Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

Recently, as I was eating dinner with a married couple the subject of how they deal with criticism arose. For the sake of privacy, I’ve changed their names to Sarah and Bob.

In an earlier post, I addressed the question, “Unsolicited Criticism: Good or Bad.” Sarah and Bob agree with my conclusions in that post which in summary suggested that:

Negative criticism is coming our way whether we like it or not. And within a relationship, providing it can be essential. If one of the parties is doing something that is bugging the other, keeping silent could unnecessarily lead to the relationship coming to a premature end when a constructive discussion might have easily settled the matter.

Rather then seeking to squelch criticism, we are better off learning to provide it in a wise and thoughtful manner (see post titled PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY), and to respond to it in a wise and thoughtful manner as well (see post titled RESPONDING TO CRITICISM: FOUR LEVELS OF MATURITY).

That said, there are times when someone is providing one criticism after another and it becomes too much to process all at once. At other times, someone might provide criticism that is in a style that uses a tone of voice that is hard to bear. Sometimes we have been recently bombarded by some type of stress, and as a result, we may not be in any mood to hear any criticism for a while. Under these sets of circumstances, it makes perfectly good sense to briefly let the person who is seeking to provide criticism know that usually we are very open to hearing criticism, but for right now, we need a little break (see blog posts SUMMARIZE AND DELAY and ANGER, STRESS, AND THE SIGNALING TO BACK-OFF TECHNIQUE). Then we can, over a period of time, regain our sense of balance and figure out how best to move forward. Moreover, it is important to learn to effectively advocate that when individuals do provide negative criticism they at least try to do so in a respectful manner.

So, Sarah and Bob in the past had agreed with me about all of this. And then at dinner one evening they revealed to me that within their relationship they have come to an agreement that when either one of them wants to provide some constructive criticism to the other they first ask for permission. They also prefer others who want to provide criticism to them do likewise. Let’s take a close look at this approach.

Negative Criticism and the “Asking for Permission Technique”

When Sarah finds that Bob has done something that she would like him to consider changing, rather than hoping Bob will at some point invite her to provide some criticism to him about that issue, she could, herself, bring the issue up to him uninvited when she thinks he might be in a receptive mood. More specifically, Sarah, before providing feedback, first checks in with herself to see if she has sufficiently calmed herself from any anger or annoyance that she has been experiencing. This is important because if she seeks to provide feedback to Bob when she is angry or annoyed, either at him, or at someone else, her tone of voice might inadvertently provoke a level of defensiveness within Bob that would be counterproductive.

Next, Sarah observes how Bob is doing. If he looks like he is in a fairly calm mood and is not in the midst of something stressful, she then makes sure they both have sufficient time to discuss the matter.

Only when all of this has been considered, will she say to Bob, “Are you open to my giving you some feedback about something?”

Bob also uses the same approach as Sarah when he wants to provide her some feedback. Both agree that this approach has been very helpful to them. Sarah explained that upon hearing the phrase, “Are you open to my giving you some feedback about something?” it gives her a few moments to check in with herself. “Am I up to having a criticism type discussion right now, or would it be better to wait for a more apt time? If I am up for hearing it, I can take a moment to prepare myself.” Bob agreed.

At this point in the conversation, I recalled that just prior to this conversation I had mentioned to Bob that his eye glass lenses looked like they had some smudges on them. He seemed to find some value in what I had said, as he looked the lenses over and cleaned them. So, I asked him if he would have preferred, when I mentioned the smudges, that I first had asked him if he was open for some feedback. He smiled, and said that in that type of situation there was no need for asking for permission.

I then asked them, “As soon as you are asked permission, aren’t you so curious about what the issue is all about that you would just want to know?”

“This happens,” Sarah replied, “but not always. And besides, it’s nice to be given the choice, and, as I already mentioned, it does provide that moment or two to prepare myself.”

The conversation about this topic ended at this point, but a day or two later, we got back into it. In attempting to clarify in my own mind how the Sarah and Bob approach would work in a variety of situations, I asked Bob, “If you accidentally left your fly open, would it be okay if I just whispered to you in private that you needed to zipper up, or would you prefer that in that kind of situation I first ask if you were open to hearing some feedback?” He said that with that type of situation coming right to the issue would be fine, though it would be helpful if I said it in a non-putdown manner, perhaps pointing out that we all goof up like that from time to time.

