I’ve worked with a huge number of people in the last twenty years. More people than I can recall to be honest. There are people I remember who probably don’t remember me and visa versa. Over the years there are a couple of types of people that emerge. The one I want to focus on today is the constant critic. Don’t get me wrong, a healthy dose of constructive criticism is always a good thing. Delivery of a critique and willingness to fix things, however, are two very different things.
My previous job was with a fast growing startup. When I joined there were twelve of us, last count I think they’re around two hundred and fifty or so. Quarterly management reviews were always exciting, even if they were a tough slog. We looked at the big bets we were making and focused on solving problems where they cropped up. After two or three days you would be mentally exhausted but overall they were productive and so, well worthwhile.
One particular meeting stands out in my mind. The business was launching a significant new service. As we went through the presentation people began to shift in their seats. This was a bigger bet than we had made as a group previously. People were naturally a little nervous. Then it happened, the interruption. I won’t go into the details but essentially what followed was about ten minutes of why the plan wouldn’t work. People began to stand, walk to the screen and point. Right down to the detail of what would and wouldn’t fit through a specific door. The failure of the project was a foregone conclusion. This was put forward with total confidence, but there was no solution offered. Not a good way to do business in my book.
When you challenge someone like this, what’s the usual response that you get? Silence. A shrug. Maybe a vague hand waving "I don't know, just... not this."
Criticism without ownership is one of the safest positions a person can take, and it can poison a team under the guise of robust discussion. Once you see it, examples will show up left, right and centre forever more.
Stop Diagnosing Things To Death
Every idea should go through some critical analysis. Just to make sure you’re getting things right and not about to do something monumentally stupid. I’ve written a lot about procrastination and getting stuck and as part of that, sometimes pointing out problems can feel like you’re contributing.
But there's a way this behaviour is exhibited that isn't about helping. There are various reasons behind why people do this but ultimately if you never propose a solution, you never risk being wrong. You can be "the person who saw it coming" and never risk failure.
Startups, and teams in general, don't often fail from a lack of criticism. Believe you me, they get enough of that from their board and their investors. Failure comes from a lack of progress. A group that has more critics than problem solvers and builders will over time diagnose itself to death. When every idea gets picked apart to the nth degree before it can be tried how can it ever have a chance? Any chance of forward momentum dies before it can be tested in the real world. You know, the place where it might have actually made a difference.
Our Instincts Are Wrong
Nowadays, catching mistakes is often treated as a mark of intelligence. The person who finds the bug, or the loophole in the contract, will get the praise. It’s a legitimate skill, and there are definitely times when it should be rewarded. We use the same instinct to avoid danger and risk to find those mistakes.
Thousands of years ago we lived from day to day, hunting and gathering. There were predators we had to deal with. Avoiding risk or danger was a key skill for survival. It kept the tribe alive. Like a lot of our built-in instincts, this one no longer serves us as well as it should. The original intent was to keep you alive as part of a broader set of skills and instincts. It was not the only skill required. You had to bring in the big game or contribute in other ways as well as understanding the dangers involved.
The caveman who looked out for the panther but couldn’t sharpen a spear in the fire didn't last long.
Spotting the Difference
Most people are inconsistent. A critic without a plan doesn’t always mean ill intent, sometimes it means the person has spotted the issue but hasn’t had time to think through a fix yet. Not every critic is a coward. On the flip side, having a solution doesn't automatically make you a hero.
There are ways to spot a consistent critic who doesn’t help. Ask these four questions when someone raises a problem:
- Have they offered an alternative, even a rough one?
- Are they willing to take ownership and test their idea, roll up their sleeves and dig in?
- Does their opinion change when new information appears?
- Do they want to be right or do they want to fix things?
If the answer to these questions is no, challenge them. Ask for the critic to come up with a plan and get them to collaborate. Whenever possible, do this in the moment. You don’t have to call people out or generate conflict to do this. Offer the questions calmly and quietly. Let them lean in to hear you. The challenge can be simple: “Fair point, what would you try first if it were up to you?” That’s not confrontational. It puts the ball in their court without putting them on the spot.
When someone does consistently fail these questions, you have just identified a different problem. You've got someone who looks like a team player but is operating as a saboteur.
The Critic’s Litmus Test
If you want to maintain momentum, your goal is not to silence criticism or demand that everyone take action. Some of the sharpest minds are naturally better at seeing flaws than building solutions. In the right place that can be a legitimate way to stress test plans before they are put into action. But you need to have the ability to pair this with team work and collaboration. At the very least the critic needs to help out the person they are criticising.
The real problem is not the criticism itself but how it is used. Criticism used as an offensive weapon does nothing to help you, your team or your business. That’s just being inside the tent pissing on everyone. Instead, it needs to be used as a shield to protect what you are doing. The distinction between weapon and shield may only become obvious when you see what the critic does after offering their input.
So, the counter-intuitive move here isn't to ignore criticism. The next time someone (even a consistent complainer) points out a flaw in the plan, don't argue with them. Ask them to help and watch what happens. To borrow from a phrase, genuine people will get going when the going gets tough. Performance artists will just make their excuses.
Look Within
You might have been thinking about someone you work with as you read this. But did you stop to ask if you’ve done this yourself? Next time you're about to voice a criticism, stop for a moment and think of at least one possible next step to make that criticism null and void. It doesn’t need to be perfect. This will show that you're willing to get stuck in and not just point the finger at those doing the work.
Employing this trick consistently may change how people experience you. You won’t be seen as the person who stalls things. You can become the person who makes things happen despite being the bearer of bad news. Problems are easy to find. Solutions are rarer. The willingness to clean up the mess and try something, anything, even if it might not work is invaluable.
The next time someone offers a critique without a proposed solution, ask the four questions above and see whether you are met with silence or solutions and ownership. That will tell you exactly who you're dealing with.
Are you a critic or a problem solver? Or have you run into both during your career? I'd love to hear your stories in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment