Discussion on:

How to deliver criticism to a sensitive employee

I know it's easy to think that an employee is blowing up or crying intentionally, but some people just cry or fly off the handle easily. That doesn't mean you should ignore the advice to not let it stop you, but don't hold it against them. Give them a moment and then get moving.

I would go one step further and not only write down what you need to convey for yourself, but also for the employee. Make a list of the issues and expected resolutions in an email, with the employee right there, and send it right away. Repetition is your friend. You will avoid many a misunderstanding that way.

Above all, focus on the resolution as a positive thing, and tell the person you know they can make this change. You may have to say that last through gritted teeth, but do it anyway.

From how misbehavior is handled just south of me.

Worlds apart, they are.

Hi, Toni,

Behavior, not personality works together with employees, coworkers and our own children.

Big point.

Michel FENYO

Where is the empathy? It seems like it would be good to empathize with the employee, so that they feel heard. It doesn't mean you have to agree, it just means you can hear what is going on for him/her in that moment. If someone feels heard, and that it is a safe space, he is more likely to be able to receive a hard-to-hear message. Is the value always about getting things done better or more efficiently? What about the value of the person?

Happier employees are supposed to be better and more productive and lead to happier customers. Behaviors cannot be ignored and need to be addressed, but correcting an individual behavior is a short term approach compared to building a relationship with the employee.

What do you think? Am I off base?

If you're a humane manager who wants happy, loyal, hardworking employees, empathy, give-and-take and honesty are the best way. Then criticism is easier to take, if not to give. If you don't really care about that, since all employees are replaceable, including yourself, then empathy would be an unnecessary complication. And of course, if your goal is to drive an employee out, then you may wish to employ negative empathy, or use empathy to elicit responses that could be used against the employee.

The last part of what you said is what about 90% of the managers I've ever worked for engage in. They see employees as tools, like a hammer or screwdriver, to be used, abused, and thrown away at the slightest sign of trouble. Many of the managers I've worked for fire employees seemingly for sport. Very few have had any kindness or constructive criticism ever. It's a shame that people can't see that turnover costs money in most cases. Of course, there are employees who are lazy, crooked, or can't be reasoned with, but they are in the minority. Most people can be built up if they are treated with respect and kindness. I consistently have the lowest turnover in departments I run. They need to focus on that in college, rather than constantly covering and recovering diversity.

As a husband to a wife who uses the "Bawl until I get my way" technique on almost every occasion that she doesn't agree with, I can say empathy only goes so far. You can employ those things you say, but that doesn't fix the matter. They have to be aware of what they're doing to help them get better. If nothing else, they need to learn to be a stronger person in a world that will eat them alive if they don't.

Given what I said in my reply to the other post, I totally agree with you. That is not about being a stronger person, it's about manipulation. Manipulation plain and simple. Some people can be shown kindness, and some can't. IMO, the trick to becoming a good supervisor is figuring out which, and acting accordingly. Many managers think that the only way to get results is busting balls. That is true for a small minority of emplyees, and those should be fired. The rest, who can be reasoned with, should be treated with kindness. Infortunately, you can't fire your wife (you can legally, but I don't believe in that) so you have to learn to speak her language.

There are many problems that an employer cannot solve for an employee but it's
a good idea to inquire the nature of the problem because some problems can be
solved. For example, an employee may need to pick up a child after school.

A possible solution would be to change the employee's working hours by having him start early. Suppose that the enterprise happened to be located on the West Coast, someone may need to man the phones from five or six AM because customers want service at eight or nine AM Eastern time.

This is obviously not a universal solution but, in many cases, only a local solution is needed.

Empathy must take place at every moment in your own behavior toward others. So it will be considered as an asset in your relationship with all the people surrounding you. I do not feel the necessity to add more empathy at the very moment you say "Bad boy..." or "Bad girl..."

First I must say that my own manager and his manager are excellent examples of management, but I have observed other senior personnel (I've worked for many companies during my 40 year career) who have issues with criticism and when a manager is incapable of accepting even constructive criticism, he is less effective as a manager and his department and consequently the company suffers. In a previous job there was a manager who was 'never at fault' - any problems were always someone else's fault. How do you deal with such people who have the power to sack you?
On the subject of 'I am at fault', I find that an immediate admission of guilt is the best policy - it takes the wind out of the sails of the accuser and it conveys a sense of honesty because I am not trying to worm my way out of a situation for which I am responsible.

Unfortunately, the people you just described are the norm rather than the exception. In most of the companies I've worked for, the upper management are inept as far as people skills go. The VP's generally only care if the senior managers can make the paperwork look good. They couldn't care less what the turnover rate is. At my last company we had a 95%! turnover rate with people less than five years with the company. I left the company at 6 years on good terms, and told the VP of HR what the problem was. She told me I didn't know what I was talking about.

How to deliver criticism to a sensitive employer....

Thanks for the article and the discussion!

This is very much what I try to practice in my organisation, but it seems the top looks only in numbers and has degraded people to "resources".

I still think the biggest asset of the organisation is the people!

The problem as I see it is that we, as a society, are always concerned with being politically correct and don???t hurt anyone???s feelings. Many people are afraid of confrontations or have the ???don???t rock the boat??? mentality. Whatever happened to truth and honesty, tell it like it is no sugar coating. If a person is that sensitive to criticisms tells me they have little self-respect or confidence. It???s time to grow up and face the real world.

...how they come across with the criticism negates both.

As much as many out there will totally disagree with you Angelo, I for one fully AGREE! It has gotten way out of line with the mambb-pamby lets be nice routine.
Sometimes it is time to call a spade a spade and for all to get it together and move on - Make the corrections and keep going.

