You can use that as a general rule…it is a Rule of Thumb. You will find it rings true something like 99.44% of the time. The only times this Rule of Thumb will not be true are when you are criticizing someone who has super-thick skin or someone who has interpersonal strengths that go a deep notch beyond 'tolerance' and 'appreciation of the differences in people'. Put another way, the only people who will receive your criticism as constructive are people who have confidence untainted by problems of ego and people who allow others to say what they must say and do what they must do.

 

Those people are few and far between.

 

Most people do not react well to criticism.

 

OK, but certainly criticism can be packaged and delivered in a way that is constructive.

 

That’s logical…isn’t it?

 

Yes – that’s logical.

 

But, remember logical Riders must deal with the reactions of emotional Elephants. And, 99.44% of Elephants do not like to be criticised. 99.44% of Elephants react negatively to criticism. It is that plain and simple.

 

Carl Jung said it this way:

 

“Criticism has the power to do good when there is something that must be destroyed, dissolved, or reduced but it is capable only of harm when there is something to be built.”

 

Franklin P. Jones made the same point in a slightly-humorous way:

 

“Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.”

 

***

 

Recognizing the general rule Constructive Criticism is an Oxymoron, we recommend 3 things:

1. Leaders should work to make their skin thick enough to place them among the few people who have developed the strength to violate the rule.
2. Leaders should refrain from criticising people.
3. Leaders should help followers develop thicker skin.

As we have written about many times, we believe Leaders need thick skin and thin skulls…

 

Here are some of the nuances of our thinking:

• Everybody lies, at least in certain situations and about certain topics - everybody lies!
• There are levels of lying...like little white lies, lies made in an effort to ease other's pain, manipulative lies, lies for the sake of secrecy or deception, and pathological lies.
• "Honey, does this new red dress make me look slimmer?" The person who answers that question may lie while intending to be kind and aiming for win-win. That sort of lie is a low-level lie. And that sort of lie may represent the best course of action in the given situation. The intent behind the lie is 'admirable'.
• Integrity, as we define it, allows for lies. Recall the last part of the definition: “When you make errors as you talk-walk-run you admit them and you strive to not repeat them”.
• But, our definition of Integrity does not allow for repeated lies where the intent behind the lie isn't 'admirable'...Integrity cannot exist where the intent behind repeated lies is deception or manipulation...i.e., win-lose.  Our definition of Integrity allows for some of those win-lose lies. After all, as the saying goes, we are only human. Each of us makes mistakes. People say things and wish later that they could retract their words. An acknowledgement of their error when coupled with a true commitment to do better passes our ‘Integrity’ test. 

And, our key point on the two closely-intertwined topics, Lies & Integrity: the onus is on the leader to set the standard.

 

The leader sets the standard by:

• Defining Integrity
• Incorporating Integrity into leading by example
• Having thick skin…it isn’t about you, it’s about them
• Having a thin skull…being open minded, observing others, taking care to minimize judging of others while maximizing understanding of others