Khashoggi, The Saudi Prince, and Managing Criticism
Can Jamal Khashoggi's Murder Teach Us Something Useful About Responding Wisely To Criticism?
Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
On this blog, I have been making the case that how we respond to criticism can have an enormous influence on how much respect others have for us. To support this position, from time to time I provide a tentative outline of five levels of maturity for responding to criticism, with level 1 being viewed as the most immature, I give specific examples of people using the different levels, and I discussed the consequences of responding at each level.
A very disturbing example of someone responding to criticism has now crashed upon the international stage. I am referring to the actions of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. According to the US CIA and many others who have reviewed the evidence, the Prince ordered the murder of the Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi because the reporter criticized him. The details are gruesome, with those who carried out the deed actually using a bone saw to cut him into pieces.
Today, in an effort to deepen our understanding about how to effectively manage criticism, we will quickly review the description of the five levels. Then we’ll take a look at how the Prince’s approach to dealing with criticism matches the lowest levels. Finally, I’ll discuss how he is being perceived as a result of his way of dealing with criticism.
The Five Levels of Responding to Criticism
Let’s begin this discussion by once again refreshing our memory of how all five levels are described. Level 1 is viewed, tentatively, as the most immature, and as we move to level 2, then 3, etc., more and more mature ways of responding to criticism is described.
1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
- Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without also utilizing at least level 4 skills
- Physically attacks the criticizer
- Damages property
2. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
- Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
- Glares at the criticizer
- Threatens the criticizer
- Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
- Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.
3. This level requires displaying one or both of the following:
- Displays defensiveness without directly insulting the criticizer (raising voice’s volume or pitch)
- Displays a lack of interest either by verbally indicating this, or with nonverbal cues, or complete silence.
4. Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.
5. In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.
Given these 5 level descriptions, if the Saudi Prince, because of being criticized, arranged to kill the criticizer, what level do you think best matches his actions?
Before I give my own judgment on this, let’s take a look at the Prince’s responses to criticism prior to the murder.
The Prince’s Previous Actions to Criticism
The Saudi Kingdom, an absolute monarchy, has long imprisoned its own citizens who criticize the government. However, entities outside of the Kingdom, when criticizing the Saudis, found that it was typically handled quietly, with the Saudis usually ignoring them. Things began to change when the Prince gained power.
Although King Salman did not appoint his son crown prince until June 21, 2017, the prince has been accumulating vast powers since January 2015, serving as defense minister, overseeing the state oil monopoly, working to overhaul the Saudi economy and building ties with foreign leaders.
Utilizing this power, the Prince recalled its ambassador to Sweden and stopped issuing business visas to Swedes in 2015 after human rights criticisms. Last year, under his influence, Saudi Arabia suspended deals with German firms and recalled its ambassador from Germany after the German foreign minister appeared to criticize Saudi foreign policy.
In August 2018, when Canada criticized the recent arrests of Saudi rights activists, the Prince threatened to break trade agreements with Canada and to break off trade with other Western countries if they, too, spoke out about political repression in the kingdom. An additional threat involved an unspecified, tit-for-tat response to further criticism, saying “any further step from the Canadian side in that direction will be considered as acknowledgment of our right to interfere in the Canadian domestic affairs.”
Besides these threats, the Prince expelled the Canadian ambassador, withdrew its ambassador from Canada, froze new business deals and investment with Canada, and announced plans to withdraw thousands of Saudi students and their families from Canadian schools and universities and place them elsewhere.
So, given these actions, along with the Prince’s order to murder Khashoggi, if you were to utilize the 5 levels of maturity described above, how would you rate these actions of the Prince? If you will, first come up with your own answer to this, and then compare it to my answer.
My Answer
The Prince’s threats, it seems to me, clearly results in a rating of 2 because it matches the level 2 phrase, Threatens the criticizer. His other actions clearly results in a rating of 1 because actions such as breaking off trade and withdrawing thousands of students are costly, thus they are a fairly good match with the level 1 phrase, Damages Property. The murder is clearly a level 1 response because it matches the level 1 phrase, Physically attacks the criticizer. Overall, I think the Prince deserves a rating of 1.
The 5 levels? Nice. I wonder, though, are there no levels of criticism as well? I mean, is there not a kind of criticism that is of such a low level, that one hardly could even consider to approach same by responding to it using your level 4 or 5?
