There's nothing constructive about criticism
Throughout my career I worked for managers who were great at giving criticism, but who were light on the ways to address what they perceived my flaws to be. I fully recognised (more so as I matured!) that I wasn’t the perfect employee, however - like most people - I wanted to do well and please those around me, whilst maintaining my sense of individualism.
Yet, being on the end of their ‘tough love’ never generated feelings of motivation. In fact it did the opposite. Their criticism served only to drain any enthusiasm I had for the job and led to feelings of inadequacy.
Being a naturally positive person, I like to think that we’ve moved on in the last 20 years, however last week I read a job advertisement and one of the bullet points read ‘the ability to accept criticism and work well under pressure’.
I have no issue with the end of that sentence as being able to demonstrate calmness in stressful situations is a skill that most of us need. Being able to accept criticism however, is a different matter.
Criticism is, by definition, ‘the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes.’ Therefore, it is always negative and is mostly perceptive, i.e. your assessment (truthful or otherwise) of another’s faults.
It inherently triggers defensive responses that prevent the construction of new thinking or behaviour, which means that there’s nothing constructive about it!
Regular criticism therefore chips away at a person’s self-esteem, confidence and ultimately the psychological safety of a team or organisation. It contains hidden judgements as the basis for criticism is often a difference in approach.
Finally, criticism focuses on problems rather than possibilities, directing energy toward ‘fixing’ weaknesses instead of amplifying strengths.
Alvaro Carias and I giving each other feedback on a presentation for FIFA
What’s required instead is empathetic feedback. You might think this semantic, but words and approach are important, not least when we are looking for changes in the responses of human emotions.
None of us are perfect and we all need feedback to improve who we are and what we do and this feedback should be both positive and negative.
From a team culture perspective, when flaws are continually magnified without strengths being acknowledged, it actively reduces feelings of engagement and belonging and leads to a reduction in productivity. Yet when strengths and successes are acknowledged, the results are quite different with increases seen in almost all areas of company performance.
According to the Gottman Ratio, the perfect amount of positive to negative feedback required to maintain strong relationships is 5:1. That is to say, to get the best out of another person, you need to consistently reinforce what they do well - this is great for confidence and feelings of self-worth - which then provides you with the opportunity to address what could be improved.
It needn’t be gushing, a simple ‘well done’ will suffice, however, when we have been on the receiving end of positive feedback, it makes the negative feedback much easier to take and act upon.
When giving this feedback, rather than just tell people what they need to improve, you need to also provide them with either a) the opportunity to outline how they would address the issue; or b) the tactics required to improve. This is the difference between coaching and mentoring and will differ depending on the situation.
This helps with the absorption of feedback and ensures that the person on the receiving end sees it as a benefit (a way to improve) and not criticism (something wrong with them).
So, what should the advertisement say? It should read ‘The ability to reflect on feedback and work well under pressure.’ Unless of course they just want to criticise their new staff. In which case, it’s a job to avoid!
