Providing someone with feedback is valuable. In our roles as educators, whether facilitator, leader, teacher, or a combination of all, we leave ourselves open to opinion. From time to time this feedback is shared constructively, points are collaboratively established to be worked through and targets are set. The outcome? Positive change. And then there are other times when feedback or criticism is destructive.
“The difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism is the way in which comments are delivered. Although both forms are challenging your ideas, character, or ability, when someone is giving destructive criticism it can hurt your pride and have negative effects on your self-esteem and confidence. Destructive criticism is often just thoughtlessness by another person, but it can also be deliberately malicious and hurtful. Destructive criticism can, in some cases, lead to anger and/or aggression.” (Dealing With Criticism)
For those of you who have been on the receiving end of destructive criticism, I truly empathise. We stand in front of our peers or learners, delivering, teaching, or supporting with passion. From personal experience, I have been astounded by how hard some comments have hit me. It hurts! It can be completely unexpected and feels almost impossible to prepare for.
What troubles me most is the long-term damage that destructive criticism can cause. Whether motivated by a sense of helping, or, in rare cases, actively designed to cause turmoil, in the education sector it simply isn’t good enough. Our roles and much of our professional development relies heavily on the feedback of peers. Education remains an intriguing mystery at times as I watch amazing middle leaders deliver well-constructed feedback for their students, personalising comments, and finding deeper meaning, while the same is not done for their peers.
How could you frame feedback?
In 2004, Emily Heaphy and Marcial Losada conducted a study of the nature and ratio of effective feedback. Although their data has now been widely reviewed and challenged on a statistical level (not on a wider interpretation of impact level), the basic premise of their findings is well worth understanding. They found, “The average ratio for the highest-performing teams was 5.6 (that is, nearly six positive comments for every negative one).” (Zenger and Folkman 2013). Taking the meaning into account over the data as a fact, this leads us to believe that we perform better when the ratio of positive comments is much greater than negative. This in itself is not a revelation. A happy team who feel supported and trust their leadership will perform more effectively and cohesively than a team who feels the opposite — it’s human nature. However, seeing this ratio made me reflect on the feedback I had given to a peer when reading through their sabbatical report recently.
In no way am I suggesting my feedback here is perfect — far from it! Prior to this paragraph was a list of wider thinking questions that were designed to start deeper conversations, but upon rereading, I realised quickly that they could be seen as highly critical. After some rephrasing, but without losing the direction and with the addition of positivity to balance the challenge, I sent the feedback. It was well received and acted upon. I think the key here was to understand what it might feel like to be on the end of the email before pressing the send button. This is not always easy, but brings us back to the old proverb, ‘treat others as you would wish to be treated.’ It’s not perfect, but I don’t know anyone who would want to be on the end of destructive criticism!
When should you deliver feedback?
So, what if you’ve carefully phrased the criticism, balanced positive and negative elements, but made sure the meaning and direction has been maintained. When do you send it? Think carefully here. Have you ever received a challenging email late at night or over the weekend? It could be argued that we need a level of self-control and don’t need to check emails or messages in our personal time, but digital technology has changed things and we live in a predominantly ever-connected world. Switching off and demarcating non-message/email time is a whole different conversation. In this instance, imagine receiving something constructive over the weekend. It could go either way, right? Gently nagging at you throughout the weekend and distracting from time with whānau and friends. Or, it could be well received and not worry you until Monday morning. But dare we assume? I think, perhaps, the biggest question to ask here is: can it wait until the morning or Monday? If the answer is no, shouldn’t it to lead to asking, how the best way to share might be?
How should you deliver feedback?
To be effective, I believe you have to know the person on a personal level so that you know how they respond to different modes of communication and which they prefer. It’s important to know that one of your colleagues likes bad news or challenges to be shared face to face, whereas another is happy to receive it via Snapchat. For some, being able to hear someone’s tone on the telephone or read their expression and body language in person (or via video call with cameras on) is important. For others, being face to face with a colleague who is sharing criticism may be intimidating and they may feel uncomfortable outside of text-based communication. Neither is right or wrong, they are simply preferences. If we don’t ascertain what our colleague’s preference is, we run the risk of getting it wrong and potentially affecting them on a personal level.