I then asked Sarah, “Let’s say we’re in a restaurant together. You go to the bathroom, and when you come out I notice you are dragging some toilet paper behind you that is stuck to the bottom of your heel. Would you want me to come straight out and tell you, or would it be better to first ask for permission to give you feedback?” She didn’t hesitate, indicating that in that type of situation there would be no need to first request permission.

So, my next question was, “How do you two distinguish between those types of situations in which you ask for permission to give feedback from when you come right out and tell the person what’s on your mind?” Their main criteria was basically asking yourself, “For the kind of criticism I want to give, if someone was to provide a similar type of criticism to me, would I want to be asked for permission prior to receiving it?” If yes, then you ask for permission. For Sarah and Bob, the types of criticism that they would want to be asked permission before hearing it typically involve particularly sensitive issues for them, something you noticed was particularly sensitive in the past for the other person, or when it involves a person’s creative work.

My Thoughts

That said, for me, personally, I’d rather make it clear to those whom I know that I always want to hear any negative criticism they want to share with me, and there is no need to first ask for permission. If I happen to be in a somewhat fragile state, for whatever reason, it is up to me, after hearing what the general issue is about, to quickly summarize what I heard, and then assert in a friendly way that I’ll need some time to consider the matter when I am in a better frame of mind.

It seems to me that if I were to inform people I know that before they provide me with any feedback they first use the “Asking For Permission Technique” it might discourage people from being as open about the concerns they would like to share with me. Said another way, if I were to request to people I know that before they provide me any negative criticism they first ask me for permission, it might signal to them that I am sensitive about such criticism. With that in mind, how much would they keep secret from me to avoid hurting my feelings?

Yes, there are times when I do feel within me some sensitive feelings upon hearing some negative feedback. Nevertheless, I’d rather deal with that than discourage anyone from letting me know, straight out, what they think I can do to improve. Moreover, I am confident that I have the skills to use those sensitive feelings in a constructive, creative manner. I also wonder if people might respect me more for being the type of person they can be straight and honest with, who gracefully welcomes criticism, and really takes the time to seriously consider what someone has to say.

At this point, I think it’s crucial that I make it clear that I’m not trying to imply that my personal preference is the “right” choice for everyone. Moreover, I very much doubt that people who prefer to be asked for permission before receiving criticism, are likely to lose any friends because they informed them of this preference. And, really, how much respect someone has for another is unlikely to significantly turn on this one issue since there are so many other aspects of anyone’s character.

Interestingly, although I try to make it clear to people I know that I’m pretty much always open to hear their criticism, there are times when I want to provide others with some feedback and I, myself, ask for permission. I’m most likely to do this when they have been working on something creative. At such time, I typically find myself asking, “Are you open to hearing my impressions?”

Finally, as Sarah, Bob and I moved toward finishing up our conversation, Sarah made one other point. She told us about a friend of hers who, when requesting feedback about something particularly close to her heart, asks that it be worded something like, “What if (or I wonder if) you changed…?” rather than, “I think something you did would be better if you did….” I think there are situations in which we would be wise to heed this suggestion.

So, there are some thoughts for all us to consider as we continue our journey from insults to respect.

——————————-

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Readers of this blog well know that I often discuss immature and mature ways to provide negative criticism. Originally, I presented a post titled PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY. There, in addition to providing an outline of what I believed was a good starting point to think about this topic, I asked readers for suggestions on how the outline could be improved. Many readers were not at all shy. While this was going on, I continued my own reading, and from time to time, I shared what I had learned. And now, just this week on the internet, I came upon an article that provided a new set of guidelines. I kind of like them, and therefore, decided to see what kind of reaction they might lead to. But first let’s quickly review what we already covered.

THE ORIGINAL FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY FOR PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM

Below you will find preliminary descriptions of how people at five developmental levels of maturity provide negative criticism, that is, criticism that points out what we don’t like about someone’s actions, beliefs, or appearance. Level one is the most immature and uses observations of babies as its starting point. Each successive level is more mature:

This level requires displaying one or more of the following:

Cries without stating what the crying is about
Physically attacks the person being criticized
Damages property

Although these three descriptors may not sound like providing criticism, in some situations we can see that it is the very beginning of the development of this skill. Let’s say Jill takes baby Bob’s crayon away believing he is done with it. Bob begins to cry and takes a swipe at Jill. She manages, by moving away, to avoid Bob’s swipe. Bob now looks even angrier and crumbles up a piece of paper and flings it on the floor. An observer to this may conclude that Bob, in a sense, is criticizing Jill for taking the crayon.

