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.

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.