Praise in Public; Criticize in Private

There’s no complicated framework here, just common sense. People like to be praised, it’s good for morale, good for wellbeing and doing it in public allows everyone to celebrate others’ efforts.

Yet, criticism is tough for anyone to take, no matter who they are, this is why having a conversation in private and choosing your words carefully is of utmost importance.

Most managers have probably heard the phrase “praise in public; criticize in private.”

It simply means that when you have something positive to say about a team member, make sure others are aware of the praise, but if you are issuing a correction or reprimand, handle it one-on-one.

What’s the Rationale?

On the praise side, praising in public pumps up the self-esteem of the worker being praised because the person is being shown off as an example of desirable behavior in front of his or her colleagues.

It’s also a great way to demonstrate to others what desirable behavior looks like. Praising in public, therefore, serves as a teaching tool.

On the criticism side, handling it privately avoids the converse situation: an employee being publicly shamed in front of his or her peers. This can create resentment and damage morale—not only for the employee being criticized but also for others!

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are plenty who find flaws with the “praise in public; criticize in private” rule. a primary critique of the rule is that it “can be a dangerous adage to follow because it significantly reduces accountability, the quality of team decisions, and your team’s ability to manage itself.”

Just as public praise sets an example of desirable behavior, public criticism sets an example of behavior that is not valued or encouraged. The risk many commentators see with private criticism is that the rest of the team will see little consequence from negative actions until they themselves are the offenders.

What’s the Rationale?

On the praise side, praising in public pumps up the self-esteem of the worker being praised because the person is being shown off as an example of desirable behavior in front of his or her colleagues.

It’s also a great way to demonstrate to others what desirable behavior looks like. Praising in public, therefore, serves as a teaching tool.

On the criticism side, handling it privately avoids the converse situation: an employee being publicly shamed in front of his or her peers. This can create resentment and damage morale—not only for the employee being criticized but also for others!

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are plenty who find flaws with the “praise in public; criticize in private” rule. a primary critique of the rule is that it “can be a dangerous adage to follow because it significantly reduces accountability, the quality of team decisions, and your team’s ability to manage itself.”

Just as public praise sets an example of desirable behavior, public criticism sets an example of behavior that is not valued or encouraged. The risk many commentators see with private criticism is that the rest of the team will see little consequence from negative actions until they themselves are the offenders.

Disclaimer:?The information on this POST is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional advice. The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. All content, including text, graphics, images and information, contained on or available through this article is for general information purposes / educational purposes only, and to ensure discussion or debate.

Thank you?...One strategy many managers employ with the public versus private criticism approach is somewhat of a hybrid. Publicly highlighting undesirable behavior doesn’t necessarily require shaming an individual.

It is sometimes possible to discuss the situation with the rest of the team with language like “an employee recently did ABC” or “this could have been avoided had it not been for the fact that a team member failed to do XYZ.”

“Praise in public; criticize in private” is an age-old mantra utilized by countless managers across a broad spectrum of industries and fields. While the wisdom of public praise is readily accepted, some question the universal wisdom of private criticism.

Managers should not apply the rule blindly and should consider what situations may warrant a more public review of offending behavior for the benefit of the broader team.

In any sort of management or leadership position, the most critical and fundamental goal is motivating people to engage in desired behaviors – safe work practices, company policies, greater work output, etc.

One of the challenges facing this goal is: how exactly do we go about doing the motivating? How can we effectively engage in performance communication?

What’s the most constructive way to go about criticizing poor performance, and praising great performance?

Many people believe the answer is to “criticize in private, praise in public,” meaning that all negative reviews of performance should be done without an audience, while positive reviews of performance should be done in front of a subject’s peers.

Your comments?....

Why is this?

Because criticism often leads to the subject feeling attacked, dominated, and devalued. People in general don’t find these feelings pleasant to experience.

Feedback, on the other hand, lets the person know they have performed unsatisfactorily, but does so without devaluing them and making them feel very negative emotions toward their leadership.

As an example: a new worker has consistently filled out a power tool inspection checklist incorrectly. A safety leader who chooses to criticize this person might say, “Let’s talk about these inspection checklists. You didn’t fill out X, Y, Z and A, B, C is wrong.

It’s not hard and it should only take you three minutes to do. This is unacceptable.” This dialogue can make the subject feel unintelligent, lazy, embarrassed, and devalued all in one fell swoop.

But, a safety leader who chooses to provide feedback might say, “Let’s go over the power tool inspection checklist together.

?I know you’re new and this can be confusing when you first look at it. In the future, let’s …” This sort of response focuses on the future, rather than past mistakes, and seeks to encourage the new employee to perform better, rather than punish or berate them for having performed poorly in the past.

Some criticism must be done in public

It’s generally a good idea to address poor performances in private, because no one likes to have their mistakes and professional weaknesses displayed to their peers.

It’s embarrassing, and can foster unhealthy feelings toward leadership. But, of course, there are some circumstances in which you might have to address unacceptable behaviors in public, on the spot, despite the negative emotions it may inspire in the subject.

The cost of NOT addressing some behaviors in front of the subject’s peers can often be far greater than sparing their feelings and doing it in private.

