Critical Conversations

The boss ordered the team into her office, and it was clear she was not happy. Stefan looked down and sighed as his shoulders slumped at the boss’s words. “Who the h!@*! submitted this to the Executive Committee?” she asked. “Does this look professional to any of you?” she snapped as she threw the ten-page report across her desk. Stefan had not thought it was ready to send, but she had demanded the report be sent no later than yesterday, and she would not entertain a conversation about a later date. As team lead, Stefan spoke up: “I told you it wasn’t ready, but you said to send it anyway.”

“Oh, so now it’s my fault?” she barked.

“I’m not saying it’s your fault, I’m just saying I tried to tell you we weren’t ready,” said Stefan.

“So why weren’t you ready? Is someone not pulling their load? This isn’t the first time your team has missed deadlines. Now the VPs are breathing down my neck, thinking we don’t have what it takes to do this job.”

“In all fairness,” Stefan said, defending himself and his team, “this is an exceptionally qualified team. As usual, we didn’t have the time or the equipment to move any faster in getting the results you wanted. We’re at the mercy of our equipment and the process. Once we get things set up, all we can do is wait.” The rest of the team was silent, staring at their feet and feeling uncomfortable. The boss dismissed them with a wave of her hand. “Get back to work, and let me know how soon you can get a professional report ready for me. This time I want to see it before it goes out!”

The tone and direction of this conversation are quite different from those of the previous one. The boss’s depreciative questions drained the energy out of the room. The conversation was a volley back and forth between defense and offense, attack and deflection. The interaction eclipsed any sharing of valuable information that might have generated productive solutions. It lowered morale among team members and added another brick to the wall between the boss and her employees. The team left the conversation knowing only that they didn’t live up to their boss’s expectations and yet not quite sure how to move forward. This conversation hindered creative possibilities for delivering on desired outcomes; it was a matter of starting over or waiting for the process to be completed.

We’ve all been part of such conversations, sometimes as the critic and sometimes as the one critiqued. Many times the critic does not see herself as being critical. In intimate relationships, critical-sounding conversations seem to be part of the territory. For example, a seemingly benign kitchen remark such as, “Sweetheart, why don’t you use just one pan? It will be so much easier and less work in the end” can launch a cascade of undesired results and friction. The person saying this is merely trying to be helpful. The other person, however, depending on past interactions, assumptions, and their own state of mind, can feel criticized and may snap back, “Why do I have to do it your way?”

Judgment and criticism lie at the core of a critical conversation. The person being asked the question(s) typically experiences a negative emotional response: defensiveness, fear, shame, unworthiness, anger, or disempowerment. Depreciative questions often reflect an unequal power dynamic (boss–subordinate, parent–child, teacher–student, more experience in the kitchen versus less experience in the kitchen), where the person being asked the question experiences being “one-down.” Such deficit-based questions negatively affect the mood and confidence of people. These kinds of interactions typically lead to disengagement and lowered productivity.

Occasionally, critical conversations can be valuable and productive. Examples of this abound in our organizations, schools, and families. Root-cause analysis, which is a problem-solving method for finding the root cause of a problem, can surface an easy fix. Critical feedback can motivate change, but it will not sustain it. Arguments between couples can bring issues out in the open that need to be aired. All of these are examples of critical conversations with positive outcomes. Usually, getting to that outcome does not feel good, though the outcome is nonetheless positive.

Critical conversations have the ability to be effective when balanced with strong relationships that have formed as a result of predominantly appreciative conversations. Research shows that the best results for teams and relationships stem from a 6:1 relationship (six positives to one negative). Over time, if critical conversations dominate the conversational landscape, they eventually weaken relationships, limit potential, and eclipse generativity. In effect, they become destructive conversations. When the ratio falls below 3:1, things begin to fall apart.