Looking at critique in a new way.
Something remarkable happened today. By "remarkable," I do mean "worthy of remarking on."
One of the things I had to learned (thought I had learned) many years ago (as a teenager/young adult) was how to "accept criticism." Interesting that we refer to it as "accepting criticism." One part of the process was learning to not become automatically defensive when someone else offers a critique. This lesson was reinforced in all of my art and drama classes - where a regular part of the process is the "critique." For many years now (most of my adult life), I've prided myself on being good at suppressing the automatic defense instinct when criticisms are offered. I thought that I was pretty good at taking all comments, criticisms, concerns, etc into consideration.
Flash forward to today...
I have a colleague who works out of a "remote" office. I am currently working closely with this colleague on several projects and have worked closely with this colleague in the past as well. This colleague has a bit of a reputation in the department for not being the easiest person to work with. My personal opinion has always been that this is partially due to the fact that 90% of our communication with this person is via email and telephone. There are some who can come across as relatively harsh and even rude in electronic communications and some who come across that way in telephone communications as well. This colleague tends toward that in both email and telephone conversations. I've always taken this into consideration and, I believe, that is part of why I generally work fairly well with this colleague. That said - I've still felt the sting of more than one seemingly "overly harsh" editorial comment regarding my design and/or development work. To date my reaction has always been to attempt to overlook the apparent rudeness (chalking it up to a tact of overt tact). I've considered this colleagues comments and attempted to adjust my own work when I felt the comments had merit. Alternately, when I felt the comments were incorrect, of the mark, or demonstrated a misunderstanding on this colleague's part - I've endeavored to explain why my original work was correct.
Today, I realized that I tend to approach such critique (both from this colleague and from others) in a very defensive manner. I had not recognized it as defensive because I try to take a very analytical (non-emotional) stance when I explain my reasoning... but... I now understand... what I am actually doing is defending my "rightness." Basically - I'm still viewing as either "I'm wrong and the critic is right" or "I'm right and the critic is wrong." This subtle because I learned the politics of defending myself intellectually many years ago. All those art and drama critiques served me well. In art and drama there is often no right answer... there are just the choices you've made regarding the motivation for your work, your character portrayal, etc. During a critique, your are not being told that you should have done something different... rather, you are asked to explain the why. You must dig deep into your conscious and sub-conscious and find where your inspiration and intent is coming from and then articulate it to your peers. Years of practice doing this in somewhat formal group settings is probably one of the reasons I'm good at self-reflection.
What is interesting is that I did not transfer this "no right or wrong" to my work outside of the "arts." So in my professional life - I look at critique in much the same way a student might look at a paper marked up in red by their teacher. Either it is wrong and I'd better change it (to get the better grade) or it is "right" and I must defend it to the teacher.
Today - I think I've given myself a glimpse of a different way.
In the narrative for an application demonstration (to be recorded) I had written "For this demonstration, I want to search for self-paced training. I'll click the Method Type field and select Self-paced."
My colleague (who was performing a peer review of my work) wrote the comment: "Just wondering if this is really a valid example. Technically, everything in iMentor is self-paced from the point of view that it doesn't require a specific date/time. So, why would someone want to search for only a specific Method Type? I think I would just demonstration using the Content Type search. But... up to you."
My initial reaction to this was two fold. First, I felt her use of "But... up to you" was a bit... well 'passive aggressive.' I told myself to ease up - that she probably was just trying to be considerate of my reasoning. Second, I knew she was wrong. The method "self-paced" is not based on date/time but rather based on the functionality of the lessons. We have recorded conferences and webcasts which are not defined as self-paced... but rather as a method type of their own in our training catalog. These method types had been clearly defined early in this very same training (prior to the place where the demonstration would be presented). My inclination was to call my colleague up and explain to her that "self-paced" as compared to "webcast" and "recorded web conference" (and a few other modalities) had already been explained and that it was absolutely appropriate for someone to search for the method type of "self-paced." In the past, when she has made comments that I felt were in error or based on erroneous information, I've always called her and explained the situation and my reasoning... sometimes that's the end of it and sometimes she explains her point. These conversations are always very amiable (we genuinely like each other and do work well together)... but they really are about each of us "defending" our pov.
Today - I did something different. I looked at her comment, thought about it, and realized that there was a clarification I could make that would retain the correct information but also incorporate the interpretation that she represented with her comment. Rather than call her and have a friendly conversation and/or debate regarding the validity of searching by method type... or possibly having a debate regarding how we should define "self-paced" training (which currently only includes our interactive training events not the pre-recorded ones that the learner just sites and watches and listens to).... I changed the narrative text to read: "For this demonstration, I don't want to look at any webcasts or recorded web conferences, so I'll select Self-paced in the Method Type field."
This serves two purposes - 1. It demonstrates the Method Type filter (as I intended to do) and 2. It reinforces the earlier information about how method (or modalities) are defined in our system.
This is important because it means that I recognized that we both had (have) valid points of view and that our two POVs are not mutually exclusive.
I don't have to accept criticism... or rather... accepting it doesn't necessarily mean supplanting something I've done for the way someone else would do it ... or ... alternately defending the way I'm doing and explaining why I don't need to change it. I need to look at criticism more closely ... more deeply. Rather than become defensive - I need to ask myself... what isn't clear... what is it that I'm trying to convey that isn't getting across that is why this person has the criticism that they have? I thought I was already doing that ... buy explaining my reasoning... but... while explaining my reasoning to the critic might mean that the critic comes to understand my position... it doesn't mean that my position is clear to anyone else. The work I create (whether professional instructional design or art work) must be able to speak for itself because I won't always be there to explain it. I don't want any of my work (writing, instructional design, art, etc.) to be so obscure and opaque that I must always be there to explain it.
