How to Take—And Give—Criticism Well

Want to stay current with Arthur’s writing? Sign up to get an email every time a new column comes out.

We live in the age of popular criticism. Search a doctor’s name on the internet, and you will quickly find patient assessments of their abilities and bedside manner. Before buying an item even as humdrum as paper clips on Amazon, you can find hundreds of reviews, some extensively detailed, others succinctly vitriolic. You can post on social media that a celebrity’s haircut is bad, and you stand a decent chance that he will actually see your snark.

In my own business, student evaluations are taken with deadly seriousness. As one academic colleague quips, professors today are treated like a Denny’s on Yelp. Google yourself and your professional rep, and you may find that opinions are … mixed.

We all love to criticize. Unfortunately, we also hate being criticized. That leads to a happiness problem in the giant, constant, panoramic review that is the experience of modern life. We post and comment on others with abandon, but feel aggrieved at the way others assess us, both online and in person. The world seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Fortunately, though, each of us can change how we give and take criticism, in ways that will make us less likely to harm others, more immune to taking offense, and better able to benefit from feedback—even when it is negative.

[Read: Critics of critics should be criticized]

Criticism is defined as judgment of the merits and faults of something or someone in written or spoken form. Technically, this can include compliments, but that isn’t what concerns us here. What vexes us is criticism of the negative variety, even when well-intentioned—so-called constructive criticism, which means to provide guidance so we can improve. Worst of all is destructive criticism, which aims to hurt or damage.

Criticism of either type is intrinsically hard to accept because of the way our brains process it. In 2013, a team of neuroscientists writing in the journal PLOS One showed that criticism stimulates the regions of the brain involved in social cognition more than those involved in cognition control itself. In other words, the recipient of criticism might be attempting to understand the beliefs and feelings of the critic rather than assessing the criticism itself. When someone says your work isn’t good enough, your natural first thought may be They must not like me, rather than What can I do to improve it?

Some people react more negatively than others to criticism. People most sensitive are those who score low in self-esteem and high in neuroticism, who are fearful of negative evaluation, and who are generally pessimistic. This isn’t too surprising, in that those already high in negative emotion will feel worse than average about being confronted with negative feedback. Competitiveness turns out to matter a lot as well: Research from 2012 showed that highly competitive people tend to work harder after receiving destructive feedback, but their performance suffers. One explanation for this may be that competitive people angrily want to prove the critic wrong, as opposed to carefully trying to better themselves.

One interesting finding from the research relates to narcissists, whom psychologists commonly classify as overt or covert. Overt narcissists are loud and aggressive; they demand a lot of feedback—with a strong preference for the positive kind because they like to have their egos stroked, and usually disregard criticism when it is negative. Covert narcissists are just as self-involved, but more insecure; instead of dominating the people around them, they tend to be passive-aggressive and vengeful (and thus quite destructive). And as psychologists discovered in 2008, these covert narcissists are highly sensitive to criticism—more than non-narcissists—which leads them to ruminate more than average and experience more negative emotion. Based on this finding, one way to detect a covert narcissist in the workplace could be by an outsize negative reaction to normal criticism—such as, say, a need to go home for the day after a mixed performance review.

[Arthur C. Brooks: You’re not perfect]

The culture of criticism, abetted by new technology, isn’t going away. The only way to flourish in it, and despite it, is to adopt new habits of getting and giving critical feedback. The research offers us several rules for doing just that:

1. It’s not personal (even when it’s personal).
When we receive criticism, we make it personal in two ways. First, we may naturally analyze the critic rather than the criticism. Second, we tend to consider the criticism a judgment on our inherent abilities, rather than on our performance. Interestingly, even among young children, research shows that viewing criticism as a judgment on one’s abilities can lead to lower self-worth, lower positive mood, and less persistence at tasks. The solution is to set up an internal affirmation such as: “I don’t care what this feedback says about the person giving it, and I choose not to see it as a personal attack on me. I will assess it on its face about the matter at hand—nothing more, nothing less.” This won’t save your feelings entirely, of course, but it is a helpful metacognitive approach—one that moves the focus from emotion to analysis. That enables you to judge the information on its merits (or lack thereof), as you would if it were about someone else.

2. Treat criticism like insider information.
Once you depersonalize criticism in this way, you can start to see it for what it is: a rare glimpse into what outsiders think about your performance, and thus a potential opportunity to correct course and improve. Studies of student performance have shown that those who learn to use feedback actively tend to get better grades and have better study habits. If this doesn’t come easily to you, one way to develop the grit to do so is to ask friends or colleagues whom you like and trust to form a critics’ circle, reviewing one another’s work and giving honest suggestions. I did this early in my public-speaking career, assembling a trusted “murder board” to give me feedback on speeches. Because I had empowered them to criticize my performance, I found it didn’t hurt when they did. I got much better quickly—and lost much of my fear of critics.

3. Make criticism a gift, never a weapon.
We all have to dispense criticism from time to time. For some—bosses, for example—doing so is part of the job, and failing to deliver criticism appropriately is evidence of malfeasance or incompetence. The key to criticizing to best effect is to remember the gift/weapon rule: If I am criticizing to help, I am doing it right; if I am doing it to harm, I am doing it wrong. To keep critical feedback in the first category, the research tells us that it should have five elements: the care of the recipient in mind; respectful delivery; good intentions; a pathway to improvement; and appropriate targeting of the recipient’s needs. This is a lot to hold in your head. One CEO I know tries to remember how best to execute this before a tough employee evaluation by praying for the well-being of the recipient.

4. Praise in public, criticize in private.
This rule is commonly attributed to the legendary football coach Vince Lombardi, who used it to motivate players. Research suggests that his intuition was correct: Scholars writing in 2014 showed that positive feedback given to students in public was 9 percent more motivating than when given privately, while negative feedback in private was 11 percent more motivating than in public. So what does that mean for your snippy Amazon reviews? Send them to the author directly, if you dare. Or better yet, don’t send them at all—unless you truly intend them to be constructive.

[Arthur C. Brooks: Listen to your own advice]

If taking some of this advice—especially about how to accept criticism better—is particularly hard for you, you are in excellent company. Many of the most successful people in the world were laid low by run-of-the-mill criticism. Consider Isaac Newton. In 1672, at age 29, he published a paper on light and colors of which he was probably quite proud. Most critics received it favorably, save for one: Robert Hooke, a well-regarded scientist and inventor, who wrote a condescending critique of Newton’s paper. As legend has it, Newton was so angry at Hooke that he slashed every portrait of Hooke he could find, which is why, per the tale, none exists today.

Most sources believe that the portrait-slashing part of the story is apocryphal. What rings true, however, is that taking criticism badly is more humiliating, ultimately, than the criticism itself. As with the enraged Newton, so it is for all of us: If instead we do the work to learn to accept negative feedback, our well-being will surely improve.