How do we deal with criticism?
It’s not fair to assume that our reaction to every piece of criticism received will be the same. It is dependent on who the sender is, how it’s worded, and what the positive/negative ratio is.
“The key thing to remember is that whatever the circumstance is, don´t respond in anger as this will cause a scene and create bad feelings – and possibly a bad image of you.” (Dealing With Criticism).
Of course, there are generic things you can do to calm and deal with situations effectively, some of which can be applied to multiple situations:
Talk to someone
It is worth remembering that teaching and education rely heavily on collaboration and cooperation. Find someone you trust and share openly with them. It’s about finding perspective and understanding that an immediate reaction could be clouded by heightened emotion- we’re human!
Don’t press send
Write the email if you need to. Draft in a document, record it as a voice memo, do whatever you feel you need to do to get it out of your system, but do not press send. Everyone needs an outlet.
Focus on the positives
It can be hard to find the positives in a pile of negatives, but if you look hard, they’re often there. Combined with possibly talking with someone for a fresh set of eyes, hunt through for anything that resembles a comment that could be a compliment. If one simply cannot be found, stop reading. Put it down. Return to step one.
Respond (at an appropriate time)
The key here is appropriate. A response doesn’t mean a defence. It may be as simple as acknowledging the criticism and knowing when to cease the conversation. If the criticism is truly unjust and undeserved, mediation may be needed. Find an alternative perspective and have a comparison. Otherwise, let it go; the damage done from holding on to something you cannot change far outweighs anything else.
Find a different cup
A close colleague of mine, who recently supported me through my own challenge, shared how strange it was that we so often end up focusing on the negative. On a page of beautifully balanced constructive criticism, our eyes immediately search for the thing we know will upset us the most! It made me wonder how often we bank the comments that make us feel good. How do we keep the cup full in the background, so we know it’s there to drink from when we need it? There is nothing arrogant about storing positivity to improve a sense of self. After all, we have a first-aid kit in the house, why not have one for the mind?
In conclusion…
In closing, something I think we all need to remember (including me as I write this) is that we are our own harshest critics. Whether that stems from the words of others or a deeply reflective sense of self, it’s about what we do with the thinking and words we receive. Do we let them stoke the flames of a raging fire of insecurity? Or, are we able to let them pass by us like a cool breeze? The internationally renowned singer Adele once said, “I have insecurities of course, but I don’t hang out with anyone who points them out.”
References
(n.d.). Dealing with Criticism | SkillsYouNeed. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/dealing-with-criticism.html
Zenger, J and Folkman, J.
(2013, March 15). The Ideal Praise-to-Criticism Ratio — Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 10, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2013/03/the-ideal-praise-to-criticism
Image credits
Criticism, Write a Review, Review from Pixabay CC0
Depression, Voices, Self Criticism from Pixabay CC0
For those using a text reader Click here
Much of the challenge remains around how we view the terminology we use. Looking specifically at the terms technology, literacy, and fluency, we could view them as a ladder. For many years the SAMR model presented as a ladder has been a successful metaphor and model used in schools. Teachers understand that reaching Redefinition will transform student learning. If we apply this to technology, literacy, and fluency, we start with technology, we step into an understanding of literacy, and finally, we reach fluency. Like any ladder analogy, we accept that no one is a superhero, and no one is able to fly straight to the top. However, what about when you finally make it to the top? If technology changes, are you still at the top or do you have to start climbing again?
Looking at the three terms with an interdependent lens, they may perhaps look something like the graphic (left). I believe they interweave, interlink, and must not be viewed without knowledge and understanding of the others. In much the same way as all must be experienced to reach the top of a ladder, the difference here is that we understand things from a cyclical perspective. ‘Digital technologies’ remains the what. It’s the thing we can point at and touch. In order to use it successfully, we need to understand how it works and how they could be implemented in teaching and learning. We need to be literate. For true success, though, we must be discerning. The splatter gun of ideas and short-lived experimentation must be limited to a phase and cannot become a habit. Therefore, we must know why we use the tools we do and never lose sight of the impact we desire it to have. We aim to be fluent. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope the clearest element here is that we cannot see the device, its function and its ability to transform learning in isolation. We need to understand all to truly leverage the power technology can bring.