Well, then.. let's call it that. You have just shown in this post that you are clearly in insensitive jerk! As long as you can vent all over an employee and ruin their work week, then you feel all better. And that's all that matters isn't it?

course.
If you can't take it, don't give it......

Employees may need to grow up, but real-world practice shows that treating such a person sharply with harsh expressions of expectations and contempt for their behavior does not produce the desired growth. In fact it produces the opposite and undermines whatever growth may have been occuring. It reinforces the belief the person may have that they are unequal to the demands of their life. They may simply not have been taught the skills for dealing appropriately with criticism, and you have a chance to model that for them by teaching them that it is not a catastrophe that alienates them from the powerful people in their lives but simply a normal everyday event that can be overcome with a little effort. People who are afraid to make the effort are people who have been taught that they can only fail further no matter what they do because they are intrinsically flawed, so they avoid or deny to escape the pain of facing that.

A certain gentle firmness combined with an empathy that is rooted in simple respect for the human being gets the best results, whether you are dealing with employees, friends, customers, or children.

Very well said. Respect for the person, and gentle correction for the undesirable behavior or performance critique. It has worked for me time and again. Only on TWO occasions in 29 years of management, has it failed. There is the rare person who will not respond, no matter what you do, then you terminate and replace with a reasonable person.

Interestingly, the "Respect and be gentle" was an explanation I once heard for Proverbs "spare the rod and spoil the child": The rod is what a shepherd uses to direct the sheep---not beat them as most people think that verse means. Thus the emphasis is on disciplining (disciplina is the Latin word for teaching and learning), not punishing---which whether you use punishment or are against it you end up with a result that the person learns nothing, finds no boundaries, etc. But the "bust their ass" guys are a common fixture in America, oddly.

Controlling or Nurturing parent as your starter, the only acceptable response is child.
It's sorry I won't do it again, or sorry I'll try to do better.

Any other and you have an immediate communication failure.
React to the lack of expected response and it will just get worse, child to child probably.
So one minute you are discussing why a bug got passed all your checks, the next whether each other spots are due to lack of hygiene.

The mere fact that you go in to this as controlling (worse still nurturing iun some respects) is saying grow up, stop being a baby, start being an adult.
You wouldn't go in and say that out loud and expect a constructive outcome would you.
If you want an adult response, you need to kick things off with an adult statement.

What did we do wrong here is a good starter....

I don't have enough information to decide if you're one of the "ball busters" that I usually work for, and you're justifying it, or if you're simply not wanting to coddle the manipulators. If you are the former, then you are the reason for any problems in your organization, not your "dumb" employees. You don't know best, like you think you do. If you are the latter, I completely agree with you. One can be kind and give criticism of the specific issue at hand without telling the employee that they are useless, or threatening to fire them.

Is fine and dandy what the article says; however, in my long experience of 40+ years I have noticed that managers and supervisors, for the most part, are not fully aware of the details of the project(s) and so make harsh and non-productive decisions. Also, managers and supervisors tend to take full advantage of employees with excellent background and know how and so they load them to the point of burning them out and piss them off...there is no balance in the group of employees as some do a lot and others very little or nothing other than being a brownnoser. Also, most employees in the technical arena do not communicate very well or not at all about what they do, the so call job security, so difussion of know how is a must among employees in any group and the manager and supervisor must be aware of that. So, no wonder a technical writer does not communicate to well the technical aspect of the job at hand or takes him/her longer than expected writing about something which the technicl person does not want to talk about or makes it obscure. As far as being a difficult person...well, most technical people are!

You are 1000% spot on, alot managers and supers are so full of themselves that they think they are beyond reproach, they live inside this tiny bubble world oblivious to anyone else s opinion or ideas. They are so drunk on there own ego that they believe nobody else knows more than they do even when the employee has more experience in that field, letting the pro due his or her job and getting the project done in half the time and with out all the BS is beyond reasoning to them.

Right on! "Drunk on their own ego." Exactly right. That's about 90% of the people I have worked for. The other 10% have been gems. I don't mind receiving criticism or critique from them at all, because I know they care about me and have my interests in mind, in addition to the organization's interests. Perfect post bullybreed!

A good technique is to conduct brief (5 minutes) informal status checks with all of your team members (e.g. every couple of days or at minimum once a week) at their workstation. Encourage them to volunteer what is going right and what could be better. I learned this from another manager at a managment training course. He referred to this technique as "managing by walking about". This reduces the chance of a problem getting out of hand and improves rapport. It also allows you to be proactive in supporting your team members early before they can add stress.

Also, when performing more formal discussions, I always start with "How do you think things are going? Is there anything that you, I or both of us could do improve productivity etc.?" This allows the employee to reflect and self-critique rather than being 'told' how they are not measuring up. This reduces the perception of you 'picking' on them and since the critique is their own, they can actually embrace it. Should they only focus on the things that they are doing well, then agree where appropriate and then interject with your observations of areas that could improve. Always be prepared to suggest some ideas on HOW they can go about making the change and examples of how you would be able to measure the change.

Finally, remind and if appropriate, reinforce the change with positive comments during your frequent informal status checks.

I completely agree with the approach you offer, David. Even in one of the worst cases of abuse of position I've had the displeasure of being involved in, the CEO pulled me and the errant guy to one side for a meeting, and employed this approach to solve the situation. In the end the tech' talked himself out of the job. Nobody got fired; he resigned. A masterful managerial approach.

