sample chapter
Beat
The Press,
Chapter
12
Smart Reactions to Criticism
The headline of your local paper reads: “Critics Question
Project Manager’s Ability.” The article is even worse, with several people
blatantly doubting your skill, experience, and judgment. Translate that to:
“Jones, you are stupid.”
Imagine reading that about yourself in the morning paper. Ouch! As you walk to
your car, you eye the houses up and down the street, wondering who’s reading
about you now. You fantasize about sprinting across lawns, scooping up unread
copies, and buying up remaining newsstand stacks across the city. If only you
had a cape and super powers!
You wonder whether your kid is going to get razzed at school. You’re sure your
wife won’t believe it. You’d better send her flowers just in case. You try
not to think about everybody at work. You tell yourself it doesn’t matter. You
practice feigning a demeanor of disinterest and indifference. Then, you
contemplate your potential retirement package.
Sharpen
Your Defenses
Like no other force in our society, the news media wields
tremendous power. The media can trash people on an almost universal scale at the
speed of a radio or television signal.
Journalists regularly print and broadcast nasty comments, accusations, and
allegations. Some are true; some are not. Some are justified, but then some are
false, petty, mean spirited, and deliberate character assassinations. Rarely can
the victims undo the damage.
Although many journalists attempt to confirm whether there is some basis to the
other party’s harsh comments, it’s also true that criticism is more likely
to get coverage than praise. And some reporters simply don’t understand the
impact of the immense power of the tools (pen and microphone) they wield daily.
And when used carelessly, these become more like weapons than tools, causing
severe and often irreparable damage to people and institutions.
When you are being criticized in the media, take a tip from skilled
communicators and learn to sharpen your defenses. Veteran politicians are well
versed in that regard. Most know that verbal sparring is part of the territory,
so they steel themselves to not react in ways that make the situation worse. To
rate high in public opinion, they learn to offset criticism by framing issues in
their own terms.
Reacting
to Third-Party Criticisms
When a reporter asks for your reaction to a third-party criticism
(“he said, she said” sort of thing), beware! Unless you know for certain
what was said, and what was meant, you will court disaster by responding
directly.
Consider this scenario: A city council member remarks to a reporter that you are
“responsible for transportation problems.” A reporter asks you to respond.
You are shocked, react defensively, and declare that he doesn’t know what the
hell he’s talking about.
You later learn the official meant you were responsible for making decisions on
how to approach the crisis; the misunderstanding is now plastered all over the
front page, making you both look contentious and silly.
Don’t react defensively over the alleged comments of another. Doing so can
create unwarranted hostility that will affect everyone concerned. Tell the
reporter you need to find out the meaning behind the remarks before reacting.
Those prudent comments may well make the news.
Here are other models you can tailor to your own speech pattern:
Example:
“Until I’ve had a chance to talk with him, I simply can’t respond
intelligently. It’s hard for me to believe he made those comments, and I would
have to talk with him first to understand what he was trying to get across.”
Analysis: You can buy time—a couple of hours, or maybe a day—with
this comment. Of course, the reporter will want more, but at least you’ve
given him something to fill time or space with while you check out the
allegation. Don’t think you’ll get much more time than that.
Example:
“I find it hard to believe he would say that because John and I have talked
about this and we’ve been pretty much in agreement on what needs to be
done.”
Analysis: In addition to not reacting defensively while conceding that
there is a problem, these comments demonstrate an excellent bridge that
redirects attention to problem solving. This response packs three significant
points in just a few words.
Avoid
Personal Attacks
As stressed throughout this book, it’s not wise to attack another person
directly because others will think less of you. It’s especially important to
avoid inflammatory words like “idiot,” “liar,” “incompetent,”
“naive,” “stupid,” “immature,” and so forth.
You might honestly think those terms fit whoever is criticizing you, and it may
well be true, but verbalizing those thoughts is usually counterproductive.
People reading or hearing those caustic words may blame you for causing
acrimony. They won’t know if you are “right,” but they may judge you to be
mean and nasty, and thus be suspicious of your motives.
The responses below show how to undermine the credibility of your critic without
resorting to name-calling or other self-damaging behavior:
Examples:
“I disagree with his interpretation, and I would call our dispute a gentle
disagreement. Reasonable minds can and do differ, as is obviously the case
here.”
“Like all good team players, we don’t always see eye to eye on everything.
Fred Astaire probably stepped on Ginger Rogers’ toes a few times, too.”
Analysis: The preceding comments are excellent examples of how to draw
people’s attention away from the quarrel, and towards the realization that
even friends and partners have occasional spats.
Example:
“I’m not surprised that after twenty-five years in business you would be
able to find five people who are willing to say something bad about me on the
record. Whether you’re a business executive or newspaper editor, you’re
bound to make a few enemies if you’re doing your job.”
