that defensiveness as unwillingness to listen and pushes harder. Recognising the cycle is the first step towards breaking it.
  • Defensiveness is often a protective response. Explaining yourself or correcting a misunderstanding isn’t inherently defensive. The problem comes when protecting ourselves becomes more important than listening to what the other person is saying.
  • Patterns can become automatic. Criticism and defensiveness can develop into habits within individuals, relationships and teams. Once a pattern is established, people may start reacting to what they expect rather than to what is actually being said.
  • Curiosity creates space for a different response. Before defending yourself, try to understand the other person’s perspective. You don’t have to agree with the feedback to be curious about it.
  • Managers don’t need to decide who is right. When criticism and defensiveness become a team pattern, a manager can help people name the pattern, return to the issue and find a more constructive way forward.
  • The goal isn’t to eliminate disagreement. Successful teams need challenge, feedback and accountability. The goal is to make sure these don’t become personal — and that people can address difficult issues without damaging the relationships they depend on.
  • The mindset shift is simple, but not always easy: focus on the issue, not the person; and get curious before getting defensive.
by

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse at Work: 4 Behaviours That Can Damage Relationships

,

This post explores the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — four behaviours that can quietly undermine teamwork — and shares practical tips for recognising them and turning difficult conversations into more constructive ones.

  • Reading time
  • 7 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Team leaders, managers and professionals who want to build healthier, more effective teams.

Beyond clear goals, good processes and effective leadership (among other things), the quality of the relationships within the team is fundamental to its health and success. Healthy teams are able to disagree, challenge ideas and have difficult conversations. When people feel able to speak openly, listen to different perspectives and address problems constructively, disagreements can lead to better decisions and stronger relationships. When those interactions become personal, defensive or dismissive, the same conversations can gradually erode trust and collaboration.

Of course, communicating well is relatively easy when things are going well. Most teams can share information, coordinate tasks and have constructive conversations when there’s little at stake. The real test comes when the conversation is difficult — when someone has made a mistake, expectations haven’t been met, opinions clash or emotions start to run high. It’s in these moments that the quality of our working relationships really shows.

New Call-to-action

Psychologist and relationship researcher John Gottman identified four behaviours that can be particularly damaging to relationships: criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. He called them the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”

Gottman developed this framework through research into intimate relationships rather than workplace teams, so we shouldn’t assume that his findings automatically apply to the world of work. However, the four behaviours themselves are surprisingly familiar in professional settings — and they offer a useful way of recognising patterns that can undermine trust, communication and teamwork.

This 2-minute video introduces them nicely.

So, what are the Four Horsemen — and what do they look like in a workplace?

The Four Horsemen are four patterns of behaviour that can gradually undermine relationships: criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling.

They don’t necessarily appear in every difficult conversation, and seeing one of them occasionally doesn’t mean a team has a serious problem. The concern is when these behaviours become habitual responses to disagreement, frustration or conflict.

So, what do they look like in practice?

The Four Horsemen can show up in surprisingly ordinary workplace conversations. Often, they’re not dramatic. They can be as simple as the way we phrase a comment, respond to feedback or react when someone challenges our point of view.

Criticism turns a discussion about a problem into an attack on the person. Instead of addressing what happened, we focus on what’s supposedly wrong: “You never listen,” “You always make things more complicated,” or “You’re not taking this seriously.”

Defensiveness is what happens when we respond to a perceived criticism by protecting ourselves rather than engaging with the issue. We make excuses, shift the blame or explain why it wasn’t really our responsibility: “It wasn’t my fault,” “Nobody told me,” or “What about the three times you did the same thing?”

Contempt goes a step further. It communicates that we see ourselves as superior to the other person. Sarcasm, ridicule, eye-rolling, dismissive comments, etc.

Stonewalling is withdrawing from a conversation rather than engaging with it. In the workplace, this can mean going silent, avoiding a difficult discussion, refusing to respond to concerns, or simply disengaging when things become uncomfortable.

Why the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse matter in the workplace

We have all probably displayed these 4 toxic behaviours at some point. We’re human, and difficult conversations can bring out the worst in us, particularly when we’re under pressure, frustrated or feeling challenged.. And whether you want to call them “the 4 horsemen” or “the 4 team toxins”, these behaviours matter in the workplace – and in a very tangible way.

The problem isn’t an occasional moment of criticism, defensiveness, contempt or withdrawal. The real concern is when these behaviours become patterns — ways of responding to disagreement or difficult conversations that people come to expect from one another.

And those patterns matter.

When the quality of interpersonal relationships starts to deteriorate, communication usually suffers too. People become less willing to speak openly, share ideas or raise concerns. Collaboration becomes harder, misunderstandings increase and problems that could have been resolved quickly are left to grow.

Over time, this can affect much more than the atmosphere in the team. Tasks and projects can take longer, quality can suffer and productivity can decline. Motivation, commitment and team spirit can erode, while frustration and destructive conflict become more common.