"Get your **** together or take a hike!" works sometimes for shock value, but as a general approach, gentle discussions with subordinates generally makes better sense, and creates much smoother day to day working environment. Guiding staff to make themselves take responsibility for their own actions gets far better results then goading them with a cattle prod.

While we're at it, perhaps we should consider not "delivering it", but offering it, as a mentor and coach?

One problem I have encountered is the use of the word "criticism". I have had managers and HR Specialists actually write in counseling documents. Employees see that word and automatically are put in a defensive position. Once in that mind set they are not hearing you. Criticism, as a word, implies a negative assessment even it it positive and is never taken as "constructive" as no one likes to be criticized so it is an oxymoron. I avoid its use and substitute word "feedback". Employees seem to be more receptive to feedback and "hear" what deficiencies are being pointed out so they can correct them.

I think many are mixing apples and oranges. The author would have done well to provide an example or two. If a person is constantly late or regularly turns a 10-minute break into a 25-minute break or 'slips out for a "quick" smoke' or uses crass language around clients... that is a legitimate criticism. And it SHOULD be presented as a criticism. "You know Bob, we've spoken about this before. You need to show up for work on time. We have regular working hours and you are expected to be here on time just like everyone else. We all have things come up, but you tend to abuse the flexibility and it's tarnishing your reputation among management and your peers."

Saying things like "What can "WE" do to help" is coddling. It's not the managers responsibility to get the employee out of bed and to work on time.

That said, there ARE situations where empathy and assistance are appropriate. Bob, I realize that your raising two young kids as a single parent. It looks like it's next to impossible for you to get here at 8am. How about if we adjust your lunch your to 45-minutes?

There are times when employees need to be held accountable for poor performance or behavior. And there are times when an employee simply needs some help. This article did not address this fact very well.

No ... that's enforcing the rules of the road. Criticism involves reasoned evaluation.

I find a lot of the comments on this topic distressing. It's little wonder America is becoming less competitive.

In the case you are describing, I totally agree. Some people don't respond to the first couple of gentle nudges. Then you need to turn the volume up. If that doesn't work, then terminate. But ALWAYS be kind the first time. I can't imagine what reason one needs to jump all over someone the first time they discuss an offense.

"If a person is constantly late or regularly turns a 10-minute break into a 25-minute break or 'slips out for a "quick" smoke'..."

The world is a bigger place than you seem to believe. Schedules are different at different kinds of work-places.

That may be for the "IT" folks, the "house geeks", the direct tenders of robots, people at the customer service desk, and such. But software product developers are not 8-5 creatures. We may all take off together Friday afternoon for the latest SF movie premiere, but work all day and night several days a week (and typically only write down 40 hours because we know you B-school bozos won't pay us for the extra hours we work, anyway). If we're there at 07:00 or 08:00, it's often because we've been there all night. If you want us to show on time for a special meeting, let us know several days in advance so that we can make sure our transportation is in order and we can be fully alert at that time of day (just in case it's a time when we've recently been sound asleep).

I've only worked in a couple shops with fixed schedules like that and it was a bizarre experience. They were focused too much on being seen (or playing power games), and not enough on getting the job done.

"or uses crass language around clients... that is a legitimate criticism"

That's a different and more difficult matter. Some clients prefer a little crass language and others will be extremely offended at things most people would not bat an eye at. Different people consider different things "crass". (I was just reading a book in which the author pointed out that among the people with whom he works, asking who a person's father is is considered an extreme breach of etiquette and in the best of cases will only result in your naivete being roundly laughed at rather than killed, while what would be a crude sexual reference is common. In parts of the USA, asking about your close relatives is a courtesy and necessary part of first meetings; it's a way to connect and establish roles and standing.)

Figuring out the client's expectations in such things requires someone with skill and experience in measuring them. I've known a very few people who had developed that knack and were expert in smoothing over situations with just the right joke for those present and the circumstances.

No, don't cut his lunch time. S/he probably needs that time, too, if only to mentally catch up with unfinished business, but probably also to run about town on errands s/he hasn't had time to get done otherwise. Better to just pay them for the hours worked if they can't work 12-14 hours a day and make it a "no hard feelings" matter on either side. Think about whether the person is getting done what needs to get done. Then think about when you really truly neeeed for that person to actually be physically present, not just that it would be convenient if s/he were always at hand during big swaths of every day to jump at your whims.

You are partly right Kageboshi. The thing that makes the difference between it being perceived as collaborative or adversarial is the background relationship before the event. Did you (or I) as a manager come alongside the subordinate and do anything at all to show that you cared about them? I know everyone on my team by name, I know their spouses (not just the names, I've talked to them and know a little bit about them), I know their children's names and ages, and I know a little bit about what's going on in their families. If I need to restructure their schedule to help them out (like if they have to share one car or get kids from school or such) I do it. I buy them lunch from time to time and remember their birthdays. Is that too much to ask!? Evidently for most managers it is. My employees almost never have a problem if I ask them to put the new cover sheets on the TPS reports.

I've worked with a couple of people who are super sensitive, this is good advice in this article. Saying you should avoid criticising people is PC crap, it's a job at the end of the day, they're there to work. I'm not a psychiatrist, I'm not there to counsel them. The one about having them repeat back to you what you've just said is spot on, I've learned to do that too.

...to detail fired?

I had a job a few years back with a Seattle technology company. I had been very depressed, and it was affecting my work. When my boss called me in, he DID NOT criticize me. Instead, he asked me how I was feeling. I told him the truth, acknowledging that my work had not been up to snuff. He courteously asked "Do you know how to handle it?", and I said yes. I made an effort to get back on track, and that seemed to be satisfactory.