Analysis: This clever comment avoids a futile attempt to deny the
criticism, but may defeat it nonetheless by suggesting that it is really par for
the course—it could happen to anyone—so no big deal.
Example:
“Sometimes decisions have to be made, and I’m the one selected to make
them. I try to be as fair as possible, but you can’t please everybody.”
Analysis: This response ties together fairness, decisiveness, the
responsibility of decision-making, and the reality that you can’t please
everyone.
Examples:
“Their criticism is unfair. Hindsight and second-guessing are a thousand
times easier than making decisions in the midst of the maelstrom.”
“It’s easy to criticize and judge when you lack an understanding of the
context in which decisions are made.”
“We’ve raised legitimate questions and we deserve better answers, not
insults.”
“My assumption is that if he could rebut the facts, he wouldn’t have to
resort to personal attacks on me.”
Analysis: These four comments are good sound-bite-size remarks that will
help you come across as a reasonable and mature problem-solver, besieged by
hotheaded critics.
Stronger
and More Direct Rebuttals
These next six responses imply that your critic is desperate. We
all know that desperate people say desperate things—including hyperbole and
even lies—so don’t trust them.
Examples:
“It’s easy for people to make rash judgments when they don’t have the
facts, don't work on the inside, and thus don’t have a good understanding of
what is really happening.”
“It’s the last gasp of a very hard and desperate person.”
“I’d be curious whether he sprains anything when he leaps to a conclusion
like that.”
“I think it’s possible to present a logical argument without resorting to
insults and name calling.”
“He certainly proves the point that it’s not necessary to understand things
in order to argue about them.”
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends
on his not understanding it.”
Analysis: When your explanations aren’t working and your critic is
coming across more persuasively, you may need to attack his believability to
undermine his effectiveness.
Our culture deems it a virtue to stick to the high road and not allow ourselves
to react angrily to criticism. The much-revered former Green Bay Packers coach,
Mike Holmgren, succumbed to this temptation during the 1998 season. As the coach
was leaving the stadium, a fan shouted something unpleasant, to which Holmgren
responded with an expletive and a finger gesture. It was, of course, caught on
tape. Embarrassed by the incident, the contrite coach was put in the unenviable
position of having to apologize to the world for his lapse in self-control.
If you must attack your critic’s believability, direct your comments at
something tangible, such as his incorrect facts, flawed logic, or lack of skill
or expertise. If none of those fit, then look at his credibility, motivations,
or self-interest, as the last response so effectively demonstrates. But remember
that staying calm is the best way to take the wind out of an angry person’s
sails.
Deflecting
Specific Criticisms
These next responses reveal that there is truly an art to
communicating under the restricted circumstances the media imposes, even to
specific criticisms. You can convey important meaning in only a few seconds, but
doing so clearly takes considerable forethought.
When You
Are Accused of Not Doing Enough
Just about every day’s paper and every night’s news broadcast
include a complaint that somebody, somewhere, isn’t doing enough, or doing it
fast enough. Often, some public service is the target because taking potshots at
government is almost a national sport. Government employees simply are not
allowed to defend themselves in kind. It’s an unwritten rule that—because of
the pressure to be politically correct, taxpayer friendly, and so
on—government employees must not be arrogant or combative.
You don’t hear public employees saying things like: “Mr. Nelson wants the
law to work his way, at the expense of the rest of America,” or, “Alderman
Johnson is up for re-election, so we’re an easy target for mustering votes.
What people don’t know is that he voted against funding for the program last
year, and now he’s bellyaching that more isn’t being done. It’s not a leap
in logic to suspect he is desperate for publicity.”
If you are in the public sector, your critics may not understand, or care, why
you make the decisions you do. They may just want to take their shots through
the media because they are unhappy with the results. Regardless of their
intentions, you need to find the right words to convey the realities that
frequently stymie the best of intentions. These responses demonstrate how one
can delicately present a convincing message without being overly
confrontational.
Why
Didn’t You Do More?
Examples:
“Throughout this project our goal has been to do what was both possible and
acceptable to the many competing interests involved. We sincerely believe we
accomplished what time, resources, manpower, and circumstances allowed.”
“From being closely involved with this issue, we have found that what is
‘enough’ is totally a matter of perspective. By some, we have been accused
of doing too much. By others, not enough. Perhaps that means we are doing just
enough.”
“Could we have done more? Perhaps. Perhaps not. However, on an issue where any
action is considered an intrusion by someone, what we accomplished in a short
time is certainly a bold improvement over what previously existed.”
Analysis: All three remarks aim for the very effective goal of swaying
and holding public opinion. They use words that appeal both to people who
already support them and to those who are undecided. They also nullify
extremists.
