It’s the bottom of the eighth inning. The talented star, Bryce Harper, front runner for the National League Most Valuable Player Award, hits a pop fly to left field that a professional outfielder is very likely to catch. However, there are times when such fielders do lose the ball in the sun or the stadium lights, and the ball ends up being dropped, allowing the batter to safely reach base if he had bothered to run. It is for this reason that Mr. Harper is supposed to hustle down to first base even if he has a pretty good reason to think that the ball he hit is, in all likelihood, going to be caught. Instead of sprinting down to first, Mr. Harper slowly steps out of the batter’s box and then heads to the dugout where he runs into a very angry teammate, Jonathan Papelbon.

According to several sports reporters, Mr. Papelbon, an incredibly talented pitcher, began to criticize Mr. Harper about his lack of hustle, and after a very brief exchange, he charged into Mr. Harper, putting his hands on his throat and shoving him into the back wall of the Washington dugout. Fortunately, Mr. Harper was still wearing his batting helmet because his head smacked hard into the wall, and his helmet came flying off. Several Nationals players and coaches responded immediately and physically separated the two.

How Mature was Mr. Papelbon’s Style of Providing Negative Criticism in this Situation?

Regular readers of this blog know that when it comes to providing negative criticism, we are encouraged to consider a tentative model that describes five levels of maturity. Level one is viewed as the most immature, and each higher level is viewed as a little more mature. Let’s take a quick look at these levels, and as we do so, let’s see if we can figure out which of the five levels best describes Mr. Papelbon’s approach.

PROVIDING NEGATIVE CRITICISM: FIVE LEVELS OF MATURITY

1. The criticizer displays one or more of the following behaviors:

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

2. Those who are at this level display one or both of the following behaviors:

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. Those who are at this level clearly state the criticism with enough detail so the criticized person, if he or she wills, can improve the behavior, idea, or appearance, but couple it with glares, insults, shouts, or threats that are not about bodily harm.

4. Those who are at this level state 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, these criticizers empathize without returning glares, insults, threats, or shouts.

5. Those who are at this level provide criticism in a manner very similar to a level four style of criticism but beforehand, they consider the person who is the target of the criticism, and the situation that he or she is in. As a result of such considerations, they may decide to alter the criticism.

According to the Above Model, What Level of Maturity Best Describes Mr. Papelbon’s Form of Negative Criticism?

While criticizing Mr. Harper’s lack of hustle to first base, Mr. Papelbon physically attacked him. Of the five levels described in the above model, level one, the most immature level, best describes what he had done.

Why is such a style considered immature? Well, one reason is that when people respond at the more mature levels, it demonstrates that they can consider the consequences of their actions before they choose what actions to take. In this case, the consequences for Mr. Papelbon has been a suspension for the rest of the season, a fine of thousands of dollars, and he has been displayed on national news in a negative light, thus tarnishing his reputation. A little forethought would have led to avoiding these clearly negative consequences.

Now, it is important to note that the specific negative criticism that Mr. Papelbon wanted to deliver to Mr. Hudson, was, according to my own value system, correct. Mr. Hudson does owe it to his teammates to hustle down to first base in these situations. However, I disagree with how Mr. Papelbon provided the criticism.

Mr. Papelbon, center, after lunging at Mr. Harper.

What would have been a more mature response? A little forethought would have led to realizing that Mr. Harper was very frustrated with his own pop out in the game. Thus, to wait until the next day would give both parties time to calm down.

Moreover, providing negative criticism to someone in front of lots of other people is often a huge mistake. Face-saving actions tend to increase defensiveness for both parties. Asking to discuss such matters in private is often a kinder, wiser approach.

Finally, Mr. Papelbon would have been wise to first consider if he was the best person to present the criticism. Usually managers of a team are the ones who are considered to have the legitimate authority to bring these types of issues up to a player. If Mr. Papelbon felt he had a particularly close relationship with Mr. Harper, or an established mentor relationship, there could be some exceptions to this general rule. Otherwise, Mr. Papelbon might have been wise to privately discuss his displeasure about his teammate’s lack of hustle with his manager and urge him to take firm action.

Sports Illustrated Article on “Abusive Coaches”

In big time sports, Mr. Papelbon is in no way the only one who provides negative criticism in a manner that matches the most immature levels of our model. In a special report of the September 28, 2015 issue of Sports Illustrated, Alexander Wolff (with reporting by Lauren Shute) writes:,

“Why do college coaches continue to yell, demean and demoralize? That’s yesterday’s tactic. Today’s athletes can’t-and won’t-take it. What’s more, it doesn’t work: Study after study shows the benefits of a more positive approach.” (p. 51)

What are the negative consequences of providing negative criticism in these low maturity level styles? The Sports Illustrated writer tells us about excellent players leaving their teams, and in rare cases, committing suicide.

Many coaches have lost their jobs after an athletic director’s investigation. Over the past 28 months at least seven Division I schools have had an investigation, and then parted ways with coaches following player complaints of mistreatment.

Moreover, some colleges end up getting sued. In one case, seven former players have filed a $10 million civil suit that charges the school and coaches were fostering a racially hostile environment.

There is some relatively good news in the Sports Illustrated article. Apparently, most players are not being treated in a demeaning manner judging from one recent NCAA survey. Of Division I players, 31% of men’s basketball players and 22% of football players reported that a coach “puts me down in front of others.” Although this indicates that there is still plenty of room for improvement, it can nevertheless be viewed as a hopeful sign that most coaches are finding more positive ways to bring out quality performances in their players.

Why Do Many Coaches Continue to Use Abusive Tactics?

As reported in the Sports Illustrated article, according to Ramogi Huma, executive director to the National College Players Association, which often hears from abused athletes:

“I believe this is a cultural problem. A lot of coaches, they were hollered at and abused when they were players.” (p. 52)

There is also undoubtedly a great deal of pressure on the coaches. If they don’t win, they are very likely to be replaced.

But perhaps the major reason is that coaches are not provided enough inspiring stories about how successful coaches find ways to win by fostering bonding, loyalty, and commitment to a team in a positive manner. Dramatic enthusiasm when explaining to players what specifically they can do to improve, rather than belittling them about what they did wrong, is one such positive approach. Celebrating each step toward improvement is another.

Conclusion

Thinking about what happens when immature styles of criticism occur in the world of big time sports can provide us an important lesson with regards to how we provide criticism to others in non-athletic situations. The five levels of maturity provides guidance not only to big time athletic teammates and their coaches, but also to the rest of us.

Real change from lower levels of maturity to higher levels rarely occurs from reading a single article. More typically, it requires bringing examples of people utilizing the higher level skills before one’s consciousness at least weekly for several months, and, on each of these occasions, an effort must be put forth to consider how these skills can be specifically applied to one’s own life. Following this blog is a no cost way to help make this happen.

I hope you join us again real soon.

My Best, 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.

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

———————