Offering criticisms: "You're gonna die!"

[drrich2]

I'm thinking that we need to have a general discussion about handling criticisms.

Part of it is how the criticism is delivered.

This is huge, and applies even to intelligent, well-educated people. I conceptualize it this way; when I want to deliver potential criticism to someone (let's say at work), I approach 2 identical people only distinguished by their shirts; one wears a shirt saying 'Intellect,' the other a shirt saying 'Ego.' If I walk up and say something abrasive, Ego shoves Intellect out of the way and gets between us, confronting me with an agenda to defuse the threat I pose to his sense of self. He'll rationalize, spin, deny, shift focus, externalize blame, basically pursue an agenda of defending himself. It's hard to talk around him to reach the Intellect.

If (and this isn't always possible) one can tactfully approach Intellect in a non-threatening way without triggering Ego, one can deliver an idea for consideration and potential acceptance. TS&M's posts in contentious threads were a model of this in years past.

Disclaimer: a number of my co-workers would be rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter to see I wrote that. Decide for yourself on a case-by-case basis how much it matters to 'sell' your idea to the recipient. If you'd rather hit people over the head with your point of view and they can like it or lump it, well...could be your ego is a factor, too?

And on the receiving end, it's hard not to react this way. I try to analyze the critical input for what of value I might glean, but it takes time for my natural defensiveness to die down, and even then it's easy for ill will to linger. For me, time is often the answer...if criticism is hurtful, it may take awhile before I digest it.

Trying to be right is natural. Learning to articulate your ideas into a logical argument grows out of a natural desire to 'win.' Making the choice to respect your target (possibly opponent) and persuade rather than 'verbally batter' can be unnatural.

But you get better long-term results.

Richard.

 

[BlueTrin]

This is huge, and applies even to intelligent, well-educated people. I conceptualize it this way; when I want to deliver potential criticism to someone (let's say at work), I approach 2 identical people only distinguished by their shirts; one wears a shirt saying 'Intellect,' the other a shirt saying 'Ego.' If I walk up and say something abrasive, Ego shoves Intellect out of the way and gets between us, confronting me with an agenda to defuse the threat I pose to his sense of self. He'll rationalize, spin, deny, shift focus, externalize blame, basically pursue an agenda of defending himself. It's hard to talk around him to reach the Intellect.

If (and this isn't always possible) one can tactfully approach Intellect in a non-threatening way without triggering Ego, one can deliver an idea for consideration and potential acceptance. TS&M's posts in contentious threads were a model of this in years past.

Disclaimer: a number of my co-workers would be rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter to see I wrote that. Decide for yourself on a case-by-case basis how much it matters to 'sell' your idea to the recipient. If you'd rather hit people over the head with your point of view and they can like it or lump it, well...could be your ego is a factor, too?

And on the receiving end, it's hard not to react this way. I try to analyze the critical input for what of value I might glean, but it takes time for my natural defensiveness to die down, and even then it's easy for ill will to linger. For me, time is often the answer...if criticism is hurtful, it may take awhile before I digest it.

Trying to be right is natural. Learning to articulate your ideas into a logical argument grows out of a natural desire to 'win.' Making the choice to respect your target (possibly opponent) and persuade rather than 'verbally batter' can be unnatural.

But you get better long-term results.

Richard.

That’s two fantastic posts from you and Jay.

At work I try to picture the end goal rather than trying to ‘win’ the argument.

i.e. I will tell myself that we can all win if I can convince the other party (or if we can reach an agreement) rather than proving him wrong, this is similar to what you said about selling your idea.

Well sometimes it does not work, then, at work, you can just go above the person to get things done. In a forum, I guess you have to decide if you would rather want to have a forum fight where both of you will just keep trying to ‘win’ an argument or if you just want to walk away.

Like you said, your ‘reputation’ will precede you depending of your approach and once you have done this exercise you can definitely tell when someone else is doing the same with you

 

[lowviz]

OK, figured it out. Acme, buy one roasting chicken and get one free.

Deal! Roasted both, had a nice meal. I was left with a lot of scraps. I don't like waste, threw everything into a stock pot and added all the veggies in the fridge that were in jeopardy. Simmer for six hours, Ooops it was nine. I fell asleep. Oh well.

