Most managers, in my experience, don’t find it too difficult to give criticism on the

quantifiable element of their staff member’s performance.  They don’t find it too difficult to say something like ‘We agreed you would produce 30 units a day. This record shows you’re producing 20. Can you agree there’s a problem here with your performance?’

 

The challenge

What many managers find much more challenging is giving criticism on the unquantifiable elements of the staff member’s performance. This is how managers often describe this type of issue to me

 

·         He’s got a poor attitude

·         She lacks confidence

·         He’s not a team player

·         She’s arrogant

 

Clearly it’s not too hard to see the problem managers have with raising these types of issue.  It is difficult to see a conversation going well based on an opening line ‘I want to talk to you about your attitude. It stinks’ (and if you think I’ve made that last statement up, I’m sorry to say I haven’t)

 

So how do you give this type of criticism?

 

The first step is to focus on behaviours, and only the behaviours. What you will notice from our manager’s statements above is that they are talking about the staff member’s characteristics or personality traits. As you may have noticed from your own experience, criticising a person’s characteristics or personality traits very rarely works well. If ever. Criticism specifically focussed on behaviours is much more likely to be understood and accepted. Here’s why

 

1. Behaviours vs. Characteristics or Personality Traits

 

When a staff member receives criticism on their behaviours they generally ‘hear’ that criticism on the cognitive or intellectual level (‘in the head’)

 

 When they receive criticism of their characteristics or personality they generally ‘hear’ that on the emotional level (’in the heart’)

 

Criticism based on our behaviours is easier to accept than criticism of our personality or characteristics because it is based on

 

·         what we do

 

NOT ON

 

·         who we are

 

 

Also, although most people believe they can change what they do. Very few people believe they can

change who they are

 

 A couple of examples:

 

 

A) If I were to say to you

 

When you turn up late to team briefings it causes a problem (Behaviour)

 

It would probably feel easier to accept than if I were to say

 

Your lack of commitment to the team is causing a problem (Characteristic / Personality trait)

 

 

B) When you interrupt me in front of a client it causes a problem (Behaviour)

 

Would probably feel easier to accept than

 

Your arrogance is causing a problem (Characteristic /Personality trait)

 

So, criticism based on behaviours is both a) depersonalised and b) focussed on the belief that the person can change. This makes it easier to accept and consequently easier to give

 

2. Facts vs. Assumptions

 

The second reason is that it’s easier to give criticism on behaviours is because behavioural

criticism is based on facts not assumptions

 

Examples

 

A) When I talk about you turning up late for a meeting – that’s a fact

 

When I talk about your lack of commitment – that’s an assumption

 

B) When I talk about there being three errors in the report you gave me – that’s a fact

 

When I talk about your lack of interest in your work – that’s an assumption

 

The reality is I can’t actually know what your level of commitment or interest in your work is – I can only assume, or guess, based on my interpretation of your behaviours

 

But it is assumption and it is guesswork and, putting aside any moral objection you might have to making assumptions about a person, assumptions can be argued against and facts cannot.  And that’s why it’s a problem

 

Another example

 

Have you ever said to anyone ‘You just don’t listen!’?

 

Have you ever had the following response?

 ‘Your assumption that I don’t listen to you is absolutely correct. I rarely, if ever, pay attention to anything anyone else says. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I shall now endeavour to hang on to every word you say’ 

 

I thought not    

 

Almost any criticism of characteristics or personality trait will be met with an argument.   

 

‘You don’t listen’                                                                                              ‘I do’

 

‘You’re not committed enough’                                                                      ‘I am’

 

And so it goes on

 

3. Objectivity

 

When you focus on behaviours you can give examples:

 

Yesterday you came to the meeting 20 minutes late

 

 There were three errors in the report you gave me

 

What examples give you is objectivity – because you’re talking about facts – and criticism that is seen as being objective is always easier to understand and accept

 

A summary of the benefits of focussing on behaviours  

 

a) It depersonalises the criticism as much as is possible – it’s not about the person. It is

About what they do or have done

 

b) Most people believe they can change what they do. Very few people believe they can

change who they are

 

c) It’s difficult to disagree with facts. It’s easy to disagree with assumption

 

d) Facts bring objectivity. Objective criticism is easier to accept and easier to give

 

Want to know more about this topic? You can watch Session One from the video ‘Motivating your staff to improve their performance with positive criticism’ for FREE at http://www.10mmt.com/wp-login.php?action=register

In this session you can learn;

·         How an iceberg can help you understand (and explain) the concept of behavioural criticism

·         Why the focus on behaviours can be such a challenge

·         A two step exercise for preparing to give criticism on behaviours

    

Tags: 'giving criticism', Add new tag, management training, performance, skills, supervision, training videos

This entry was posted on Friday, March 26th, 2010 at 4:25 pm and is filed under How To. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.