Some call it "feedback." Some call it "criticism." Some try to distinguish the two, with varying degrees of success, but that's a topic for another time. By whatever name, we usually deliver the message with good intentions. When the intentions are good, but the results aren't, receivers are hurt, and givers surprised. To guard against this possibility, people have developed a number of introductory safety phrases.
One safety phrase is, "I'd like to give you some constructive criticism." It's almost an incantation — the magic words that are supposed to protect us from hurt or hurting others. But safety phrases, like incantations, don't always work as intended.
To achieve a positive outcome, givers need more than safety phrases — empathy is essential. To help givers of feedback or criticism understand the receiver's experience, I offer this framework for thinking about the entire process. By examining criticism from four perspectives — giver, receiver, content, and setting — we can develop guidelines for making criticism more effective. Here is Part I of those guidelines, emphasizing the giver and receiver.
- Investigate thoroughly and without bias
- It's just possible that the giver lacks access to important information that renders the criticism irrelevant, wrong, or worse. Delivering criticism that's clearly mistaken damages the giver's credibility. More important, it can damage the relationship between giver and receiver, perhaps permanently.
- The basis of any criticism must be thorough investigation. Sometimes, thoroughness requires the receiver's active participation. And sometimes, because people tend to adjust their responses based on the identity of the investigator, an unbiased investigation is possible only if performed by someone other than the giver.
- "To thine own self be true"
- If the giver's behavior or Criticizing the actions of someone
else, while you continue to do
similar things regularly yourself,
will likely contribute to
hostility in the relationshipbeliefs are similar to those the giver is criticizing, the receiver might feel anger, outrage, or pain, even if the giver's message is valid. Hostile feelings follow, in part, because criticism carries an implicit message that the giver isn't subject to similar criticism.
- Criticizing the actions of someone else, while you continue to do similar things regularly yourself, will likely contribute to hostility in the relationship.
- Seek permission freely given
- If the receiver hasn't freely given the giver explicit or implicit permission to deliver criticism, then feelings of being attacked are likely. Even when permission has been given, the feeling of being attacked can come about if the permission wasn't given freely. For instance, accepting periodic performance reviews is actually a requirement of many jobs. The feeling of powerlessness in performance reviews comes about, in part, because performance reviews are mandatory.
- Delivering criticism without first gaining permission is unlikely to have a positive effect. Permission given under threat of employment termination, which is the context of most performance reviews, is not permission freely given. Permission sought and obtained in a public setting, where declining to give permission can be embarrassing or costly, probably is not permission freely given.
Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Conflict Management:
- Shining Some Light on "Going Dark"
- If you're a project manager, and a team member "goes dark" — disappears or refuses to
report how things are going — project risks escalate dramatically. Getting current status becomes
a top priority problem. What can you do?
- Nasty Questions: I
- Some of the questions we ask each other aren't intended to elicit information from the respondent. Rather,
they're poorly disguised attacks intended to harm the respondent politically, and advance the questioner's
political agenda. Here's part one a catalog of some favorite tactics.
- Ending Conversations
- At times, we need to end the current conversation. It's going nowhere, or we have something important
to do, or we just don't want to deal with the other person. Here are some suggestions for ending conversations.
- Animosity Patterns
- Animosity between two people at work is often attributed to "personality clashes." While sometimes
people can't get along, animosity can also be a tool for accomplishing strictly political ends. Here's
a short catalog of some of its uses.
- Compulsive Talkers at Work: Peers I
- Our exploration of approaches for dealing with compulsive talkers now continues, with Part I of a set
of suggestions for what to do when a peer interferes with your work by talking compulsively.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 3: Appearance Antipatterns: II
- When we make decisions based on appearance we risk making errors. We create hostile work environments, disappoint our customers, and create inefficient processes. Maintaining congruence between the appearance and the substance of things can help. Available here and by RSS on July 3.
- And on July 10: Barriers to Accepting Truth: I
- In workplace debates, a widely used strategy involves informing the group of facts or truths of which some participants seem to be unaware. Often, this strategy is ineffective for reasons unrelated to the credibility of the person offering the information. Why does this happen? Available here and by RSS on July 10.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.