Really, Use to work for my Dad (old school). He would say, do your job, do it right, play nice with others and get out of here and quit bothering me Why do you have to baby someone because they throw a temper tantrum. No one is irreplaceable, especially in an economy that is has high unemployment.

Good post. Old school guys were straight shooters. The difference is that they CARED about their people. You knew they cared, at least I did, so it didn't bother me to get it on the chin once in a while. Nowadays the managers just bust balls, and also don't care. Turnover IS expensive. That doesn't mean don't fire anyone, just don't do it for sport.

American Managers are totally incompetent. The core reason is that they have bought into the shift from objective to emotional. How people feel determines evaluations.

Dr. Chris Argyris cuts through the rubbish in his book, "The Management Trap".

While Toni is right (and has an impressive record of excellent posts along with Jason Hiner), "The Management Trap" expands on the idea and gives you much more of "the good stuff".

The bottom line is for management to stop lying, stop trying to pretend they are in charge, stop playing as if they were positive and stop pretending to care about the employee (in some cases not even knowing the employee) and begin telling the truth -- beginning with themselves and their incompetent practices.

in the words of "The Donald"

This article sounds like a textbook answer by a person who has not dealt with sensitive people. There are usually reasons why people are sensitive and a textbook answer cannot be applied to every situation.

Criticism comes from the Greek kritikos and means something like "to take a pound of flesh". Critics are those who want to find fault with individuals - not address the real issue.

Feedback, on the other hand, focuses on the behavior and tries to show to the individual the outcomes of any particular behavior - whether positive or negative. Feedback is specific and reviews the situation and what happened (not who is right or wrong), then goes into the consequences (again, not who is right or wrong).

If the consequences are positive, it reinforces the behavior as a good example of what to do _again_. When the consequences are negative, the person can identify the contributing factors to the situation and look to avoid a recurrence. The key with feedback is to allow the employee to see how their actions (behavior) led directly to the consequences. At that point, the employee can become their own judge on the matter and can take action to improve. The manager should make suggestions only when the employee either doesn't care (in which case you have bigger issues) or when the employee genuinely doesn't know how to proceed.

The wise manager should be there to point out both good AND bad behavior as close to the actual action as possible. This will help develop a good working relationship and help the employee know that the manager isn't just looking for bad behavior to criticize, but is also looking for ways to complement them. This allows the feedback mechanism to become even more effective because the employee knows that the manager isn't seeking to criticize, but to help the employee improve.

kritikos actually has to do with the ability to discern or judge ... which makes all those critical derivatives true to their roots. I am just discerning a problem with your definition and providing feedback.

I spent 20 years as a mid-level manager and another 8 as a supervisor and before that another 7 years as a front line employee. I had the opportunity and privilege to teach many workshops. The "Heart Principles" are simple and effective if applied with openess, honesty, credibility, respect and consistency. This is the formulation of "Trust".

These are the principles:
Hear and understand me.
Even if you disagree, please don't make me wrong.
Acknowledge the greatness within me.
Remember to look for my loving intentions.
Tell the truth with compassion.

I highly recommend these principles. They are very effective!

is worthless.

It is also important to be fair with those expectations. In Toni's example I shuddered when the word "timely" was used. Why? Because it is subjective. Having been in that situation before I not only documented the individual's performance, I evaluated my whole team.

Bottom line? I was able to state specifically what was wrong and ask the individual how to fix it. I also discovered where I was failing in laying out clear and precise goals for everyone. Amazing how things are received when the criticism is 360 degrees...

Good article on giving criticism to sensitive employees. The problem is the current thinking about management. Grace Hopper (an early programmer and contributor to COBOL) said that we manage things and lead people. McGregor-Burns said that a leader is someone who can lead his group to a higher level of need (Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

I was working as a part time contractor helping an IT department. The supervisor had an interesting approach to complaints and problems. He would share the information with the team member in a way that showed them that this was the situation, this was the complaint and he did it in a way that skipped the blame part and went to the "How can we fix this, how do we learn from this event". This was an excellent way to deal with problems in a way that improved the team's performance.

Using this method, the sensitive employee can be criticized in a way that helps them understand the problem without blame and threats. The encounter is like this; customer complained that you did not do a task and the discussion is did you know you should do that task and what can we (the team, manager and employee) do to learn form this event? Sometimes the complaint is not valid, but it is instructive for the employee to know that there was a complaint and work to be proactive next time.

I admit I get defensive when some one gives me the message I'm a looser and shape up or ship out when I thought I was doing well. It doesn't bother me at all if I'm approached in a problem solving, you haven't been doing a process as it should be done manner. Many, not all, but many bosses got their position because of their bold, I'm here to boss you around, do as I say or get out attitude. They lead by intimidation and if placed in a reverse situation will blow up, but that is different if they are pushed. Bottom line keep it professional, not a opportunity to maintain your ego.

Good suggestions.

Another option for the lead is to work with the concerned employee jointly on an effort and lead by example. The wise employee will automatically take cues from his / her lead and will improve self.

Hey, Toni, I like your article. It's actually good advice for both those who are sensitive and those who aren't. Regular feedback, criticizing behavior instead of personalities, etc., help make criticism more palatable and ease the tension a bit for anyone

For example, I try not to spring anything on an employee during their annual review. Rather, I give them verbal feedback quarterly, so if undesirable behavior continues at review time, they should already be expecting it to be documented.