Imagine a worker is in front of a group of their peers, expressing negative opinions about an element of the safety program. Perhaps they believe that XYZ safe work procedure is overkill, not necessary, and just takes up extra time and effort that could be spent working.

In this situation, the integrity of the safety program is being undermined in front of an audience. Approaching the subject and asking them to step into your office for some private feedback is fine, but will leave the rest of the group with doubts about the integrity of the program.

The rest of the group, though some may not agree with the negative opinion, may benefit from feedback as well. You don’t want to foster the illusion that not following company safe work procedures is a good idea; after all, this is human lives we’re dealing with.

You never want to open public debate about company policies, so initiating an argument about the value of XYZ procedure is not advisable; however, advising the employee to take concerns to management and addressing the negative effects failing to follow company policies may have can be beneficial.

Public criticism may also be necessary in time-sensitive unsafe situations (i.e. a situation must be immediately addressed to ensure the safety and health of the workforce), or when inappropriate statements are made in front of other employees.

The potential circumstances are endless; “criticize in private” cannot be followed 100% of the time.

Criticism in public is just a big no no and one of the biggest sins a leader can make. All this will result in is poor relationships, disconnection, distrust and you will make it extremely difficult for a person to acknowledge an error and learn from it.

The information on this POST is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional advice. The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. All content, including text, graphics, images and information, contained on or available through this article is for general information purposes / educational purposes only, and to ensure discussion or debate.

This is an old and time-honored adage with a pretty large following and, in general, it’s hard to disagree with this piece of advice; there are a slew of behavioral and social reasons why you don’t want to critique people in front of their peers, and why it might be beneficial to praise high performance in public.

But there are potential downfalls and exceptions, as with every piece of management advice, that deserve to be addressed.

Rethinking “Criticize in Private”

Criticism in general is ineffective

“Criticize in private” holds one fundamental flaw just upon first glance: its promotion of criticism as a management technique. And while this sounds crazy, bear with me.

There is a distinct difference between criticism and feedback: criticism focuses on mistakes of the past, while feedback focuses on the improvements the subject can make in the future.

This doesn’t mean you should forego all forms of corrective action; no one would ever advise safety leadership to stop administering disciplinary action for egregious infractions. It simply means that, as far as communicating with members of your workforce regarding poor performance, looking to the future as opposed to harping on the past is far more effective.

Your comments?....

Why is this?

Because criticism often leads to the subject feeling attacked, dominated, and devalued. People in general don’t find these feelings pleasant to experience.

Feedback, on the other hand, lets the person know they have performed unsatisfactorily, but does so without devaluing them and making them feel very negative emotions toward their leadership.

As an example: a new worker has consistently filled out a power tool inspection checklist incorrectly. A safety leader who chooses to criticize this person might say, “Let’s talk about these inspection checklists. You didn’t fill out X, Y, Z and A, B, C is wrong.

Do you want to add a word or two?....

It’s not hard and it should only take you three minutes to do. This is unacceptable.” This dialogue can make the subject feel unintelligent, lazy, embarrassed, and devalued all in one fell swoop.

But, a safety leader who chooses to provide feedback might say, “Let’s go over the power tool inspection checklist together.

?I know you’re new and this can be confusing when you first look at it. In the future, let’s …” This sort of response focuses on the future, rather than past mistakes, and seeks to encourage the new employee to perform better, rather than punish or berate them for having performed poorly in the past.

Some criticism must be done in public

It’s generally a good idea to address poor performances in private, because no one likes to have their mistakes and professional weaknesses displayed to their peers.

It’s embarrassing, and can foster unhealthy feelings toward leadership. But, of course, there are some circumstances in which you might have to address unacceptable behaviors in public, on the spot, despite the negative emotions it may inspire in the subject.

The cost of NOT addressing some behaviors in front of the subject’s peers can often be far greater than sparing their feelings and doing it in private.

Imagine a worker is in front of a group of their peers, expressing negative opinions about an element of the safety program. Perhaps they believe that XYZ safe work procedure is overkill, not necessary, and just takes up extra time and effort that could be spent working.

In this situation, the integrity of the safety program is being undermined in front of an audience. Approaching the subject and asking them to step into your office for some private feedback is fine, but will leave the rest of the group with doubts about the integrity of the program.

The rest of the group, though some may not agree with the negative opinion, may benefit from feedback as well. You don’t want to foster the illusion that not following company safe work procedures is a good idea; after all, this is human lives we’re dealing with.

You never want to open public debate about company policies, so initiating an argument about the value of XYZ procedure is not advisable; however, advising the employee to take concerns to management and addressing the negative effects failing to follow company policies may have can be beneficial.

Public criticism may also be necessary in time-sensitive unsafe situations (i.e. a situation must be immediately addressed to ensure the safety and health of the workforce), or when inappropriate statements are made in front of other employees.

The potential circumstances are endless; “criticize in private” cannot be followed 100% of the time.

Criticism in public is just a big no no and one of the biggest sins a leader can make. All this will result in is poor relationships, disconnection, distrust and you will make it extremely difficult for a person to acknowledge an error and learn from it.