Roald Michel,
Thanks for your comment. Actually there are, in my opinion, 5 developmental levels of providing criticism, in addition to the five developmental levels of responding to criticism. You can check them out at the following link: http://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2012/09/01/providing-negative-criticism-five-levels-of-maturity/
I think that with an infant, or someone who has the cognitive capacity of an infant, we still would want to seek to clarify the reason for the criticism and try to address it in a manner that shows respect for the criticizer. Perhaps you might provide us with a specific example of what you mean in your comment, and I would then try to convey how I might handle the situation.
My Best,
Jeff
Example: Many years ago a guy came to me and told me I should get rid of my mustache because it made me look like Hitler. Given my family’s history, as a result he ended up in an emergency room.
Hi Roald Michel,
I can well see how relating your mustache to looking like Hitler could be something with which you felt uncomfortable. It was clearly a rough form of negative criticism. Still, I wonder if you are comfortable with your reaction, given the space of time now that you have had some reflection? I also wonder what consequences occurred as a result of your reaction, beyond someone going to the emergency room, for there often are when someone plays a part in someone going to an Emergency room?
Concerned,
Jeff
Already from an early age on, I never felt great when having ended a fight with my opponent(s) defeated, hurt and in agony. I felt sad. But up to this very day I didn’t/don’t feel any remorse either. Consequences? OK with me. Some people are just asking for it. Horrible yes, but alas it’s the reality.
I’m one with the intention to make love and not war, and thrive on it. But if it’s war you want, you can get it. Nuclear.
I learned in school, in the streets, in the military, and from the outcasts, the pariahs, the refugees, the despised, and the Kravists, to end a fight before it even starts, whatever it takes.
Hi Roald Michel,
Apparently there were some consequences to your actions, and you wish to keep them hidden behind a cloud. That’s perfectly OK. As you are no doubt aware, you are under no obligation to share anything here that you wish to keep private. That said, I for one, am interested in moving this discussion a little further along. To that end, I’m going to now provide an alternative scenario to what took place between you and the guy who advocated that you get rid of your mustache. I’ll call that guy, Fred, and the person who replies, Ron.
Fred: Ron you should get rid of that mustache because it makes you look like Hitler.
Ron: You think it makes me look like Hitler, Fred. Hmmm. Interesting. I’m always interested in your viewpoint. To, me, when I look in a mirror, I don’t see what you are seeing. I like the way the mustache looks. Let me be clear about one thing, Fred, I have no intention of trying to look like Hitler because I despise, right down to my marrow, what he stood for. (This is all said calmly, and in a self assured manner)
Fred: Well, you should get rid it because it does make you look like Hitler.
Ron: I understand your position, Fred, and I’m always interested in hearing your perspective. (Then Ron respectfully nods his head to Fred and goes on his way.)
In the above scenario Ron responds to Fred’s criticism in a manner consistent with the level 4 description. I am interested in your view of Ron’s approach in this type of situation, if you are comfortable sharing them.
Jeff
Clearly Ron seems to be way more “civilized” than me. I wonder though, what Ron would do in a real life situation. Too many times I hear people telling the world about what they would do, but in reality don’t walk their talk. Example? I once heard a man boasting about how he would defend women should they ever get attacked by some thug. So what did I do? I invited him do join me for a night out, together with a woman friend. I also arranged for a couple of my more rough friends to meet us in some dark alley. Of course the man didn’t know that. It was a setup, a test. Long story short, the moment the “rough ones” started to harass the woman, the man lost it and ran for safety, leaving the woman (and me) to the mercy of the “thugs”.
Re: “Apparently there were some consequences to your actions, and you wish to keep them hidden behind a cloud.” Nope. No hiding here. The guy recovered, and I went my way. That’s all. Well—-um…..maybe he learned to check his brain before opening his mouth the next time?
Hi Roald Michel,
Thanks for your willingness to engage in this discussion–much appreciated.
With regards to your example of someone who might not walk the talk, no doubt there are some people like that. As a counter example to yours, I encourage you to read my post, Responding Maturely to Criticism: A John F. Kennedy Example. Kennedy, in my opinion, had the courage of his conviction, and yet responded to criticism at a level 4 or 5.
Wishing you well, and hoping to hear from you again as I write future posts.
Jeff
I read your JFK article. Maybe Kennedy was authentic, maybe not. And that’s the point: Authenticity. Someone can use level 4/5 with a totally different agenda, than what you wanted it to be. If that’s the case, it only looks positive to the criticizer, while it is not. Instead it’s a lie, a strategy to mislead the other person, to soften him/her, to persuade her/him to go along with you, or whatever named agenda might be. No honesty there then. Only the image of it. Very common in politics, sales, negotiations of any kind, and even psychotherapy.