The oft-bungled task of criticizing

By Edward Miller

No newsroom conversation is more difficult — or handled more ineptly more often —than criticizing a subpar performance of a colleague or staff member.

The very thought of confrontation stokes an editor’s anxiety, embarrassment, or anger, often all three. After lengthy procrastination, one of two things (both of them bad) usually happens:

• You avoid the confrontation anyway, rationalizing that the situation is a) not so bad after all, or b) hopeless, and therefore not worth an attempt at resolution.
• You charge ahead and have the conversation without preparation. In doing so, you make matters even worse.

A few among us have a talent for carefully planning and rehearsing how to get a message across to a reluctant listener. For the rest of us, a nasty cycle usually takes over. Because we’re not very good at it, we lack confidence; we just “know” it’s not going to be successful. Insecurity makes us even more reluctant to take action.

Here’s a strategy that will help build competence and confidence:

1. Focus on the future, not the past. This is tough to do, especially when criticizing someone’s performance. Although we claim we only want to “make sure they understand what they did wrong,” what we really want is atonement. By holding feet to the fires of the past, however, we are ignoring the plain truth that criticism causes people to become defensive and resistant, making change unlikely. Seeking accountability for past actions instead of understanding about future ones hinders the very learning we are trying to encourage. If our objective is the changed behavior or improved performance that we hope follows learning, flogging is the least effective teaching aid.

2. Dwell on the task, not the person’s “flaws.” You can’t alter someone’s character, but you can change his behavior. People will respond more readily to your change initiatives if they believe that, despite your concerns about their performance, you like and trust them personally. Building this trust means avoiding character assassinations: “You always screw this up. Why can’t you ever get it right?”

You’re an editor, not a priest; you should be more interested in performance than penance, so avoid character insinuations and judgments. Concentrate on the task.

3. Clarify the benefits. People won’t accept suggestions for change unless they see a personal benefit. Part of your preparation for the conversation should be identifying what stake the other person has in change. For some, the consequences of not changing are less severe than the uncertainties of change. You need to make sure there actually are benefits to the change you want, and that the other person sees them.

4. Bring solutions to the conversation. Some leaders find this idea hard to accept: “I’m not the one creating the problem. Why must I be responsible for solving it?” If all you want from the conversation is the chance to find blame, solutions aren’t very important. Critiques at morning news meetings are ineffective because they are usually about finding fault instead of suggesting solutions.

But if you want the other person to perform better, you need to help him fashion a strategy for change. Smart leaders bring that strategy to the conversation.

Newsroom conversations are important. They are how editors teach and learn, articulate goals and standards, and propagate values. In short, they are how we lead. The higher up the ladder you get, the more purposeful your conversations become. Learning effective techniques is essential to converting purpose to performance.

Miller is an associate of the Poynter Institute and a newsroom coach. He can be reached at miller@

newsroomleadership.com.