Examples:
“No one could have anticipated the huge and unexpected problems that
developed. They were impossible to predict. We responded as well as anyone could
have under the circumstances.”
“We’ve had to balance our willingness to pursue changes against the
willingness of others to accept changes.”
“Our work wasn’t a waste of time. One purpose of our task force is to
identify false areas of concern. Rumors and speculation caused a great deal of
anxiety and angst until we were able to lay them to rest through careful
investigation and sound judgment.”
Analysis: Notice how these responses don’t sound as much like excuses
as they do legitimate explanations for doing all that you did, with
understandable constraints such as limited time, resources, and staff.
If you are a bureaucrat, bridge to the theme of needing to work wisely in order
to save precious tax dollars. That’s what most of us care about: that
bureaucrats aren’t squandering our hard-earned money. Use words that will
create a mental picture in the minds of viewers and readers of working hard and
smart to do it right, not just fast.
When You
Are Accused of Dragging Your Feet
In a society accustomed to instant gratification, speedy
communication, and quick judgments, more and more people expect faster and
faster resolution to problems, particularly long-festering ones. And some
officials or executives really do seem as if they are dragging their feet.
Doesn’t the word “committee” ring a bell in this respect? (“A group of
the unwilling, picked from the unfit, to do the unnecessary.”)
If there are legitimate reasons for your not making as much progress as some
would like, consider responses like these:
Examples:
“This is not a simple issue that can be solved with a knee-jerk reaction. I
don’t think anyone would want us to rush through something that could have
potentially harmful effects. We have found through experience that
well-thought-out solutions will save time and problems in the long run, not to
mention taxpayer dollars.”
“It’s hard to come up with a one-size-fits-all strategy on an issue
involving parties with such conflicting interests. These are extremely important
decisions, and we need to take time to let people reflect on what’s
happening.”
“These are extremely complex problems, and they require complex solutions.
Whatever we do will set a precedent for others, so we want to make sure we get
it right the first time. There may be no second chances.”
“Modern-day projects require much planning and preparation before work can
begin. You have to get it right the first time, because mistakes will needlessly
waste taxpayer dollars.”
“There are a number of preliminary steps which must be taken before work can
begin. This will save both time and money in the long run. That’s one of our
prime obligations to the public.”
“If we act in a knee-jerk fashion, we might make mistakes and we might
compromise someone’s integrity in the process. We’re dealing with people’s
reputations here. That’s not a commodity we’re willing to sacrifice for the
sake of speed.”
“Complex
issues can’t be solved overnight. These problems have occurred for many years,
and we aren’t going to wave a magic wand to make them go away. It takes
careful study, investigation, and planning before moving forward, and that’s
just what we’re doing. We’ll have concrete resolutions to present to the
board on…”
Analysis: The remarks above all convey two key messages. One: You are
being careful while moving as quickly as you prudently can. Two: If you are
pushed to work faster, it could result in major mistakes and a great waste of
time and other resources. That’s something we can all relate to.
Example:
“We’re seeking to arrive at conclusions, not jump to them.”
“This is an ongoing process, and therefore you can’t have a scorecard at
every stop.”
Analysis: If you are going to get only a sound-bite opportunity, these
two gems will satisfy the audience’s desire for reasoned results, not
reckless, impulsive and dangerous guesses. These are not answers per se, but
they are exceptional responses.
Example:
“Only through dialogue and through consultation and confidence-building can
we resolve the present problems. And these things take time and patience.”
Analysis: If only the first sentence in this remark is reported, you
will at least make it seem like you are seeking the best ideas and best
practices while you continue your effort to solve the problem.
Example:
“Let me explain what we’ve accomplished so far, and what we hope to
accomplish within the next few months…”
Analysis: If you get more airtime or newspaper space, this sentence would
serve as an excellent bridge to a few substantive facts that can support your
decisions and actions. However, give only two or three such facts, unless
prompted for more, because the more you say, the less they listen or report.
Example:
“We’re coming out of a crisis. It’s extremely important we keep the
temperature down as much as possible. If that means we take longer than some
people would like, so be it.”
Analysis: Here’s an excellent appeal for calm and cooperation, as well
as for patience. The critic who ignores this runs the risk of looking like a
boat-rocker in a storm. People generally give considerable leeway—for a little
while, anyway—to the person in charge. It buys you a little time, so don’t
think this is your final answer.
Example:
“All of us have these gut feelings about what should and should not be
allowed, but when you try to put it down in writing, it is very difficult. Both
sides agree that a line can be drawn. The only difference is where you draw that
line.”
