Tag Archive for: Psychological Safety

Managers avoid difficult conversations because they care too much about the wrong things

 This post explores the common reasons managers delay or avoid difficult conversations and offers practical perspectives on how to shift their focus towards what matters most: clarity, fairness, trust, and growth.

  • Reading time
  • 10 Minutes
  • Target audience
  •  New and experienced managers who want to handle difficult conversations with more confidence, clarity, and empathy. 

Out of all the answers that our participants have given to the question “Why do managers avoid difficult conversations?”, the answer is never because they don’t care or don’t want to have the conversation. In their words, and perhaps in your own experience, it gets delayed because managers hope the problem will sort itself out. It gets postponed because everyone’s busy. Most of the avoidance comes from discomfort: the employee’s reaction, a fear of escalation, or the need to preserve team harmony. Managers often focus too much on discomfort and decide that it’s best to not have the conversation at all, or they offer a diluted, softened, ambiguous version because they don’t want to upset the other person.

In other words, managers avoid difficult conversations because they care too much – about the wrong things. Caring about preserving relationships, protecting harmony or preventing escalation is understandable but in reality it can come at the expense of clarity, fairness, trust and long-term effectiveness.

Caring less is not the answer. Caring more about the right things — clarity, fairness, development, trust, and long-term team effectiveness — is.

New Call-to-action

Not all difficult conversations are equally difficult

Conversations about tasks, deadlines, processes, or measurable outcomes are much easier to approach because they are grounded in observable facts. There is usually more clarity about what happened, what was expected, and what needs to change.

The difficulty increases when the conversation is about behaviour, communication style, attitude, or the impact someone has on others. These conversations are more personal and can feel less certain. Managers need to address not only what happened, but also how to communicate it in a way that preserves dignity, encourages reflection, and supports growth.

Naturally, this is where avoidance begins.

When managers avoid conversations about behaviour, they often compensate by focusing heavily on tasks and outcomes instead. They may discuss missed deadlines, incomplete work, or overall performance while avoiding the underlying behaviours that contribute to the problem. This can create an unbalanced conversation: the immediate issue is addressed, but the person has not been given the full picture, so they will probably not have the clarity or insight to implement change where it is most necessary.

When we ask managers across different industries what they consider a “difficult conversation”, three themes consistently emerge:

  • Unresolved conflict — between a manager and team member, or within the team itself.
  • Delivering negative feedback, particularly when it relates to behaviour rather than measurable performance.
  • Professional disputes — disagreements about direction or decisions, especially where escalation or indirect tactics have already occurred.

Using those themes, this post summarises some of the reasons managers avoid difficult conversations and offers suggested solutions, based on insights from our training solutions such as “A Practical Toolbox for Managers” and “Stepping into Management”.

The 5 most mentioned reasons why managers avoid difficult conversations (not an exclusive list and in no particular order):

  1. Lack of training
  2. Fear of damaging relationships
  3. Compassion and empathy can lead to avoidance
  4. Uncomfortable with conflict
  5. Fear about escalation

Lack of training

It’s likely that your technical expertise and experience got you the role of manager, not your track record in having difficult conversations. Many new managers receive instruction on how to do their job and what their new responsibilities are. Not many receive a lot of support for developing the necessary people skills that come with the job. This lack of training often leads to overwhelm and avoidance in the workplace.

Solution:

A little bit of know-how and confidence-building practice can counter the overwhelm. Our training solutions for new managers and high potentials help create the right mindset for having difficult conversations, supported by proven frameworks and communication techniques, explained and guided by a professional, practiced in a safe environment. Some of our clients choose a more personal approach and decide to hire a coach to support the manager’s ongoing development.

Fear of damaging relationships

Managers who fear damaging the relationship are limited in their ability to have honest conversations that foster growth. They often use softer language, explain too much and focus on how other people are reacting to their words. Or they avoid the conversation altogether.

While the fear they have is clear evidence that they care, and perhaps it’s realistic because relationships were damaged in the past, fear also keeps us in a fight or flight mode. From that state, the difficult conversation will not be as logical, respectful, open, and productive as it would be without the fear of causing damage.

When difficult conversations are approached with openness and respect, they create opportunities for more trust, more collaboration, and more authentic professional relationships. If resolving conflict or preserving team harmony is the focus of the conversation, you need to be open and respectful. Not fearful.

Solution:

Avoiding the difficult conversation because of fear rarely makes relationships better. When fear of damaging relationships is a factor, you can try to address the fear with the person, before you have the difficult conversation. Talk about how to avoid causing damage to the relationship. Try to figure out if your fear is valid, and does the other person have the same fear?

Or, you can wait until you see evidence that the difficult conversation has caused damage, and deal with it then. Fear catastrophizes. It makes you overestimate the impact. In most cases (especially when there is psychological safety), having a difficult conversation with someone doesn’t actually damage the relationship in any of the ways that you feared, if at all.