I have a question about the last section about not enabling emotions. Our HR folks actually tell us that if an employee becomes emotional, allow him to get himself together and meet again later. HR doesn't view it as enabling--rather, they believe it's diffusing. The manager's stance doesn't change between the first and second meetings. Could you point me to research or something about not enabling employees emotionally? If HR hasn't considered important points about this that's revealed in research, I'd certainly like to bring it to their attention.

Thanks again for the article!

In the original post means take a few minute break in the meeting and not reschedule. One assumes that emotional outbreaks occur well into a meeting. Rescheduling means going over all the same issues again. Also as the original post states there's the risk that the manager will drop the ball.

If an employee can't compose him or herself in a few minutes, without any other mitigating factor, then there's another item to add to the list!

I am one of those that tends to cry. Trust me when I say it is NOT intentional. My tears are words that my heart is unable to openly express. I am very good at what I do and I genuinely care about doing the job well.

I have noticed that managers and supervisors sometimes are not fully aware of the details and tears come because I don't want to have let anyone down. It is difficult for me when brought "to the table" when there is a perception or pre-conceived opinions(from information they have received) that I have failed in some way.

I take incredible pride in my work and I am human and sometimes my emotions get the best of me and tie my tongue and make it difficult to deal with the situation effectively when put on the spot.

For me it would be best if I was given more feedback, more often, (both positive and negative) in the form of supportive "feedback". I THINK BLARMAN IS SPOT ON!!!! I want to work for someone like him/her.
It is uncomfortable when I am "called to the table" because I know it is always because of something negative. Even if they try to sugar coat it with some positive info before letting the negative information come forth.

If I had regular contact with my superior, and it was an open forum on both sides, it would be more conducive to a two-sided relationship - and would be more of a discussion than only having the superior's attention when someone is upset with something.

And when you have to give me negative feedback - Give me some time to digest what is being said and/or perceived and an appropriate amount of time to research/find appropriate documentation/formulate an intelligent "not on the hot seat" response.

Thanks for listening.

That goes for everyone. However, management needs to have its full say in one meeting. A response can either be emailed and/or another meeting requested.

Are you telling me that "You are a corrupt, conniving little sh^t" wouldn't work on a sensitive employee? Or is that only for criticising the insensitive ones?

Why did you talk to the purportedly inadequate employee's manager, instead of to the employee? What possible good could that have done?

Cutting out the manager on another team leaves that manager unaware of your concerns as manager of your team. That manager needs to be in the loop so that there is both a respected communication protocol and the ability of that manager to monitor that employee's performance. Imagine some other manager confronting one of your team members and the shoe may not be so comfy.

My dad's a policeman so I will tell him about you and THEN you'll be sorry.

Well, if she wanted to start a turf war, that would have been the way to go. But it is usually inadvisable to start reprimanding people you do not supervise. Plus, their supervisor needs to be aware of the situation. Were you suggesting this is not the other supervisor's responsibility to manage their employee?

Obviously if the person you are criticising goes into crying or shouting mode, plan B required, failed, 0/10, you suck.

Attack the behaviour not the person is not going to work face to face one on one. Manager to employee, that environment is adversarial on the spot. You can make your criticism impersonal, no way can you get them to divorce it from themselves. You are looking at them. Right in the eye, last week you spelled teh wrong in an email to the boss.

Four reactions.

Not arsed
Hilarity
This person is picking on me
FU

None of these are the reaction you want, none are constructive.

Now the misspelling might be trivialising the need for criticism, there again in the employee's eyes maybe what you are adressing is considered that trivial.

So the criticism isn't that I spelled the incorrectly, but that the extremely expensive spell checker that I persuaded you and the boss to buy for the entire company wasn't used after my last fox paws.....

"You let us all down you useless tosser" is constructive criticism, if the person being criticised agrees.

It's validity that will minimise negative responses (sensitivty has`naff all t do with this). It's validity that will make the criticism constructive. It's validity that will get you the desired response.


Doesn't matter how correct your criticsm is, if the person you are criticising doesn't agree that it's valid all responses will be negative, even those not made immediately apparent by shouting and crying.

So as a manager how is your performance being judged?
Criticised.
Criticised without employee going postal
Amended behaviour.....

If as a manager you make someone cry in a meeting, you have failed and you are nothing more than a bully. Wise up to the lessons learned from the past.

That statement will be true sometimes but not all the time. Not a manager, but I've seen people cry at work a few times. Some people hit their breaking point and don't hold it in. I'm not blaming them but I'm not blaming the manager either.

I've cried in a few meetings, after I realised there was another sh t sandwich coming my way. They taste awful....



There are no past lessons in corporateville. The whole point of it is look good now, so you get promoted before anyone checks why nobody else thinks much of the buffet...

For most people on this planet, the technology for developing social skills like guiding a conversation, getting a question answered, being confident, standing up to a difficult situation without freaking out, persuading someone to do something they think is too hard, raising someone's awareness of a non-optimum habit, etc., is not available.

They either somehow learn this from the people they grow up with, or they work it out the best they can by themselves. Some come up with coping mechanisms that are disastrous in a group. There is so much that could be done towards straightening people out socially. And some of the best technology is being actively hidden from us by authoritarian psychology people who think that if they didn't read about it in their peer-reviewed journal, then it doesn't have any value.

What I would like to see more of in these "advice columns" are interviews with people who have found successful ways to deal with such problems that are actually connected to a teachable technology, so other people can learn it.

A few bullet points about a certain type of situation makes for a cute article. But people need more workable basic understandings of themselves and others. They need both a fundamental theory and workable technologies based on it that are tested and teachable.

The only secular program I am aware of along this line is the Hubbard College of Administration. Aren't there others?

Secular?! The Scientology of Administration........hahahahahaha.

and it is.
Wiki article makes it look like a diploma mill.....