Strained it and it was chicken stock.



Great taste but not planning anything that need stock. Still early, press on.

Clarified it into consomme. Truly marvelous...


Hey, stop by for a memorable bowl of consomme and some conversation...

So my point is that things can come to a good end if one is willing to try. Not much more complicated than that...

 

[chillyinCanada]

OK, figured it out. Acme, buy one roasting chicken and get one free.

Deal! Roasted both, had a nice meal. I was left with a lot of scraps. I don't like waste, threw everything into a stock pot and added all the veggies in the fridge that were in jeopardy. Simmer for six hours, Ooops it was nine. I fell asleep. Oh well.

Strained it and it was chicken stock.

View attachment 493254

Great taste but not planning anything that need stock. Still early, press on.

Clarified it into consomme. Truly marvelous...
View attachment 493255

Hey, stop by for a memorable bowl of consomme and some conversation...
View attachment 493256

So my point is that things can come to a good end if one is willing to try. Not much more complicated than that...

Is this an analogy or are we really invited over to offer some constructive criticism? I wanna make sure I'm playing the "soup bowl" and not the "man".

 

[ofg-1]

“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
Winston Churchill

Same is true for criticizing people, particularly people that you do not know, probably will never meet, and are able to get through their lives without the great gift of your wisdom.

"Shut up and go dive"
Bill Gavin

 

[The Chairman]

“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”

I think a thread on how to give criticism is also a great idea.

 

[Jcp2]

I was taught the sandwich method by a friend who was really good at coaching children as well as working as an angel investor with new companies. You start with a good thing (bread), then the thing that could be improved (meat), and close with the desired good thing (bread). Never serve the meat alone.

He was really good at it, and was able to both take several mediocre raw skill youth teams to playoffs as well as move multiple start up companies to full IPOs.

I’m using this method with some success, but the hardest is when the meat is really s**t. He was the best at giving this as well.

 

[tbone1004]

I think a thread on how to give criticism is also a great idea.

hardest part of teaching, right there.
This industry has enabled bad behavior, bad instruction, poor skills, etc. for so long that at the recreational level in particular, you almost can't give criticism and survive as a business.

Sandwich method works with a lot of things and I use it with a lot of people, but part of the problem with this sport is that the "bread" as @Jcp2 put it isn't always there and it will often detract from the severity of the criticism. I.e. what you just did could very likely have killed you and you are really lucky you lived. There's no room for the bread with those types of incidents.

You have to adapt how you give it for every individual and every different type of criticism they have so I'm curious to see how this thread evolves

 

[Hoag]

hardest part of teaching, right there.
This industry has enabled bad behavior, bad instruction, poor skills, etc. for so long that at the recreational level in particular, you almost can't give criticism and survive as a business.

Sandwich method works with a lot of things and I use it with a lot of people, but part of the problem with this sport is that the "bread" as @Jcp2 put it isn't always there and it will often detract from the severity of the criticism. I.e. what you just did could very likely have killed you and you are really lucky you lived. There's no room for the bread with those types of incidents.

You have to adapt how you give it for every individual and every different type of criticism they have so I'm curious to see how this thread evolves

You are absolutely right. Sometimes it is hard to find the bread because either there were so many mistakes or the severity of the mistakes had the potential for a catastrophic outcome.

In those cases, a second method might work better. It was taught to me as the "reverse sandwich method", and it is exactly what it sounds like. You start with one of the areas that need improvement, followed by something that went well, and end it with another area that needs improvement.

A third technique that I tend to follow is to simply discuss (debrief) the event(s) whether good or bad in chronological order, addressing both the good and the bad as the events unfolded.

No matter which technique is chosen, I firmly believe that this is not the place to get personal. Critique the action. Not the person who did it.

 

[Akimbo]

hardest part of teaching, right there.
This industry has enabled bad behavior, bad instruction, poor skills, etc. for so long that at the recreational level in particular, you almost can't give criticism and survive as a business.

I'm not sure it is limited to Scuba training. The trend (at least in the US) to give trophies to all competitors, provide "safe spaces", and categorize constructive criticism as bullying contributes.