Compassion and empathy can lead to avoidance

Compassion driven avoidance leads managers to postpone a difficult conversation to the future, to when the team member is under “less stress” or because they are worried how the other person will react. They avoid conversations that put “even more” pressure on the other person, because the manager happens to know that the team member is going through a difficult time at home. Compassionate avoidance says: “I don’t want to stress them out more, so I won’t say anything yet about the missed deadlines”.

Healthy compassion says: “I care about them and I see they’re under pressure, which is why we should talk about deadlines now and see what kind of support they need.”

Empathy and compassion are usually helpful in difficult conversations, but they are not universally beneficial. They are strengths when used appropriately. They will allow you to recognize and acknowledge the other person’s emotions without putting those emotions at the centre of the conversation. Empathy and compassion help difficult conversations when they improve understanding and respect. They hinder difficult conversations when they prevent you from saying what needs to be said or doing what needs to be done.

While there is a clear place for compassion and empathy, some people become so emotionally aligned with another person’s state that they lose perspective. Excessive focus on feelings can easily obscure the message. Sometimes people need clarity more than emotional validation. A conversation that spends most of its time reassuring someone may leave them uncertain about the actual problem.

Solution:

Keep in mind that the vast majority of employees prefer clear, constructive, and timely feedback, even when they are under pressure.

The solution is not to reduce empathy or compassion, but to balance them with clarity, accountability, and fairness. The most effective difficult conversations tend to combine:

  • Enough empathy to understand the person’s experience.
  • Enough compassion to treat them respectfully.
  • Enough clarity to communicate reality.
  • Enough accountability to address the issue.

Uncomfortable with conflict

Nobody is naturally comfortable with conflict (though some people thrive on it), because conflict threatens belonging, status, predictability and safety. The irony is that avoiding conflict often creates more conflict later. If left unaddressed, concerns accumulate, misunderstandings increase, patience and empathy decrease, and problems become harder to address. And relationships suffer.

Solution:

Healthy conflict is never about disagreement between people, but rather how that disagreement is handled. It focuses on issues, ideas, decisions, expectations, and solutions. People who can handle conflict well have typically learned how to use conflict to improve the relationship. Instead of seeing conflict as a possible threat to the relationship, they see it as a normal part of healthy (and honest) communication between people.

Learning to handle conflict well doesn’t mean you will become comfortable with conflict, but you will learn over time that the temporary discomfort that these conversations create is manageable.

Characteristics of healthy conflict:

  • Focus on the issue, not on the person
  • Lead with curiosity
  • Be direct and specific
  • Regulate your emotions (without suppressing them)
  • Look for shared interests and goals

Worried about escalation

Many people are not afraid of expressing a concern, but they worry what might happen next. Difficult conversations contain several uncertainties that threaten fundamental psychological needs. Humans are generally averse to uncertainty. When the brain cannot predict an outcome, it’s going to simulate threats. As a result, people mentally rehearse worst-case scenarios.

Escalation may occur when people experience the conversation as a threat that must be defended against rather than a situation/problem that can be understood and solved. Emotions are involved, but so are cognition, identity, communication habits, and social dynamics.

The importance of low-self orientation in difficult conversations

One important thing we address in the training is the importance of low self-orientation in difficult conversations. This means shifting your attention away from protecting yourself and towards understanding and addressing the issue. It doesn’t mean ignoring your own needs or opinions. Rather, it means becoming less preoccupied with how you are being perceived, with how you feel, whether you are winning the argument, or whether the other person agrees with you.

In difficult conversations, high self-orientation often sounds like: How do I avoid looking incompetent? What if they don’t like me after this? How do I convince them?  Those concerns are understandable, but when they dominate our thinking, we tend to explain too much, listen too little, and become defensive.

Low self-orientation asks different questions. What is actually happening here? What does this person need me to understand? How can we solve this problem together? Shifting your attention in this way makes it easier to stay curious, regulate your emotions, and respond thoughtfully rather than reactively.

From this perspective, one of the most effective ways to prevent escalation is not a communication technique at all. It is the ability to hold your own ego more lightly. When less energy is spent on self-preservation, more energy becomes available for listening, learning, and resolving the conflict constructively.

Solution:

Focus on what you can control. Your tone, preparation, clarity, your ability to listen, etc.

Start early. Addressing small concerns in a timely manner will prevent the problem from coming bigger most of the time.

Low self-orientation questions to prevent escalation:

  • How can I communicate in a way that protects trust and the relationship?
  • How can I communicate respect even while disagreeing?
  • What part of my concern is about the issue itself, and what part is about my discomfort, or fear of damaging the relationship?
  • What outcome matters more than my need to be right/heard/understood in this moment?
  • What response would move this conversation forward?

Conclusion & Key takeaways

Every difficult conversation asks managers to choose between short-term comfort and long-term accountability.

Difficult conversations are an unavoidable part of management. The question is not whether they will occur, but whether they will be handled early and constructively or delayed until the consequences become harder to manage.