The challenge we face is that technology is ever changing. Digital Fluency isn’t like your driver’s license. With that, you learn to drive, you sit the test, you are awarded your license, and that’s it. As long as you don’t commit infringements and stay within the guidelines of the Road Code, there’s no need to re-sit your test on a regular basis or reapply for your license. Why? Because the car hasn’t really changed in its functionality or primary operability in the last 50 years. Please don’t misunderstand me, technological advancement and changes to propulsion efficiency and method, comforts, accessories, and safety have been tremendous. But the actual process of driving hasn’t changed. Seat belt on, engine on, into gear (with or without a clutch), mirror, signal, check, manoeuvre.
But, stop for a moment and just think about what you can do with a $300 Chromebook that your Satellite Pro of the 1990s couldn’t. It video calls, it hooks up to the internet (without a dongle or cable!), it has no need to read CDs or DVDs. Its hard disk drive (HDD) is capable of storing endless multimedia that will wirelessly stream to no end of other devices and can be updated from even more. Unlike the phone, a modern laptop may still share physical appearance features with its ancestors, in much the same way as I have my family’s rather large nose, but the way they operate, and their user interfaces are extremely different.
Having recently visited a school with my parent hat firmly fixed on, I left with as many wonderings as when I stepped inside the doors. I couldn’t shake the question, ‘what else?’ Everything I was shown was fine. There were opportunities for growth and learning, steps being taken towards modern learning practice, and dabbling in the ILE world. All was absolutely… fine. So, why couldn’t I shake the question? It’s simple really. Being okay isn’t okay. Teaching and learning under the ‘That’s-What-We’ve-Always-Done’ mentality is just never going to be okay. I don’t for one second think this is the case in the school I visited. I wholeheartedly believe they had innovation and powerful opportunities for engagement and empowerment happening within the school; I just couldn’t see it. Their website touched on it, their inquiry model certainly talked about empowering learners and self-exploration, but as a visitor to the school and prospective parent, it wasn’t in front of me. No matter what question I asked or how subtly I pushed, the school’s uniqueness didn’t shine through. And it made me wonder… Is this what visitors to the school see? Is that okay? To a parent outside of education, what was shown was similar in some ways to the education they received. Surely that wasn’t the school’s unique value proposition?
In the busy life of schools, the must-dos of governance and Ministry requirements are, at the very least, time-consuming. Little time is left for the ‘should dos’, and they are dealt with the best they can be. For example, we should be promoting teaching as inquiry and establishing strong relationships both within and across schools. We should be strengthening our repertoire of skills and letting the ‘pockets of promise’ shine through. But what about the ‘could dos?’ It’s here that schools have an opportunity to push beyond the norm and define themselves as genuine institutions of modern learning. After the charter has been submitted and the data has been analysed, many leaders have little time to engage in purposeful conversations around pushing the boundaries of education. This is by no means a criticism; just the reality of the incredibly high pressured life of a leader in education. So often I’ve seen the pendulum swing away from future-focused education towards governance and accountability. And, it’s here where facilitators and consultants like myself have an opportunity to help make a significant change. Our role is not to show schools the way. We don’t have the map. But we do have the paper with which leaders can draw their own and decide on just what it is that makes them special.
When you look at the diagram, lifted straight from the document, it makes sense that about a third of the content is dedicated to Learning Areas. It could be argued that about a third of learning is assimilating knowledge in specific content areas. But what of the other two thirds?
As we continue striding forward and into the unknown, many of those following do not realise the challenge a leader faces. In turn, the leader plasters on the smile and buries the challenges, both personal and professional, in the name of strong and stable leadership. And before we know it, it’s too late. The sleep has been lost, the irrational conversations have happened and we find ourselves lying at the bottom of a cliff, wondering when it all came crashing down. Hiding our struggles has a place. Not everyone needs to know or, indeed, cares about the trials and tribulations of our lives. Just remember those who do. If you’re hanging onto the edge or already halfway down, it isn’t too late to accept a rope — we simply have to remember to ask those we are closest to, to throw one down and hold on tight. And remember — if you choose the right person, they’ll never let go.
.jpg){kind=link}
