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.

Regular readers of this blog know that in the past I’ve written quite a bit about the five levels of maturity for providing negative criticism (see HERE). In fact, I had written so much about it that I had come to believe that perhaps I had said all that was needed to be said on the subject. To my pleasant surprise, while reading Jon Meacham’s fine Thomas Jefferson biography, The Art of Power, I’ve identified a new valuable principle to consider. With that in mind, let’s briefly review what we previously covered on providing negative criticism. Then we’ll take a look at this new Jeffersonian idea.

Providing Negative Criticism: Summarizing the Highest Levels of Maturity

As we discussed in earlier posts on this blog, the two highest levels of maturity for providing negative criticism (levels 4 and 5) can be summarized as follows:

Level 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.

Level 5. When the criticizer provides criticism, he or she does so in a manner very similar to a level 4 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.

Person variables that are considered: From observing how the person to be criticized handled criticism in the past, he or she determines which of the five levels of responding to criticism is most characteristic of the individual. (For example, if someone tends to physically attack the criticizer when criticized and is big enough to cause real bodily harm, then a decision is made either to not provide the criticism or to provide it only when there is sufficient security, or else someone else is employed to provide the criticism who is capable of dealing safely with the attack prone person.) Other person variables considered are how sensitive the person is when criticized, is the person to be criticized currently in an angry or sad mood, is the criticism likely to be perceived as particularly difficult to bear, versus something likely to be viewed as a relatively minor matter, and if the criticizer’s relationship with the person to be criticized is less than ideal. Depending on such variables, consideration is given to waiting until the person is in a pleasant mood and enlisting someone else to provide the criticism such as a more neutral person, a friend, or someone who is admired by the person who will be criticized. When the person to be criticized is particularly sensitive about an issue, a fictionalized story with a character who displays the offending behavior may be presented, and then the character’s behavior is discussed.
Situation characteristics that are considered: Are there other people around that will lead to face saving behavior coming into play? Is there enough time set aside to process the criticism? Has the person who is to provide the criticism been providing too much negative criticism in too short a period of time? (In this case, consideration is given to waiting until some time goes by in which some positive things are said over the course of several days before hitting the person to be criticized over the head yet again!)

The Jeffersonian Principle for Providing Negative Criticism

If you study carefully the level 5 description that I provided above, you will see that an important person variable to consider before providing criticism is whether or not the criticizer’s relationship with the person to be criticized is less than ideal. Whenever I presented that idea in the past, I suggested that if Jack does not have a good relationship with Judy and he wants to provide some criticism to Judy, he might be wise to consider whether or not it would be better to see if he could get someone who does have a good relationship with Judy to provide the criticism. This remains sound advice. But upon reading Meacham’s biography on Jefferson, I now have something to add.

To introduce this new idea, I think it is useful to understand that Jefferson, himself, was very sensitive when others provided him negative criticism. We see this in several existing documents. For example, in a letter to James Monroe, Jefferson said that the criticism he received while war governor of Virgina “had inflicted a wound on my spirit which will only be cured by the all-healing grave.”

In another letter, this one sent while serving as an American ambassador in Paris to Francis Hopkinson, Jefferson wrote:

“My great wish is to go on in a strict but silent performance of my duty: to avoid attracting notice and to keep my name out of newspapers, because I find the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise.”

Perhaps because of this sensitivity to criticism, early in a relationship Jefferson, rather than seeking ways to find fault in his new companion, used a more supportive style. As his biographer describes this 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.

I love the story that Meacham tells about a Virginia matron of the old school who often hosted Jefferson at her table. She liked to boast that Jefferson never failed to inquire with great particularity how her best dishes were cooked. Though she suspected that charm was at work–even flattery–she was also convinced by the apparent sincerity of Jefferson’s manner of listening. “I know this was half to please me,” she allowed, “but he’s a nice judge of things, and you may depend upon it, he won’t throw away anything he learns worth knowing.”

Now, there are times in a new relationship when you find that you disagree with your new companion. Should you confront the person? If not, what should you do if you say something that was not meant to be critical but you find that your companion takes offense and is now in an angry state?

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.”

One of the main desires that people have is to be liked. If we criticize people before we establish that we like them, they are much more likely to feel that we will not like them. This dramatically increases the likelihood of heightened levels of defensiveness. If, instead, we seek first to establish that we do esteem our new companions, and then show a willingness to drop discussions that are beginning to turn angry until a later, more peaceful time, perhaps this would be a wiser course of action.

Jefferson Writing Declaration of Independence

Now, to be sure, there were situations in which Jefferson did not wait until he had established a warm, friendly relationship with a person before providing negative criticism. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he knew it would end up reaching the eyes of the King of England. And there is no question that the document flings direct negative criticism at the King’s conduct. In this situation, despite not having first established a warm, friendly relationship with the King, Jefferson fully supported publicly publishing this obviously inflammatory document.

A teacher monitoring the hallways at school, upon hearing a student insulting another student with the ‘n’ word may feel compelled in that situation to firmly intervene in a manner that will come across as negative criticism. There are public internet forums in which disagreements can be fruitfully aired among individuals who know practically nothing of one another. And so, we still have to consider each individual situation before deciding the best way to deal with criticism. But at the highest levels of maturity, Jefferson offers us a wise option.

——————————-

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.