2. This level requires displaying one or both of the following:

The criticizer does not explain what the offending behavior is, but instead expresses displeasure with glares, insults, shouting, silence, or threats that do not involve bodily harm. (For example, someone might be making too much noise and the criticizer might turn to the noise maker and glare, or cry out, “Jerk!”)
Threatens bodily harm regardless of what else is said.

3. The criticizer clearly states the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couples it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.

4. The criticizer states the criticism without bodily attacks, damaging property, glares, insults, threats, or shouts, and with enough details so that the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance. If the person receiving the criticism becomes defensive or angry, the criticizer empathizes without returning glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

5. When the criticizer provides criticism, he or she does so in a manner very similar to a level four response, but beforehand, the criticizer considers the person who is the target of the criticism and the situation that he or she is in. As a result of such considerations, the criticizer may decide to alter the criticism.

IDEAS THAT FOLLOWED

After proposing the five levels of maturity, several additional ideas came my way. One person suggested:

Hey there. One thing that potentially could be even better than a level 5 way to provide criticism would be to ask the person permission to offer them a criticism. You could say like, “hey, would it be alright if I make an observation about the way you handled that situation” or “do you mind if I offer you a couple constructive criticisms about your song” or whatever. Then, if the person says yes, they won’t feel like they are being attacked because they’ve given consent. Or they’ll have the opportunity to say “you know what? I’m really sort of feeling on edge so maybe another time would be better for us to talk.” That way, instead of gauging for yourself whether or not the person is in a state to tolerate the criticism, you can let them decide for themselves. What do you think about this idea?

I responded:

I like your idea. It goes along with considering person variables. For me, personally, I’m almost always up to hearing criticism, even if it may sting. Therefore, always asking me for permission would eventually become tiresome. But until you know someone well, starting off the relationship as you suggest, makes sense. And if, in time, you learn the person is very sensitive about criticism, continuing asking for permission would be the wise course of action.

Others argued that unless you are invited to provide criticism, you should keep your mouth shut. And others argued that even if you are invited to provide criticism, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. I address these issues in a post titled, UNSOLICITED CRITICISM: GOOD OR BAD? Very briefly, I agreed that these ideas were worthwhile to consider before providing criticism, but after this consideration there were times when providing uninvited criticism makes sense.

In a post titled “PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: A LESSON FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON” I explained that recently I had been reading an excellent biography of Jefferson by Jon Meacham. There, I learned that early in a relationship Jefferson typically avoided mentioning any fault in his new companion. He felt that later, once the relationship was well developed, was a better time to discuss differences of opinion. As Meacham describes Jefferson’s style, “people often talk too much and listen too little, which can be self-defeating, for in many instances the surer route to winning a friend is not to convince them that you are right but that you care what they think. Everyone wants to believe that what they have to say is fascinating, illuminating, and possibly even epochal.” In that line of thinking, Jefferson advised a daughter: “Much better…if our companion views a thing in a light different from what we do, to leave him in quiet possession of his view. What is the use of rectifying him if the thing be unimportant; and if important let it pass for the present, and wait a softer moment and more conciliatory occasion of revising the subject together.” Now Jefferson clearly recognized there was exceptions to this general rule, but nevertheless it makes a great deal of sense that whenever we are tempted to provide negative criticism careful consideration of this idea makes sense.

Another set of comments came from a few parents who argued that although the five levels of maturity made sense when adults were interacting with other adults, when parents provided negative criticism to their children, yelling, and even hitting were perfectly permissible. I responded to this in a post titled, PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: DEFENDING THE FIVE LEVELS. The issues this raises are simply too complicated to summarize here, so I’ll just refer interested readers to that post.

Finally, someone on Facebook presented the idea that it is helpful to use the sandwich approach to providing negative criticism. Here you begin with a slice of some positive comment, then you put on top of that the negative criticism, and then, on top of that, you provide another slice of positive criticism.

OK! So, basically, in a very abbreviated manner, those are some ideas we have already discussed. Now, to a new set of guidelines.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett’s Approach to Providing Negative Criticism

Recently on the internet I came upon a post by Maria Popova titled, “How to Criticize with Kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the Four Steps to Arguing Intelligently.” There I learned that Mr. Dennett has provided the following guidelines for composing a successful critical commentary:

You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

I kind of like this. Whereas it is not inconsistent with the original five levels of providing negative criticism, it provides some additional ideas to consider.

Over the course of a week or two I’ll come up with some specific examples that demonstrate Dennett’s approach. Until then, my best wishes to you all,

Jeff

———————

Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.