I WAS ABOUT TO GO to bed when the idea of this blog post came to mind!
Actually, someone once told me about what we can physically do to arrive at a creative idea: Drink (and smell) coffee, take a cold shower, exercise, and play some intense role-playing games. I didn't do any of this to arrive at an idea for this very post. In fact, I was just relaxing at my balcony looking over a great city of light. O.k.
I need to get to bed so let's get on to it. First of all, nobody criticisms even though they are important. In How to Win Friends and Influence People, the management guru Dale Carnegie writes about why and how we should avoid criticizing others: Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person's precious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment. B. F.
Skinner, the world-famous psychologist, proved through his experiments that an animal rewarded for good behavior will learn much more rapidly and retain what it learns far more effectively than an animal punished for bad behavior. Later studies have shown that the same applies to humans. By criticizing, we do not make lasting changes and often incur resentment. Carnegie goes so far as to tell us to "never criticize" -- in fact, he writes, "instead of condemning people, let's try to understand them.
Let's try to figure out why they do what they do. That's a lot more profitable and intriguing than criticism; and it breeds sympathy, tolerance and kindness." All make senses in the context of how to win friends and influence people, but what if you don't want to win friends and influence people? What if you want to do something with your business, life, and design strategies? The only way can ever improve is to know where you could improve. That's when critics step n.
In my life, it's been my parents (especially my mother) who has always been the harshest critic, to whom I always listen precisely because I do not have any reasons to doubt her caring, honesty and love for me. My colleagues too (especially to colleagues-in-arms) are my toughest critics, and it's precisely this very reason that we're not just colleagues but also friends. These critics are great, especially before the real battle, precisely because they are honest about what I can do to cover all my weak points.
In design too, we want tough and honest critics. The design thinking guru Tom Kelly has, in fact, written a book about how to be "good critics" -- in which he argues against the role-playing of a devil's advocate who can only point out to the worst thing about your idea. In fact, Kelly argues for these critics playing a role of, at least, one of these "learning personas": anthropologist, experimenter, pollinator, hurdler, collaborator, director, experience architect, set designer, storyteller, and caregiver.
That's another post for another time, but Kelly's point is clear: We need to learn how to take/untake criticisms. But as the management guru Dale Carnegie famously said, it's not that easy for people to take criticisms. Nobody likes to hear bad things about them. So, in this post, I want to discuss levels of criticisms and how to deal with them -- like a pro. There're two steps to take criticisms like a design thinker. The source of the criticism.
Good people (people whom you trust): There is no other way around. You'd have to take them like free consultations. Actually, a consultant is someone hired to give you honest advise -- and criticisms on what you can do better. This could even be your teacher. It would be foolish, for instance, to hire a tennis coach and would not allow him/her to criticize your posture when hitting the ball or serving.
You have to think about them as if they're advice that normally you would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get. So, for these kinds of criticisms, you would want to crave them and take them very seriously. People whom you are not sure whether they are that good (but they look like they are good people): These kinds of criticisms can often come from your colleagues, managers.
For these kinds of criticisms, would want to take them with a grain of salt, but you would want to do it transparently.
By doing so, not only you are showing respect to the critic (which would be useful in a long run), but you are also leaving ample room for the possibility for that person might be "on your side." The entrepreneur par excellence and founder of Bridgewater Associates Ray Dalio has developed a deep culture of "criticism appreciation," whereby everyone in the company is craving to hear more from other people about what they can do to improve.
At Bridgewater Associates, employees are utterly used to open criticism sessions in which both the critics and criticized leave behind their ranks and constructively so that the critics can openly provide the criticized their honest opinions. Ray Dalio also writes in Principles: Never say anything about a person you wouldn't say to them directly, and don't try people without accusing them to their face. Badmouthing people behind their backs shows a serious lack of integrity and is counterproductive.
It doesn't yield any beneficial change, and it subverts both the people you are badmouthing and the environment as a whole. Next to being dishonest, it is the worst thing you can do at Bridgewater. Criticism is both welcomed and encouraged at Bridgewater, so there is no good reason to talk behind people's backs. You need to follow this policy to an extreme degree. For example, managers should not talk about people who work for them without those people being in the room.
If you talk behind people's backs at Bridgewater you are called a slimy weasel. People who are at present at the opposite side of the ring (but have the possibility of changing their side): As the design thinker Tom Kelly writes in The Ten Faces of Innovation, people become your oppositions because they think highly of you -- they think that you are worth it (otherwise why would they waste their time opposing you).
These guys are tough critics that you may want try to convince them to be on your side. The benefit of doing so is immense. First, you'll get all the research that they have done about you. Second, they will provide you how to see the world in the way that you hav never seen it, which could lead to an innovation. It's a wonderful lesson in co- opting your opposition. Instead of being offended by their arguments, why not listen and respond to their concerns?
They often have valid points. The payoff can be extraordinary. There's nothing like the conviction of a convert to boost team momentum. People whom you don't completely trust because you don't know that much about them: Despite your initial loathe, you would still want to take these criticisms with the mind of a great "fallibilist." Because there is no harm in believing or not believing it, you would want to take these criticisms into account as if it's something from one of you caring colleagues.
Even though such criticisms may sound harsh, you wouldn't feel as if they are if you could "make yourself believe" they come from your caring colleague. So, all you need to do here is to use a psychological trick to make yourself believe, so that you can look at the criticisms the way they are. They might be useful. People whom you really really really don' trust (especially those who criticize you anonymously).
You would want to take these criticisms as if they're insults in the way that a stoic would. A stoic, in fact, would be both delighted and enlightened to hear criticisms from those for whom they do not have any respect. Why? Because this disapproving from those whose ideas you do not appreciate is an approval that your idea is on the right track. The philosopher William B.
Irvine writes in A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy: Under such circumstances, rather than feeling hurt by his insults, I should feel relieved: If he disapproves of what I am doing, then what I am doing is doubtless the right thing to do. What should worry me is if this contemptible person approved of what I am doing.
If I say anything at all in response to his insults, the most appropriate comment would be, "I'm relieved that you feel that way about me." During my 18-year-long stint as a student, I had always asked for more comments from my teachers -- especially criticisms. I always craved for how to improve myself.
Having been a non-native speaker of the language at most of the universities at which I had enrolled, all I could ask for from my teachers was how I could catch up with my peers who did not have such a handicap. I had mostly been lucky in the sense that I had been given a lot of criticisms. Some were hurtful and some were extremely hurtful (i.e., "you shouldn't be studying here at this level") -- but all of them were constructive.
I always felt as though the papers without any comments (marked in red) were papers that had not been read (which was actually, as I later found out, often the case; as it's much easier for teachers to not read those papers and just give them random marks).
So, as a teacher, I always give my students a lot of comments and criticisms -- with the hope that the students would appreciate those them, as markers of love, care, an appreciation, the way I used to feel about comments from my own teachers.
The Anti-Fragile Manifesto