If you wanted to study business in a church, go with the RC boys, they've got more money than God....

Also instigated by Ron El of K'ruptjon

The Sea Organization is the actual nexus that controls the scientology empire. Sea Organization personnel are authorized to take over and control scientology organizations and to demote personnel, move bank accounts and run the corporation as if the SO personnel were employees or representatives of that corporation but they are not. :part of an affidavit by a former Sea Org member.

Our Mr. Cox here may be some kind of thetan, judging by his words :
And some of the best technology is being actively hidden from us by authoritarian psychology people who think that if they didn't read about it in their peer-reviewed journal, then it doesn't have any value.

-emphasis added.

That there's a sure tell.

"Scientologist, 25yrs Sea Organization" according to his TR profile. I guess the plug for failed sci-fi writer Hubbard's 'school' does inform his comment on psychologists' conspiracy. Like I was saying, "Hahahahaha!".

"skills like guiding a conversation, getting a question answered"

Yes, good luck with that. Though STEM workers have led the way with tips on how to word questions in such a way as to elicit the specific kinds of information desired.

If you don't want them to do something in a particular way, suggest what you believe is a better way, and be ready to explain why you believe it would be better. Be specific, extremely specific. It will clarify your own thinking and be more helpful to them. (No hand-waving or "everybody knows" or "if you don't know I can't tell you" permitted.)

Don't say "Be more of a people person.", say "Follow sports or the weather just enough to know what they're talking about, what teams were playing and what the final scores were, for use during idle small-talk.",

say "Leave more phone messages. Be persistent if you can't reach me, and don't go ahead with anything until I OK it on this project. It's OK to use your best judgement on these other projects, though, rather than delaying. If I'm holding you up totally, consider moving forward in each of the possible directions until you hear from me; we can abandon some of them. But keep back-ups.",

say "We're having Phred give the presentation but giving you credit for the break-through and will ask you up on the stage to take a bow when s/he's done. See, here's the copy for the personnnel file, and here's one for you to have for your records., and Henri and Ivon are getting credit for their parts.",

say "I've asked George to take you to the store to get a new suit for the big meeting/conference/convention/trade show next week and we're putting it on the expense account." (Not, your mother/spouse dresses you funny.),

say "You're new in town, so here's a good dentist/ endodontist/ allergist..." (not, You've got dragon breath, so we don't want you to get within 100 feet of a customer, but let's get this corrected together.)...

I think that more study of the autistic spectrum would very likely be helpful, because quite a few STEM workers are at least high functioning Asperger's or show some characteristics of the autistic in that there are things that others learn at a very young age, or very gradually, that they have not... while B-school bozos have actively avoided learning of any depth at all while focusing on having just the right suit tailored just the right way, how to be obsessive-compulsive enough to keep it wrinkle-free while traveling, manicures, hair-care, being in the right fraternity or sorority, etc.

1. Be shrewd enough to detect the True and the Fake Sensitive Employees.

2. The True Ones will still stay affected after an event. The Fake Ones will regain their self control sooner.

3. The True Ones may develop psychosomatic, that is bodily sickness from mental stress to muscle stiffness, as an example. There is a long list of this kind of mind pain substitution to bodily problems.

This is complex enough not to be able in a short discussion.

I kept my Teams happy always because I always told them of all the mess I created when I was younger, and from that I gained a lot of good experience that gave me strength in many ways. Errors, mistakes and positive training during work are normal. I dislike Training Sessions but I like training during actual work. Special Training Sessions may stress the Sensitive People.

'Subordinate', 'Employee', 'PC crap', 'need to grow up', 'mamby-pamby let's be nice routine', 'you're only allowing the employee to think that the outbursts work'.

It is obvious that there are people here who need to read Robert Fuller's books on rankism.

Look closely at how such people place themselves literally and metaphorically above others to feed their voracious egos. Such folk really do not want a smooth-running organization where skills are shared, team mates' intelligence is valued and trusted, and everyone (everyone!) is an idea generator. Instead, they want to be King or Queen of the Mountain.

Their inner dialog runs like this: Listen to ME. Do what I say. You're not paid to think. I am judge, jury, and Lord High Executioner. You are of no consequence.

While working out who is 'faking' sensitivity and who isn't, they are getting high on the drug of IMPORTANCE. Firing someone can be an orgasmic experience. Like the Alpha Males in a baboon colony, making others cry, making them miserable, seeing them stressed, feels delicious. They attack the soft underbelly of the vulnerable and ecstatically replay the experience over and over.

It's ugly, it's small-minded, and it's a form of mental illness. Worst of all, it negates and denies the talents and creativity of thousands upon thousands of gifted human beings.

If we could find a cure for this--we'd save the world.

Save for your subordination to Robert Fuller, and your exhortation that we do the same.

Heal thyself, priest.

Leaving aside the 'erm somewhat dubious assumption that whatever criticism is valid and necessary.
So now it's all about delivering it without the recipient blowing up?

1st there's an assumption in there that a blow up is an expected reaction...

2nd theres an assumption that no blow up, means recipient took message on board....

3rd there's an assumption that criticism is the correct way to ellicit a change of behaviour....

Now given the above three and the carefully sidestepped primary assumption, I have absolutely no problem with the article, given this is about getting your point across without having to go to the expense of sound and damp proofing the meeting rooms....

*Krrhhhm*
How to deliver criticism to a sensitive manager
Freely adapted from Toni Bowers


Takeaway: Employers who are prone to get emotional in the face of criticism are often hard to deal with. Here are some tips for making this easier for you and for them.

