This is horrible advice, for more than a few reasons.
First - there is almost never a dynamic of "equals" at a boardroom table. There is always a recognized hierarchy, defined or not. Given that, a senior member critiquing a member junior to him but senior to others at the table undermines that person's position in the group. Unless you are into discarding team members, that's not a smart thing to do.
Second - Nobody likes to be critiqued, and it takes a lot of maturity to accept it and more importantly to properly (and positively) correct the behaviour in the future. A "private" situation where the person doesn't need to worry about saving face creates the best possible environment for this happening.
Third - If being "outed" is a consequence of action, the result is that action itself becomes less desirable and behaviour more conservative. This is a bad thing if you are trying to create a business that grows. If you aren't making mistakes, you aren't doing anything at all. The goal is not "no mistakes", it's "as few mistakes as possible".
Forth - High performers are already harbouring guilt when they fail. They are their own worst critics. There is nothing served by reinforcing these negative feelings. Poor performers and/or slackers are only going to rebel against being made a fool of.
Fifth - The assumption is that "Praise publicly, critique privately" is somehow commonplace. I can tell you that outside of the military, nothing I've seen seems to indicate that, and I've been working for some 20 years now.
I could continue but I think that's long enough. I must say though that I'm disturbed that the author is a psychologist.
> Fifth - The assumption is that "Praise publicly, critique privately" is somehow commonplace. I can tell you that outside of the military, nothing I've seen seems to indicate that, and I've been working for some 20 years now.
Were you in the military? If so, how did the "Praise publicly, critique privately" work out in practice?
Yes, 5 years in the Infantry (Canada). Both sides of the spectrum from a team perspective.
I think one thing the military does really well is critique. Nothing you ever do is perfect. There's always something someone will find for you to do better next time,even if it's the best piece of tactics anyone has ever seen. This is particularly for team leaders.
People see the yelling and screaming of bootcamp and figure that's just the way life in the army is. It isn't. These are shock courses specifically designed for stress purposes. Real learning takes place calmly and with a more cooperative technique, particularly when training leaders, but also when learning more advanced weapon systems and/or techniques, and almost always when discussing tactics.
Thinking back now, there are many periods for peer-review (never lower than peer), but in these instances are almost always done in collaborative training sessions, where it is recognized that people are going to make mistakes and that everyone will receive both positive and negative feedback. One thing I realize is that while they are teaching a future leader on receiving critique, they are also teaching future leaders on how to critique. In the army it's very similar to a post game report of a sports team. I've not seen too much of that in a boardroom... everyone looks to deflect blame instead of improve the team performance.
Your personal performance reviews - where it counts - are always done privately, usually over a set discussion between you and your direct superiors. Publicly shaming a leader in front of junior troops is pretty much forbidden. Regardless of how much of a fuck-up a person may be, you can't have his troops thinking that he's not worth listening too.
Based on what you wrote it seems that the military has a "we are all in this together" mentality whereas the board has a "what is in it for me" attitude. If so, can you transfer your military experience to civilian life?
This is horrible advice, for more than a few reasons.
First - there is almost never a dynamic of "equals" at a boardroom table. There is always a recognized hierarchy, defined or not. Given that, a senior member critiquing a member junior to him but senior to others at the table undermines that person's position in the group. Unless you are into discarding team members, that's not a smart thing to do.
Second - Nobody likes to be critiqued, and it takes a lot of maturity to accept it and more importantly to properly (and positively) correct the behaviour in the future. A "private" situation where the person doesn't need to worry about saving face creates the best possible environment for this happening.
Third - If being "outed" is a consequence of action, the result is that action itself becomes less desirable and behaviour more conservative. This is a bad thing if you are trying to create a business that grows. If you aren't making mistakes, you aren't doing anything at all. The goal is not "no mistakes", it's "as few mistakes as possible".
Forth - High performers are already harbouring guilt when they fail. They are their own worst critics. There is nothing served by reinforcing these negative feelings. Poor performers and/or slackers are only going to rebel against being made a fool of.
Fifth - The assumption is that "Praise publicly, critique privately" is somehow commonplace. I can tell you that outside of the military, nothing I've seen seems to indicate that, and I've been working for some 20 years now.
I could continue but I think that's long enough. I must say though that I'm disturbed that the author is a psychologist.