Don't Prove-Improve

It's not a criticism, it's a problem to solve

Don’t Prove–Improve

Regardless of our lot in life, I’m guessing you know the feeling of being criticized. It comes with a horrible mix of embarrassment, anger, fear and sadness. As soon as the person criticizing starts in, we’re plotting our rebuttal, the need to prove ourselves right, an automatic response.  

It is human nature, that when we are told we’ve done something wrong, we want to prove we were right. When we were children, having been scolded by an adult, our desire to prove we were right was probably rather harmless; taking place only inside our own head. As we move into adulthood and the “scolding” comes from someone we report to, or someone who can impact our work-life, the desire to prove ourselves right becomes potentially more harmful. Not properly dealing with criticism can lead to a life of misery.

In his book Think Again, author/professor/speaker Adam Grant details four thinking styles we use to approach problems, or in this case, criticism:

Preacher: "When we're in preacher mode, we're convinced we're right," explained Grant. From the salesman to the clergyman, this is the style you use when you're trying to persuade others to your way of thinking. 

Prosecutor: "When we're in prosecutor mode, we're trying to prove someone else wrong," he continued. 

Politician: It's no shock that "when we're in politician mode, we're trying to win the approval of our audience."

Scientist: When you think like a scientist, "you favor humility over pride and curiosity over conviction," Grant explained. "You look for reasons why you might be wrong, not just reasons why you must be right."

A few years ago, I had a revelation–I’ve written about it here. A criticism of the greens had me working through the first three modes of thinking. I was ready to convince this golfer I was right, I was most definitely wanting to plead my case, and I was prepared to get everyone else in the room on my side. I was right, they were wrong and I was going to prove it to them and everyone else. But I didn’t. 

I walked away from that meeting, and went into scientist mode, analyzing the commentary with humility, rather than pride; I needed to know why this golfer thought the greens were bad. The person is a good golfer, who travels and often plays top courses, why would they make such a comment about the greens. Instead of proving this person wrong, I realized it could be me who was wrong.

I’m a big fan of Adam Grant and have read all of his books, including Think Again. His podcasts are excellent, as are his TED Talks. Grant also has a Substack newsletter. He often makes the point that when criticized, we should focus less energy on proving and more energy on improving. This is an approach I’ve worked hard to implement over the past few years–the results have been enlightening.

1. When someone offers criticism, I know longer feel the immediate angst and need to prove myself right. 

2. I break down the criticism like a scientist golf course superintendent, finding out what it really means, what are the origins and what myself, or my team might be able to do to make an improvement.

3. Because I view criticism as a problem solving exercise–something I’m good at–I don’t carry the angst I used to carry. I can let it go and move on with my day, solving a problem, rather than stewing over a perceived injustice. 

As golf course superintendents, we pride ourselves in solving problems, planning, organizing and continually putting forth the best product possible. The next time a golfer offers a criticism, and your first instinct is to prove yourself right–STOP–instead, put those problem solving skills to good use, and make such criticism the impetus for wonderful improvement.