If you've been working long enough, you're bound to come across an employer/manager who doesnt take kindly to constructive criticism. Whether that person is prone to tears or angry outbursts, it's a behavior that makes it more difficult for employees to do their jobs.

I once knew of a manager of another team who would consistently made things difficult for folks on my team because of his lack of attention to detail. When I asked this manager's team members if they were aware of this, they said they were but every time they tried to talk to him about this, the manager would cry. So, like a bad Pavlovian experiment, the team began to avoid the discussions altogether, allowing the problematic behavior to continue.

Here are some of my tips for delivering criticism to an employer or manager who is never in the mood to receive it.

*Meet face-to-face and prepare a written doc
It's very easy to misinterpret what someone says when you're in the throes of some emotion like sadness or anger. Be sure to write down exactly what you say to the manager so there is no question or That's not what I thought you meant's to deal with later. And on this point, it's important to:
Have the manager repeat what he or she is hearing

Having the manager say back to you what it is he or she thinks you're saying helps to clarify matters and also enforces the behavior you want to see. I once had to tell a VP that he messed up so many projects that we were considering banning him from the cubicle floors. To soften the blow, I said that he was a very good little VP, just not very clever. When he repeated back what he heard me say, he said, "You said I'm a good VP". He had some kind of turbo-charged defense mechanism going that allowed him to glean only the good stuff I'd said.

*Criticize the behavior, not the personality
There are going to be some managers who are more emotional than others. You will never be able to change a personality but you can affect the outside behaviors that result from it. You may have a support manager whose outgoing personality serves him well in his job. It's when that quality causes him to extend individual support techs working hours longer than preferred that it becomes an issue. Then you simply make him aware that jobs have to be dealt with in a shorter span of time.

*Give smaller burst of feedback (both good and bad) more frequently
You don't want to drop a major criticism on any manager at one time - whatever the temperament. It's much easier to deal with small examples of undesired behavior. And giving positive feedback helps a manager feel like it's not just about the errors. Also, managers wont dread you coming to their office as much.

*Don't enable the emotions
If the manager starts to cry or gets angry, stop the conversation right there and ask if he or she needs a moment. Don't let them end the conversation and reschedule it for a later date. If you do that, you're only allowing the manager to think that the outbursts work to deflate criticism. Allow the manager to get it together and then resume the conversation.

Ahh! I haven't done a TR rewrite in a while... I think last time Santee asked me what I had been smoking
What do you think?

Thank Cthulu, you haven't got hold of the one for higher management on how to criticise employees with middle management roles!

Oh no (insert sound of hands wringing here). Be careful my boy, keep it secret, keep it safe....

It is impossible to be competent in a dysfunctional environment.

At what point do you offer them (last week's) management brownie!? Yet another use for the Universal Tonic: ameliorating criticism/feedback's ego-damage
The list is growing..........

... you know, some people just don't want to be fixed

It isn't a form of mental illness: It is a mental disorder -- narcissism to be precise.

Of course, this doesn't really complete the picture because it goes beyond narcissism: A lot of managers are sociopaths with no empathy and a conditional conscience (a conditional conscience is one wherein there are rigid definitions of how you treat a particular class of people, but feel free to do anything you want to everyone else: The Mafia is a good example of this, as is the Federal Government and some religions like Scientology [constructed entirely from recycled science fiction by L. Ron Hubbard, published, for the most part in Amazing which later became Analog -- an embarassment to everyone in the SF community, as expressed by Isaac Asimov]). Many work environments, especially corporate ones, prefer psychopaths to be in management: "It's just the sort of person we were looking for!" (for further information consult "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work" by Dr. Robert Hare and Dr. Paul Babiak).

For the most part, these days, there are no rules. Consensus is to do exactly what your manager tells you to do. With the amoral smarmy Boomers, it's total chaos, with no expectation of any kind of integrity ("Let's do lunch" means we never will). They lie, they steal, they take credit for what you do, then when they criticize you for something you did not do (or you did well and showed them up) to make a public statement to embarass you, you are expected to take it with good grace, because, darn it all, if you point out their crass rubbish, the next person you talk to with is some lying @#$%!^ from HR.

At least that's the experience of many.

That your own sensitivity can sustain a hit.

In that, you are nowhere to be found. Toni, in her piece, and to her advantage, laid it out as a matter of her direct experience. She is local, up front, her hands on. Who better an authority to speak of her experience than she?

Contrariwise, you speak removed, and with no authority. The swath of human experience you lay on us is not your own. You ride that of others: Hare and Babiak? Uncritically, too, it seems from here. How else do you justify your lead obscenity -- "You are so wrong"?

That lead, like "the experience of many", needs be shoved right back up where it came from. In this case, your own ass.
.

Don't just slap at them with herrings.
Pull out the yellowfin that is your self.

After your brilliant post.

Oh well, we all have our off days and it's so easy to get sidetracked by nim nulls.

The good thing is that we all have another chance next week....

but what I did was compact what he said... making no specific judgment on his aim
Here's to next week... once we get past monday.

I thought the comment by AnsuGisalas (We need a rewrite from the other side) was brilliant and I was responding to that comment with hilarious irony.

So hhere you are santeewelding, you missed who the response was to, missed the tone of it and are totally stupid for assuming I was talking to Toni. I, in fact, support Toni enthusiastically. What AnsuGisalas did was write a brilliant satire. I responded in kind and wrote a satire of her satire.

If you are so stupid you don't get the discussions, maybe you shouldn't post here. For you, it is like explaining rainbows to earthworms -- an impossible task even on a rainy day.

