Is there a difference between giving feedback or giving criticism as a leader? What are the main differences?
Huge differences. Most have to do with intent and desired outcome.
Criticism, in its simplest form, is for the giver, not the recipient. To criticize is one of the easiest forms of ego defense, and is generally a display of defensiveness and lack of personal confidence. We criticize most when someone aspires to accomplish what we cannot (or will not), or when their accomplishment could somehow threaten ours.
It’s acting out hurtfully with negative thinking.
Feedback, on the other hand, is principally to help someone grow and improve. To positively change a behavior for the better. In other words, it’s more of what we recommend they do, and less of what they did wrong.
Further, if we include some self-reflection in our feedback — opening ourselves to others — we both grow. Our blind spots will be forever blind without effective feedback from others, and people are more inclined to be open with those who have been similarly open with them.
The Johari Window is a great tool for determining how public or “open” you are to receiving feedback, which is crucial for your feedback to be well received.
The more I increase my “public” or “open” window:
–The less I am blind.
–The less I have to worry about keeping things hidden.
–The more I may discover parts of me that I like, which are hidden.
I can’t reduce my Blind area without help from others (feedback).
If I am to help others, I must learn to give helpful feedback.
This mutual feedback process builds trust and strengthens relations among teams, groups and even individuals.
In short, criticism is selfish, feedback is helpful.
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
A funny thing… when speaking with leaders and managers in most companies, you’ll hear the same thing: “We should lead by example.”
Well, yes, but…
You already lead by example. All leaders lead by example, every single waking day. The question is what kind of example, good or bad? Setting some example is merely a function of coming to work.
We create examples in ways not always obvious. For example: in our expectations of others, when we allow abhorrent behavior – behavior not otherwise condoned or supported – to go unchecked by a select few, rest assured that others will see and emulate. And don’t ask me why (a Psychologist, I’m not), but the worse the behavior, the more widespread the perceived acceptance.
And don’t kid yourself; merely because you think everyone knows something is inherently wrong, doesn’t mean they won’t still do it anyway when they see it’s ok for others to do it (and yes, acquiescence, like silence, is the same as acceptance). Here’s a real world example…
I was at the Master’s golf championship in Augusta, Georgia a few years back. Now many of you know this, but the people who run Augusta National (the Club) are fanatic about their rules. Positively loony about 100% enforcement, all the time, no matter what.
So, we were in line to get in, early one morning, for a practice round. One of the rules is “no hard-seated chairs.” You can carry in a wide variety of seats, camping chairs, lawn chairs, etc., provided they have soft seats. The reason, of course, is that they don’t want you later standing on those seats, blocking the pristine Augusta views from others.
Well, you knew it would happen… just in front of us was a group of 3 guys. They saw the signs, discussed it quietly among themselves, then decided they’d give it a shot – that they wouldn’t get caught.
Wrong – cold-busted.
The gate marshal came up to the guy carrying the chair, and stated flatly, “that can’t come inside the grounds.” To which this 40-something adult male responded, “Well, why can HE do it, then???” …all the while pointing to another gentleman’s chair about 15 feet in front.
That’s right – his complete rationale for doing what he knew to be wrong was, “someone else is doing it, and you haven’t said anything to him.” Don’t kid yourself; this is not near as much an anomaly as we would like to believe.
The behavior we allow, we promote. No different than if we were modeling the behavior ourselves. Think about that when you feel like it’s just too much trouble to correct some seemingly isolated (but negative) behavior in your staff. If a non-negotiable – something that simply cannot occur – you must address it, and get a commitment to stop the errant actions.
If not, get prepared – it’ll spread like wildfire, and you are largely, personally responsible.
An old friend sent me a picture the other day of this blue ribbon that says, “I survived another meeting that should have been an email.” He obviously remembers how I feel about meetings.
Turns out you can actually buy the ribbons here, and I know a lot of bosses who should pass them out.
You leaders have got to get a handle on the endless parade of time-wasting, morale-draining meetings you expect your people to sit through!
