Great post. I think this form of self-sabotage is one that many analytical people don’t realize they are engaging in. As a computer programmer and a mathematician, I definitely fall into the category of analytical people.
One way I’ve managed to reduce this problem in my life comes from public speaking. When we give other speakers feedback, we always commend something they’ve done, recommend how they can improve, and finish with another commendation.
This kind of feedback is much more effective than just praise alone, which can be rejected especially in certain cultures as being unrealistic or insincere. The feedback is also more effective than pure criticism, which, as you pointed out in your post, can make the speaker hostile and therefore less likely to listen to you.
A friend of mine described a creative writing class in which the students would read pieces on a workshop day and then have other students respond. The responses came in phases. First, anybody who wished to praise something about the piece had the opportunity to say that. When they were finished with that, anyone who wished to criticize something about the piece could do so. There was a third phase, but I don’t remember what it was—specific recommendations, maybe.
This always seemed like a very sensible model to me. It prevents the reader from feeling jumped on with criticism and internalizing the impression that the piece isn’t any good before anyone’s said anything nice yet. It also prevents the error mentioned in one of the EY excerpts in the OP—good and bad are both made explicit. Also, praise is useful. It tells someone what parts to keep!
Great post. I think this form of self-sabotage is one that many analytical people don’t realize they are engaging in. As a computer programmer and a mathematician, I definitely fall into the category of analytical people.
One way I’ve managed to reduce this problem in my life comes from public speaking. When we give other speakers feedback, we always commend something they’ve done, recommend how they can improve, and finish with another commendation.
This kind of feedback is much more effective than just praise alone, which can be rejected especially in certain cultures as being unrealistic or insincere. The feedback is also more effective than pure criticism, which, as you pointed out in your post, can make the speaker hostile and therefore less likely to listen to you.
A friend of mine described a creative writing class in which the students would read pieces on a workshop day and then have other students respond. The responses came in phases. First, anybody who wished to praise something about the piece had the opportunity to say that. When they were finished with that, anyone who wished to criticize something about the piece could do so. There was a third phase, but I don’t remember what it was—specific recommendations, maybe.
This always seemed like a very sensible model to me. It prevents the reader from feeling jumped on with criticism and internalizing the impression that the piece isn’t any good before anyone’s said anything nice yet. It also prevents the error mentioned in one of the EY excerpts in the OP—good and bad are both made explicit. Also, praise is useful. It tells someone what parts to keep!