You also make unwaranted assumptions.

I've been a manager for some time in major misfortune 500 companies. I am also more deserving of my moniker of "Premiertechnologist" than you may think, although in the scheme of things, that's arguable, a matter of taste. You can judge for yourself with the technology present on my site at DNArefutesBI.com but be warned, besides web master skills (and I'm not bothering to give you a glimpse into my aspx.net skills), I have also been an IBM Mainframe Systems Programmer, a Project Manager and a whole host of other advanced Technological skills I won't mention.

At the age of 12, I built my own 24 Volt DC regulated power supply, designed the circuits, and built a binary counter with a rack of relays scrounged from the AT&T microwave tower they had tossed.

I've written a book, "Assertive Incompetence -- An Introduction to Management Malpractice".

I have a number of advanced hobbies I'm now pursuing.

You entirely missed the point, but given what we've seen of you thus far, it's doubtful that you have the expertise to divine your own incompetence and need a lot of hand holding until you acquire enough competence to discern your own incompetence.

Of the lines on my screen delineating who said what to whom, I see one leading directly back from your instant post to that of GetSmartEditing (hence, I take it, the allusion in your first sentence to "mental illness"). It does not lead back in response to Ansu (his comment a delight to me as well).

I erred in not following the line from your comment up far enough. It appears left-outboard, but one critical step in, which I now appreciate. It does not lead up to the top -- to what Toni wrote. It leads back down to, mental illness.

If the employee starts to cry or gets angry, stop the conversation and ask if she needs a moment.

Shouldn't that be, "ask if they need a moment"?

Since you pointed it out - no. Unless the nuns in school were wrong, the word "they" is a plural pronoun used to reference a plural noun. "She" is a singular pronoun, and it refers to the singular noun "employee" mentioned earlier in the same sentence. Using a plural pronoun to substitute a singular noun is incorrect, though it happens so often most people forgive it (like writing "snuck" instead of "sneaked" - Google that ****).

The article's author was probably trying to be politically correct and use a combination of "he" and "she" throughout the piece, instead of picking one pronoun and using it exclusively. Unfortunately, her quest to be "PC" has earned her an accusation of being politically incorrect - irony, or coincidence?

"They" has a long history as a singular pronoun used to denote an individual of either sex, going back to Chaucer.

of using he and she in an alternating pattern is frequently used in scientific writings, but usually with a mention in the preamble.
I think it's more proper to use "they" in the news delivery genres - in these, reporters don't have space for preambles.

And they is absolutely acceptable in anaphoric reference to a referent of either gender (or of general/common gender).

Other languages, like Spanish, use the male plural to refer to a mixed group of male and female. Why can we not just use "he", when refering to a single person whose identity (male or female) is not necessary for the example being presented.
I never understood why some people feel disenfranchised just because "their" gender isn't mentioned, or think it doesn't mean them, too, when general statements are made like "Man does not live by bread alone."

I used to have a boss that would wait until your annual review to dump all his criticisms on you. Totally unconstructive. If the boss really wanted change he would have addressed issues as they occurred, not wait to ambush you until months and months later. Just pointless bullying.

With the diversity in the workforce (both in the USA and where I work now, in Australia), an effective manager must consider the cultural background employees come from, as part of the dilemma in correcting behaviour, sorry behavior. E.g. is English their first language? Are they from a higher 'emotional' culture, such as Italy? Are they from an Asian country, where opinions aren't as freely given? And beyond culture, what age are they? Cultural context - from country/culture of origin to age - are big influencers on a person's behavior, and understanding them can increase your ability to manage effectively, especially when some criticism is required.

A sensitive person could feel criticized even without being criticized. A sensitive employee, in addition, would cringe, cry mutely and develop uncalled for antagonism on mere approach, as a stronger reaction, fearing job insecurity. Human sensitivities are essentially a plus in progressive interpersonal transactions, when within the limits of sensibility. It is this limitation that differentiates innate sensitiveness and inculcated sensitivities. The former characterizes a person, whereas the latter defines a personality in toto. This is where, the term 'Emotional' gets wrongly thrown in, as an opinion. It is essentially negative by implication, is a shortcoming and not a faculty and has no place in constructiveness of interaction. A communication displays rationality and discretion(at least it should) as against anticipated antagonism and/or cerebral stupor due to emotionality, as in a quarrel or an argument. Thus emotionality is 'Confused Sensitivity Reaction' and your present blog actually begins with and refers to problem solving in the case of an emotional employee, who could get worked up even before a dialogue begins, as you have rightly observed and described. Therefore, if your thrust is towards emotional character of an employee, preparing a 'Written Doc(ument)' might help, provided it is not ignored by the respondent. However, in a confrontation, if you do desire an effective change in the employee's perception and mean speedy business in the face of tantrums, what is also necessary, when 'Face to Face' with the subject, is keeping ready a 'Hidden Doc(tor)' for medical emergency.

In the context of the foregoing, I would like to request you to write for the readers' benefit, supplementary blogs on employees endowed with due sensitivities(the do-gooders) as well as the insensitive ones(the blockers). You will appreciate that these two catagories of humans, constitute the primary chunk of operatives in Organizations with only sprinklings of the emotional type(the psychos). If undesirable emotional characters among employees had not been sprinklings as contended by me, you would not have felt the need for, 'Thinking aside', to classify them as problem cases and suggest remedies by way of your present blog. Assuming for the moment that a do-gooder is not a problem but a promoter of the interests of an organization, the insensitive blocker being an island, a zombi, is certainly another problem and can harm others as against the self-damaging, nervous, emotional element of this blog.