At its worst, a team can reach a point where people no longer feel respected, heard or valued. Stress increases, good people disengage, and eventually some may decide that they’ve simply had enough.

If we want teams to perform at their best, we need to pay attention not just to what people are saying, but to how they communicate when things get challenging. The Four Horsemen give us a useful framework for recognising those patterns — and, importantly, for doing something about them.

What can managers do about the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

Identifying these behaviours is a useful first step. The next step is to learn to shift your mindset when necessary and respond differently.

1. Focus on the issue, not the person

When you’re frustrated, it’s easy to turn a specific problem into a judgement about someone’s character. Instead of thinking “Why are they always so defensive?”, try asking: “What exactly is the problem here, and what do we need to resolve?” This helps you move away from criticism and towards a conversation about facts, impact and solutions.

2. Get curious before getting defensive

When someone challenges you or gives you difficult feedback, your first instinct may be to explain, justify or defend yourself. Try pausing and asking: “What can I learn from what they’re saying?”

You don’t have to agree with everything you hear. Staying curious simply gives you a chance to understand the other person’s perspective before you respond.

3. Assume positive intent — but address negative impact

Not every difficult comment is meant badly. And even well-intentioned people can have a negative impact. Rather than judging someone’s motives, consider: “What might they have intended, and what was the impact?” This can help prevent conversations from becoming personal while still allowing you to address behaviour that needs to change.

4. Stay respectful when you disagree

Disagreement doesn’t have to mean disrespect. In fact, successful teams need people who are willing to challenge ideas and offer different perspectives. Try separating the idea from the person. You can strongly disagree with a proposal while still showing respect for the person who made it.

5. Don’t confuse taking a break with walking away

Sometimes a difficult conversation becomes too emotional or unproductive to continue. Taking some time out can be a healthy choice — provided you come back to the conversation. Instead of shutting down or avoiding the issue, try: “I think we need a bit of time to cool down. Can we come back to this at 3pm?” The mindset shift is from “I need to get out of this conversation” to “I need to pause so we can have a better conversation.”

6. Ask yourself what you are contributing

The Four Horsemen aren’t just something we need to spot in other people. We should also be willing to recognise them in ourselves. When a conversation starts going badly, ask yourself: “What am I doing right now that is helping — or making things worse?” That small pause can be enough to change the direction of a conversation.

7. Replace “winning” with “understanding”

Difficult workplace conversations can easily become about proving that we’re right, defending our position or getting the other person to admit they’re wrong.

A more productive question is: “What would a good outcome for both of us look like?” That doesn’t mean compromising on everything. It means approaching the conversation as a shared problem to solve rather than a competition about who’s right.

Key takeaways

  • Healthy teams don’t avoid difficult conversations. They create an environment where people can disagree, challenge ideas and raise concerns respectfully.
  • The Four Horsemen are behaviours, not labels. We can all become critical, defensive, dismissive or withdrawn when we’re under pressure. The important thing is to recognise the pattern and change our response.
  • Pay attention to patterns, not isolated incidents. An occasional difficult interaction is normal. It’s when unhelpful behaviours become habitual that they can start to damage trust and collaboration.
  • Focus on the issue, not the person. Address what happened, its impact and what needs to change rather than making it about someone’s character or intentions.
  • Stay curious when you feel challenged. You don’t have to agree with someone to listen, understand their perspective and consider what you might learn.
  • Disagreement and respect can coexist. Successful teams need different opinions. The goal isn’t to eliminate conflict, but to handle it constructively.
  • Take a pause when necessary — but don’t avoid the conversation. Stepping away can help people reset. The important thing is to return and engage.
  • Look at your own behaviour too. The Four Horsemen aren’t just something to spot in other people. Ask yourself what you are contributing to the conversation.
  • Aim for understanding, not winning. The best difficult conversations aren’t about proving who is right. They’re about finding a way forward that allows the team and the working relationship to succeed.
by

Understanding Motivation: Three Leadership Lessons from TED Talks

,

This post explores three TED Talks that offer different perspectives on motivation and leadership. By looking at what makes work meaningful, how everyday actions shape leadership, and how mindset influences performance, it provides practical insights for managers who want to better understand what drives people and create the conditions for motivation to thrive.

  • Reading time
  • 7 Minutes
  • Target audience
  • Managers and leaders who want to better understand what motivates people, create more engaging work environments, and influence others more effectively.

Motivation is something that affects everyone in the workplace. At different times, we all experience moments when we feel energised, committed and connected to what we do—and moments when that motivation becomes harder to sustain.

Our motivation can be influenced by many external factors within the workplace. Poor communication, lack of recognition, unclear expectations, excessive control and limited opportunities to contribute can gradually reduce people’s engagement and commitment. Even highly capable and motivated individuals can become disengaged when they feel undervalued, disconnected or unable to influence their work.

So, what helps people stay motivated and engaged at work? While there is no single answer, motivation is often influenced by whether people feel that their work has meaning, that their contribution is valued, that they have a positive impact on others and that they are able to grow and succeed. Understanding what gives people a sense of value—both in the work they do and in the way they are treated—is a key part of understanding motivation.

The following TED Talks explore three different perspectives on motivation and leadership, offering insights into what drives people and how leaders can create environments where motivation can thrive. Together, they highlight some important questions that influence motivation: Do people feel that their work matters? Do they feel that they matter to others? And do they have the mindset and environment needed to perform at their best?

The videos in this post cover three questions related to motivation and leadership:

  • What makes work meaningful?
  • What does everyday leadership look like?
  • How does happiness influence performance?

 

New Call-to-action

What makes work meaningful?

Leadership lesson from Dan Ariely

We often assume motivation comes from rewards, recognition or incentives. Dan Ariely’s research explores a deeper question: what makes people feel that their work is worthwhile?

 

 “…If you read books of people who climb mountains, difficult mountains, do you think that those books are full of moments of joy and happiness? No, they are full of misery. In fact, it’s all about frostbite and having difficulty walking, and difficulty breathing — cold, challenging circumstances. And if people were just trying to be happy, the moment they would get to the top, they would say, ‘This was a terrible mistake. I’ll never do it again’…”

Dan Ariely

What is the key idea?
People are motivated by more than just external rewards. We are more engaged when we feel that our work has meaning, that our efforts are recognised and that what we do matters.

Why does it matter for managers?
Managers often focus on outcomes, deadlines and rewards, but motivation is also shaped by whether people can see the value of their contribution. When people understand the impact of their work, they are more likely to feel connected and committed.

What can managers do differently?

  • Help people see the bigger purpose behind their work.
  • Connect everyday tasks to the impact they create.
  • Recognise effort, progress and contribution—not just final results.
  • Avoid treating people as if they are simply completing tasks.

What does everyday leadership look like?

Leadership lesson from Drew Dudley

Leadership is often associated with big decisions, formal authority and visible achievements. Drew Dudley challenges this idea by exploring the everyday moments where leadership happens.

 

“…I’ve come to realize that we have made leadership into something bigger than us; something beyond us. We’ve made it about changing the world. We’ve taken this title of “leader” and treat it as something that one day we’re going to deserve. But to give it to ourselves right now means a level of arrogance or cockiness that we’re not comfortable with. And I worry sometimes that we spend so much time celebrating amazing things that hardly anybody can do, that we’ve convinced ourselves those are the only things worth celebrating. We start to devalue the things we can do every day. We take moments where we truly are a leader and we don’t let ourselves take credit for it, or feel good about it.”

Drew Dudley

What is the key idea?

Leadership is not limited to formal roles, titles or major achievements. Small everyday actions can have a significant impact on other people.

Why does it matter for managers?

Managers sometimes underestimate the influence they have through everyday interactions. A conversation, a word of encouragement or an act of recognition can shape how someone feels about themselves and their work.

What can managers do differently?

  • Pay attention to the small moments that influence others.
  • Recognise the positive impact people have on those around them.
  • Remember that leadership happens through behaviour, not just authority.
  • Consider how people feel after interacting with you.

How does happiness influence performance?

Leadership lesson from Shawn Achor

Happiness is sometimes viewed as a result of success. Shawn Achor explores the opposite idea: that our mindset and wellbeing can influence our ability to succeed.

“… One of the first things we teach people in economics, statistics, business and psychology courses is how, in a statistically valid way, do we eliminate the weirdos. How do we eliminate the outliers so we can find the line of best fit? Which is fantastic if I’m trying to find out how many Advil the average person should be taking — two. But if I’m interested in your potential, or happiness or productivity or energy or creativity, we’re creating the cult of the average with science. If I asked a question like, “How fast can a child learn how to read in a classroom?” scientists change the answer to “How fast does the average child learn how to read in that classroom?” and we tailor the class towards the average. If you fall below the average, then psychologists get thrilled, because that means you’re depressed or have a disorder, or hopefully both.”

What is the key idea?

Our mindset influences how we experience challenges, solve problems and perform. Success does not automatically create happiness; rather, a positive mindset can influence our energy, creativity and ability to achieve success.

Why does it matter for managers?

Managers have a significant influence on the emotional environment of their teams. The way leaders communicate, respond to challenges and recognise progress affects motivation and engagement.

What can managers do differently?

  • Create an environment where people feel supported and valued.
  • Focus attention on progress and possibilities, not only problems.
  • Recognise achievements and celebrate success.
  • Be aware of the energy and attitude you bring to conversations.

Final thoughts: Motivation is created through everyday experiences

Motivation is not something leaders can simply give to people. It is influenced by the everyday experiences people have at work: whether they see meaning in what they do, whether they feel valued by others and whether they have the mindset and support needed to perform at their best.

The lessons from these TED Talks remind us that motivation is not only about rewards and incentives. It is about creating an environment where people feel their work matters, their contribution is recognised and their potential is supported.

For managers, the challenge is not to find one perfect way to motivate people. It is to understand what helps people engage, contribute and thrive—and then create more of those conditions every day.

by