Analysis: Sometimes it’s better to say very little substantively,
particularly in highly emotional situations. This intentionally vague response
acknowledges that you and the critic differ, and that it’s really hard to
determine who is correct, while sidestepping any specific debate that could just
escalate tensions further. In essence, it can be a wise tactical retreat, which
every successful military leader must do from time to time.
When
You Want to Allude to Acrimony
What about those instances when it’s plain to everyone that
people are not getting along and your sugarcoating things is the wrong approach?
Consider responses like these:
Example:
“Their insistence on simple answers to complex questions is frustrating for
those of us with a differing opinion. Life is not flat and one-dimensional. Nor
can everything be reduced to them and us, right and wrong, good and bad, friend
and foe. I just think life’s more complicated than that.”
Analysis: With a response like this, you portray yourself as being
careful, thorough, and reasonable, while the other side is not.
You leave it to your critic to push the negative stuff too far and thereby get
the blame for unpleasant acrimony, which most people don’t like.
Examples:
“There is common ground. But where there is not common ground, it is so
substantial that it overshadows the common ground.”
“This is a touchy, emotional topic for people. These are good people and I
think there is validity to both sides. The committee is working hard to try to
see both sides.”
Analysis: As is stressed throughout this book, answers like these won’t
fly if they aren’t true. If you or your committee is bogged down in pettiness,
self-interest, procrastination, or sloth, people will eventually see through it.
In that case, your best bet is to simply apologize and move forward with
solutions, if at all possible.
When
You Are Criticized for Being Difficult to Work With
We’d all like to think we are the enlightened manager, the team player, the
great communicator, the king of compromise, or the compassionate one. But when
somebody tosses a media grenade our way with the words “he stinks”
emblazoned for all to see, the words we unwittingly choose can damage us.
For example, if we were criticized for being too quick to judge, calling our
assailant an idiot would obviously prove his point. It’s an extreme example,
but judging from these media quotes, the respondents faced more threatening
accusations with finesse:
Examples:
“My basic principle is that you don't make decisions because they are easy;
you don't make them because they are cheap; you don't make them because they are
popular; you make them because they are right.”
“Chief executives have to make difficult and unpopular decisions. Every time
we do, we alienate some segment of the constituency, and our support diminishes.
If you aren’t offending somebody, you aren’t doing your job. It goes with
the territory.”
“Sometimes you have to lean hard on the system and the people in it to get it
to work the way you want it to work, and in a timely fashion. It may be that
some saw that as pressure. I saw it as getting the job done.”
“I always cheer up immensely when someone is attacking me personally because I
think, well, if they attack me personally, it means they have not a single valid
argument left.”
“We’re having to make sensitive choices amongst complex alternatives. Like a
judge, whenever we make a decision, we open ourselves up to criticism from those
that didn’t fare as well as they’d hoped. It’s unfortunate, but
unavoidable.”
Analysis: We all know that making tough decisions is difficult, but it
must be done so our systems work. The above comments demonstrate your integrity
and commitment to living up to your duty to get the job done for the good of
all, despite the criticism you will automatically attract.
Example:
“When you are dealing with an issue as important as education, do you think
it’s smart to decide standards based on consensus? That would mean sacrificing
excellence for mediocrity. So if some decisions are unpopular with particular
special interest groups, so be it. I guess it’s a price worth paying to
protect our children.”
Analysis:
What better strategy than to demonstrate your commitment toward protecting the
public good from the selfish interests of a special interest?
Example:
“We may have different approaches, different philosophies, and different
political viewpoints, but I believe we still have to work together.”
“If at times our actions seem to have made life difficult for others, it is
only because history has made life difficult for us all.”
“Our primary objective is regulation. I have no problem being cooperative if
it does not conflict with our primary objective.”
“Collegiality is very important, but collegiality doesn't mean total
agreement. If we all always agreed, we'd be overpaying six judges.”
Analysis: Each of these responses weaves in a sense of duty for the
common good. They convey that you seek to do good things for good reasons, and
you are willing to get along with anyone, but not at the cost of your goals.
That greatly appeals to your supporters, to undecideds, and even to some of your
more rational critics.
The Finer
Points: Use of First Names
Notice how using the person’s first name implies a friendly relationship. That
was a tactic used by Reagan during those famous White House press conference
duels between the president and Sam Donaldson. Beginning his responses to
Sam’s pit-bull questions with, “Gee, Sam,” set a friendly tone that
thwarted the journalist’s obvious intent to put the president on the spot.
The
Finer Points: Don’t Waste Your Precious Few Seconds
You waste precious broadcast seconds and column inches by focusing your remarks
on the criticism itself. Use your time and space wisely by centering on
solutions or other positive, perspective-generating remarks. Do you want the
self-satisfaction of venting your spleen, or do you want to win by getting your
central message across? You must choose one or the other because the news media
usually won’t give you time or space to do both.