One of the things I had to learned (thought I had learned) many years ago (as a teenager/young adult) was how to "accept criticism." Interesting that we refer to it as "accepting criticism." One part of the process was learning to not become automatically defensive when someone else offers a critique. This lesson was reinforced in all of my art and drama classes - where a regular part of the process is the "critique." For many years now (most of my adult life), I've prided myself on being good at suppressing the automatic defense instinct when criticisms are offered. I thought that I was pretty good at taking all comments, criticisms, concerns, etc into consideration.
Flash forward to today...
I have a colleague who works out of a "remote" office. I am currently working closely with this colleague on several projects and have worked closely with this colleague in the past as well. This colleague has a bit of a reputation in the department for not being the easiest person to work with. My personal opinion has always been that this is partially due to the fact that 90% of our communication with this person is via email and telephone. There are some who can come across as relatively harsh and even rude in electronic communications and some who come across that way in telephone communications as well. This colleague tends toward that in both email and telephone conversations. I've always taken this into consideration and, I believe, that is part of why I generally work fairly well with this colleague. That said - I've still felt the sting of more than one seemingly "overly harsh" editorial comment regarding my design and/or development work. To date my reaction has always been to attempt to overlook the apparent rudeness (chalking it up to a tact of overt tact). I've considered this colleagues comments and attempted to adjust my own work when I felt the comments had merit. Alternately, when I felt the comments were incorrect, of the mark, or demonstrated a misunderstanding on this colleague's part - I've endeavored to explain why my original work was correct.
Today, I realized that I tend to approach such critique (both from this colleague and from others) in a very defensive manner. I had not recognized it as defensive because I try to take a very analytical (non-emotional) stance when I explain my reasoning... but... I now understand... what I am actually doing is defending my "rightness." Basically - I'm still viewing as either "I'm wrong and the critic is right" or "I'm right and the critic is wrong." This subtle because I learned the politics of defending myself intellectually many years ago. All those art and drama critiques served me well. In art and drama there is often no right answer... there are just the choices you've made regarding the motivation for your work, your character portrayal, etc. During a critique, your are not being told that you should have done something different... rather, you are asked to explain the why. You must dig deep into your conscious and sub-conscious and find where your inspiration and intent is coming from and then articulate it to your peers. Years of practice doing this in somewhat formal group settings is probably one of the reasons I'm good at self-reflection.
What is interesting is that I did not transfer this "no right or wrong" to my work outside of the "arts." So in my professional life - I look at critique in much the same way a student might look at a paper marked up in red by their teacher. Either it is wrong and I'd better change it (to get the better grade) or it is "right" and I must defend it to the teacher.
Today - I think I've given myself a glimpse of a different way.
In the narrative for an application demonstration (to be recorded) I had written "For this demonstration, I want to search for self-paced training. I'll click the Method Type field and select Self-paced."
My colleague (who was performing a peer review of my work) wrote the comment: "Just wondering if this is really a valid example. Technically, everything in iMentor is self-paced from the point of view that it doesn't require a specific date/time. So, why would someone want to search for only a specific Method Type? I think I would just demonstration using the Content Type search. But... up to you."
My initial reaction to this was two fold. First, I felt her use of "But... up to you" was a bit... well 'passive aggressive.' I told myself to ease up - that she probably was just trying to be considerate of my reasoning. Second, I knew she was wrong. The method "self-paced" is not based on date/time but rather based on the functionality of the lessons. We have recorded conferences and webcasts which are not defined as self-paced... but rather as a method type of their own in our training catalog. These method types had been clearly defined early in this very same training (prior to the place where the demonstration would be presented). My inclination was to call my colleague up and explain to her that "self-paced" as compared to "webcast" and "recorded web conference" (and a few other modalities) had already been explained and that it was absolutely appropriate for someone to search for the method type of "self-paced." In the past, when she has made comments that I felt were in error or based on erroneous information, I've always called her and explained the situation and my reasoning... sometimes that's the end of it and sometimes she explains her point. These conversations are always very amiable (we genuinely like each other and do work well together)... but they really are about each of us "defending" our pov.
Today - I did something different. I looked at her comment, thought about it, and realized that there was a clarification I could make that would retain the correct information but also incorporate the interpretation that she represented with her comment. Rather than call her and have a friendly conversation and/or debate regarding the validity of searching by method type... or possibly having a debate regarding how we should define "self-paced" training (which currently only includes our interactive training events not the pre-recorded ones that the learner just sites and watches and listens to).... I changed the narrative text to read: "For this demonstration, I don't want to look at any webcasts or recorded web conferences, so I'll select Self-paced in the Method Type field."
This serves two purposes - 1. It demonstrates the Method Type filter (as I intended to do) and 2. It reinforces the earlier information about how method (or modalities) are defined in our system.
This is important because it means that I recognized that we both had (have) valid points of view and that our two POVs are not mutually exclusive.
I don't have to accept criticism... or rather... accepting it doesn't necessarily mean supplanting something I've done for the way someone else would do it ... or ... alternately defending the way I'm doing and explaining why I don't need to change it. I need to look at criticism more closely ... more deeply. Rather than become defensive - I need to ask myself... what isn't clear... what is it that I'm trying to convey that isn't getting across that is why this person has the criticism that they have? I thought I was already doing that ... buy explaining my reasoning... but... while explaining my reasoning to the critic might mean that the critic comes to understand my position... it doesn't mean that my position is clear to anyone else. The work I create (whether professional instructional design or art work) must be able to speak for itself because I won't always be there to explain it. I don't want any of my work (writing, instructional design, art, etc.) to be so obscure and opaque that I must always be there to explain it.
posted by susan @ 1:33 PM
0 comments