Routine, regularly scheduled meetings – the ones that are on your calendar until the end of time – are the worst! They typically involve endless droning around a table about activities that only one or two people in the room care about. When the boss at the head of the table tolerates such time wasting, the expectation is that everyone has to say something, and we’ve all experienced the guy who’s a little too fond of his own voice.
Several years ago, everyone in my directorate went to a weekly staff meeting like the one I described above. I used to tuck a couple of Sudokus in my notebook to make it look like I was taking notes (I know, not setting a good example). One week, I asked the director if I could skip the meeting if I was too busy. He said, “Sure.” I never went again.
I’ve got the stick for a minute.
When I was talking the other day with a senior government leader about making meetings more productive, I got some pushback on my value judgement. He said, “It’s the only time we all get together. How else will everyone find out what the others are working on?” I remember one time a Deputy Under Secretary actually saying, “The daily meeting’s not for you; it’s for me to find out what everyone’s doing.”
Trust me, there are far better ways to connect the people who need information with the people who have information. If you’re the boss and doubt what I’m saying, give this to your people and ask for their thoughts.
Productive meetings don’t happen by accident. If you want to see a dramatic improvement in Return On Time Spent In Meetings (ROTSIM – a new metric?), try these proven steps:
Put someone (preferably someone who values efficient use of time) in charge of the agenda. Meetings without agendas usually end up being free-for-alls. If you absolutely have to have a routine meeting to update the boss, make it clear in advance that no one brings more than two or three of their most critical issues that a majority of people around the table really need to know about. Any issues that only the boss and the person speaking care about should be handled one-on-one or in an email.
Get rid of as many routine meetings as you can. I was once part of an organization (for a very short period of time) who actually tracked the number of meetings attended as a performance metric. Try only having meetings when there is something to decide. Have clear objectives, not open-ended ones like “Discuss employee engagement.” Send pre-work to the attendees so they can come to the table as an informed participants, not as sponges.
No marathon meetings! People lose focus and creativity when you hold them hostage for more than an hour or two, especially after lunch. If need be, break the agenda in half and have two shorter meetings appropriately spaced.
Finally, make sure someone’s keeping track of decisions and deferred issues. Make it a written record and include who is responsible for each along with a deadline. It can be part of the pre-work if you need a subsequent session.
What about the time you spend around the conference room table? Want to reduce it and make it more productive?
Strategic Planning is dead. Long live strategic planning…
An interesting conundrum; we know that strategic planning is valuable. Intuitively. Yet, we seldom march lockstep behind that big blue binder when it’s complete.
Why is that??
I have an opinion (surprise!). During a recent strategy session, the client’s chief executive stated that he doesn’t even consider it strategic planning at all. He doesn’t even like the term.
He uses Strategic Discernment.
I hate doing this, but I visited dictionary.com for the definitive definition of discern/discernment…
1. to perceive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect; see,
recognize, or apprehend: They discerned a sail on the horizon.
2. to distinguish mentally; recognize as distinct or different; discriminate: He is
incapable of discerning right from wrong. –verb (used without object)
3. to distinguish or discriminate.
Now this is something we can get our arms around. It’s not the strategy, stupid, it’s the planning (or in this case, the discernment). It’s the act of discriminating among choices; of choosing one path, direction, or vision over another.
It’s to recognize something distinct or different. Remember, strategy has never been simple trending of current results — that’s simply forecasting, and can be done via Excel spreadsheet.
No, real strategy is creating our future among the myriad possibilities; it’s determining in advance what we intend to be, who we intend to be, and what will matter to us. Then, making that happen.
Instead of simply watching in awe as things happen around us.
The more I increase my “public” or “open” window:
The gate marshal came up to the guy carrying the chair, and stated flatly, “that can’t come inside the grounds.” To which this 40-something adult male responded, “Well, why can HE do it, then???” …all the while pointing to another gentleman’s chair about 15 feet in front.