You don’t need to enjoy difficult conversations or feel completely comfortable having them. But you need to recognize that temporary discomfort is often the price of clarity, growth, and healthy working relationships. By combining empathy with accountability, respect with honesty, and confidence with curiosity, managers can have difficult conversations that strengthen trust, support development, and improve long-term team performance.

  • Managers often avoid difficult conversations because they prioritize short-term comfort over long-term clarity and accountability.
  • The five most common reasons for avoidance are lack of training, fear of damaging relationships, compassion-driven avoidance, discomfort with conflict, and fear of escalation.
  • Empathy and compassion are valuable leadership qualities, but they should be balanced with clarity, fairness, and accountability.
  • Difficult conversations become easier and more productive when managers use proven frameworks, prepare well, and address issues early.
  • Strong leadership is about caring enough about people to have honest conversations that build trust and support long-term team success.
by

How do we start talking about unconscious bias in the workplace?

“We know what unconscious bias is, and why it’s important. But we don’t know how to start having a conversation about unconscious bias in the workplace in our organisation”. This was a statement from leaders from a multi-national pharma company headquartered in Europe. Any organisation which is trying to build diversity and manage unconscious bias will start with this, or a similar statement. We worked with the group to break their words down into 3 sub questions and this post shares how we worked with our client to answer these questions.

Should we start with training?

Training seems an obvious place to start. But if you can’t make it mandatory (and ensure that 100% of your employees attend), the people who attend training will be self-selecting. We see this time and again on our training courses, when we hear the common comment “Person X should really attend this training”. Person X is usually a senior manager or a ‘problem’ colleague who probably really needs the training, except that no one seems willing to tell them!

Running training courses is also not practical for many industries. For example, about 50% of the employees of our pharma client work in labs. Small teams with a constant workflow will find it difficult to leave their workstations to attend training.

We are not saying that training is not part of the solution, just not the solution. In the next section you will see some ideas on how to work with people on this topic outside the training room.

How can we support attitude changes?

A workplace is a collection of people with different backgrounds, experiences and views. Everyone is entitled to their views but at the same time we have a right to ensure that the people who work with us work to our goals and values. ‘Inclusion nudges’ are a very effective way of achieving this. An inclusion nudge is defined as “a relatively soft and non-intrusive mental push that mitigates implicit bias and helps the brain make more objective decisions”[1]. Here are 3 types of nudges with examples:

Feel the need

In one organisation we work with, 24.5% of employees are women. What percentage of executives in the company do you think are women? The answer is 7.1%. What do you think about the gap between the two figures? This is an inclusion nudge based on data that aims to help people ‘feel the need’ for change by creating a kind of ‘ah-ha’ moment.

Process

A Process Nudge means changing a system or organisational process in order to eliminate bias by default. Changing the way you conduct meetings or screen candidates are examples of this kind of nudge. We know companies who use a Gender Decoder [http://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com] to ensure the language in job ads is not biased to male candidates.

Framing

The way we frame things can also nudge our brains to think differently about bias. Consider the question “Should we hire more women and ethnic minorities?” reframed as “Are we getting our fair share of the talent that is out there?” Which question would steer you to take action?

Inclusion nudges are a simple and cost-effective way to start working on attitudes and behaviours and they can be launched anywhere and anytime; on a poster in the office corridor, on the intranet, in a conversation in the canteen over lunch. In the next section you will read more advice on how to get these kinds of conversations going.

For more ideas on how to create nudges to reveal bias, see the post 9 Questions to Uncover Unconscious Bias:

 

9 Questions to Uncover Unconscious Bias

How do we convince people this is an important topic?

To put the question another way – what will motivate people to get interested and want to do something about it? For some this will simply be a matter of politics or ethics, i.e. it’s just the right thing to do. For others, this may not seem a topic that impacts their jobs. However, something that will appeal to everyone is the success of the business.

Two of the biggest concerns for organisations we work with are talent acquisition and employee engagement. Removing bias is a key component of managing these challenges. You just saw the link between bias and talent acquisition in the framing example above. Consider another common question, “How can we increase our employee engagement scores?”. Now let’s reframe the question as “Which people in our organisation don’t have a voice and how can we involve them more?”

In other words, by addressing diversity and inclusion we can find a way to address some of the biggest challenges that organisations face today. For more examples of the link between bias and common challenges faced by organisations, read this post What Is Unconscious Bias and Why Does It Matter?

Tackling unconscious bias in organisations means starting conversations that will interest and motivate people to do something about it. The key to doing this is to make the link between bias and what is important to everyone in the organisation.

Read more in this post…

What Is Unconscious Bias and Why Does It Matter?

 

We hope you enjoyed reading this post. If you would like to know more about our experience of working with clients in this area, feel free to contact us. Or, take a look at some of our training solutions in this area.

[1] Inclusion Nudges Guidebook: Practical Techniques for Changing Behaviour, Culture & Systems to Mitigate Unconscious Bias and Create Inclusive Organisations https://www.amazon.com/Inclusion-Nudges-Guidebook-Unconscious-Organisations/dp/152363541X

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