How leaders handle criticism

Criticism is the leader’s unwritten recompense. Leaders are criticized for issues they have control over as well as those about which they can do nothing. They are criticized for the sublime and the ridiculous, the good and the bad, the significant as well as the mundane. It is absolutely impossible to lead without coming under the attack of critics. As noted by Elbert Hubbard, it is only those who do nothing and are nothing that can escape criticism.

Leaders are subjected to criticism because their actions and inactions shape the destiny of those who are within the scope of their influence. So, when things go awry, whether or not as a result of their direct involvement, they are deemed liable and get lampooned.

In addition, everyone that has a tie to the leader has expectations from him. Once the reality goes contrary to their expectations they criticize the leader. Though some of the expectations may neither be realistic nor justifiable, that will not stop those who are bent on criticizing from exercising their rights of expression, the onus is on the leader to devise ways of creatively handling the criticisms.

Then, leaders are change agents, but it is not everyone that is in love with change. If the change you emplace brings discomfort to some people, do not expect them to applaud your intervention.

It is important for leaders to handle criticism intelligently because if poorly managed, it could bring them down and make mincemeat of their good works. But when rightly handled, criticism can provide a learning opportunity for the leader and serve as the ladder that would elevate him to the pinnacle of his career.

 

The creative and the critical

The academia is comprised of two kinds of people; the creative and the critical. The creative are those members of the academic community who come up with new ideas, inventions and books to advance knowledge and improve the society. The critical, on the other hand, do not necessarily come up with new ideas, inventions or books, but build their career on critiquing the works of the creative. The joy of the critical is to point out the flaws in the output of the creative.

But this works well for the creative because they get better, pay more attention to details and are positioned to dish out more excellent works as a consequence of the action of the critical. To rise as a creative academic, enduring the sting of the critical members of the academic community is sine qua non.

 

A leader’ mistake

Many leaders make the mistake of viewing every critic as an enemy. While many of the criticisms may be founded on anything other than altruism, to treat every critic as an adversary is to be misguided. Leaders are so called because they are expected to rise above certain sentiments. The need to defend one’s reputation and position is innate to man, but leaders are not allowed such luxury by the virtue of the position they occupy. Even when hurt by scathing criticisms, leaders are not expected to let down their guard and allow criticisms get under their skin; they are supposed to take criticisms in their stride, identify the useful part and dump that which cannot be used.

But President Richard Nixon of the United States of America was not able to do that and it cost him his presidency.

Former President Nixon was infamous for the Watergate Scandal but his undoing really was his intolerance of criticism. His journey down the wrong side of history started with his reaction to the protests by American citizens about the Vietnam War. His administration was not favourably disposed to the criticism of his unconstitutional war policy in Vietnam. Despite the guarantee provided by the First Amendment to the American constitution for the citizens to assemble and petition the government for a redress over grievances, the government’s reaction to the public opposition to the war was repression as it prosecuted champions of the protests. Then, it went further to intimidate the press into silence over certain a number of state issues. Success in these respects emboldened President Nixon to set up a group later known as The White House Plumbers to muzzle opposition and silence critics.

The first assignment The Plumbers got was to find a means of discrediting Daniel Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon Papers. To achieve this, they resorted to burgling the office of Ellsberg’s Los Angeles psychiatrist, Lewis J. Fielding, to find evidence against Ellsberg. Not content with that, the administration later set up the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP) whose clandestine operation was targeted at stifling opposition. The committee took on the inglorious task of burgling the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington to photograph campaign documents and bug telephones. When this was found out, the President attempted to stall the investigation of those involved because of their affinity to him. This later boomeranged as it was discovered that the President had used government officials to deflect investigation and prosecution. The House of Representatives immediately commenced impeachment proceedings against him. Knowing that the Senate would also do the same thing, he took the more honourable path of resigning as President on August 9, 1974.

Nixon remains the only president of the United States of America to resign from the position and this was due to his mismanagement of criticisms.

 


Types of criticism

There are three major types of criticism.

 

Destructive criticism

Destructive criticisms are meant to pull down leaders. Some people make it their mission to destroy others. They never see any good in anything done by leaders. Such critics look for a hole in an otherwise good move and exaggerate this beyond measure with the intent of casting a pall on the achievement of others. Such criticisms are not issue-based and the purveyors of such will not be appeased until they achieve their aim.

ALSO READ FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE 

Most people who push destructive criticisms are motivated by envy. They are saddened by the strides you are making and look for ways to run down your achievements. The right response is to ignore them and concentrate on your assignment.

 

Restrictive criticisms

These are criticisms pushed by those who want you to dance to their tune. Their aim is not to get you unseated but to manipulate you with the intent of making you dispense favour to them. Their criticism is targeted at using you to get what they want. The moment their urge is satisfied they switch to a new tune. But that is just for a while. As soon as they understand that the way to get favours from you is to criticize you, they will do it repeatedly and you will be constantly subjected to harsh criticisms. The best way to handle them is to ignore them. Once they realize that you are unmoved by their shenanigan, they will look for other potential victims.

 

Constructive criticisms

These are criticisms that point you in the right direction. They do not only point out what is wrong, they also proffer solutions. Those behind such criticisms want the best not just for you but also for the organization. Their criticism is not borne out of any selfish consideration but out of the need to see the organization get better. So, pay attention to what they say.

 

How to treat criticisms

Leaders must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to criticisms.

 

Weigh the criticism against the vision

The first step in treating criticism is to measure it against the vision. What is the vision? How does the criticism stand in relation to the vision? Does it add to the vision or detract from it? If the criticism would accelerate the accomplishment of the vision, take it in good faith and thank the one who raised the issue but if it is not in tandem with corporate goals or vision, dump it and move on.

 

Put yourself in the critic’s position

To make good sense of any criticism, view yourself from the perspective of the critic. Ask yourself, “Were I to be in the other person’s position would I not feel this way?” Your answer to the question should be a guide on what to do with the criticism.

 

Look beyond the surface

Is there any truth in what has been said? If the criticism is true, rather than playing the ostrich, own up to your mistake, make amends and move on. But if there is no truth in it, do not allow the din of the critics to determine what you choose to do or what you choose to ignore.

 

Last line

Leaders need critics to knock off their self-imposed limitations.


You might also like
Comments
Front Page Today

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More