How Criticism Erodes Trust in Organizations

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐦 Throughout my career I worked for managers who were great at giving criticism, but who were light on the ways to address what they perceived my flaws to be. Yet, being on the end of their ‘tough love’ never generated feelings of motivation. In fact it did the opposite. Their criticism served only to drain any enthusiasm I had for the job and led to feelings of inadequacy. Criticism is, by definition, ‘the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes.’ Therefore, it is always negative and is mostly perceptive, i.e. your assessment (truthful or otherwise) of another’s faults. It inherently triggers defensive responses that prevent the construction of new thinking or behaviour, which means that there’s never anything constructive about criticism (despite how it's framed by others)! Regular criticism chips away at a person’s self-esteem, confidence and ultimately the psychological safety of a team or organisation. It contains hidden judgements, as the basis for criticism is often a difference in personality or approach. Finally, criticism focuses on problems rather than possibilities, directing energy toward ‘fixing’ weaknesses instead of amplifying strengths. What’s required instead is empathetic feedback. You might think this semantic, but words and approach are important, not least when we are looking for changes in the responses of human emotions. None of us are perfect and we all need feedback to improve who we are and what we do and this feedback should be both positive and negative. From a team culture perspective, when flaws are continually magnified without strengths being acknowledged, it actively reduces feelings of engagement and belonging and leads to a reduction in productivity. Yet when strengths and successes are acknowledged, the results are quite different with increases seen in almost all areas of company performance. It needn’t be gushing, a simple ‘well done’ will suffice, however, when we have been on the receiving end of positive feedback, it makes the negative feedback much easier to take and act upon. When giving this feedback, rather than just tell people what they need to improve, you need to also provide them with either the opportunity to outline how they would address the issue; or the tactics required to improve. This helps with the absorption of feedback and ensures that the person on the receiving end sees it as a benefit (a way to improve) and not criticism (something wrong with them). Giving and receiving feedback is a core - yet underappreciated skill - and yet when done well it not only enhances employee engagement, but also results too. 'Tough love' generates tough working conditions in which nobody thrives. What kind of feedback do you appreciate? #culture #teamwork #feedback

Psychological safety isn't a perk— it's a performance strategy. When leaders react with defensiveness or criticism to problems raised by their teams, they unintentionally activate a threat response in the brain, suppressing prefrontal activity responsible for complex reasoning and collaboration (Rock, 2009). Over time, this response conditions employees to withhold information, particularly the kind that leaders most need to hear (Edmondson, 2019). Behavioral economics explains this phenomenon through loss aversion—we’re hardwired to avoid social punishment more than we seek potential gains (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). As a result, teams become more skilled at concealing issues than solving them. Leaders who want transparency must earn it by responding with curiosity, not control. The cost of defensiveness is not just trust—it’s innovation, speed, and resilience. Want to know if your team feels safe? Pay attention to how often you hear bad news early. If you're not hearing the problems, it doesn't mean they don't exist. It means they've learned you can’t handle the truth. Joshua J Plenert Author of How We Go https://lnkd.in/gwDE3ShK #HowWeGo #leadership #leadershipdevelopment Amy Edmondson L. David Marquet

I bought an expensive product recently that had a pretty glaring issue. Curious if others were seeing the same thing. So I posted a question in the company’s Facebook group. But my post never showed up. Turns out, the admins, who work for the company, screen every post. Only the “everything’s amazing!” ones make it through. No criticism. No bugs. Just a highlight reel. Here’s the thing: censoring feedback doesn’t build trust. It erodes it. If the only thing people see is how perfect everything is, they start wondering what’s being hidden. Real trust comes from transparency. From saying, “Yeah, that’s a known issue, we’re working on it.” From letting your customers talk to each other even when what they’re saying isn’t glowing. You can either control the narrative or build a reputation for honesty. But trying to do both? People notice.

The fastest way to kill team morale?  Public criticism. It's tempting to call out mistakes in front of everyone.  You might think it shows you're on top of things. Wrong move. Public criticism is a trust killer.  When you criticize in public, you're not just addressing one person.  You're sending a message to your entire team. The result? - People stop volunteering ideas - Innovation grinds to a halt - Trust evaporates Why?  No one wants to be the next target. Want to address issues?  Do it privately. Want to praise?  Do it publicly. Leadership isn't about flexing authority.  It's about fostering an environment where people feel safe to contribute, fail, and grow. Build trust, not fear. Your team's potential depends on it.

The Hidden Cost of 'Positivity Culture' in Organizations In today’s workplace, there’s a big emphasis on promoting a culture of positivity—and while that sounds great on the surface, it can lead to unintended consequences. One of the most insidious side effects of an organization that only embraces “positivity” is that it strengthens an aversion to anything but “pleasant interaction.” Over time, this creates a culture where difficult conversations—about performance, conflict, or real issues—are avoided or sidelined. Rather than being dealt with directly, these challenging interactions go underground. They happen through back channels, manifest indirectly, or become passive-aggressive. This not only erodes trust but diminishes #psychologicalsafety, which is the cornerstone of high-functioning teams. In an environment where employees can’t openly discuss problems, give critical feedback, or express disagreement, innovation stagnates, and unresolved tensions build, ultimately damaging both team dynamics and business outcomes. True psychological safety means welcoming difficult conversations, addressing conflict head-on, and allowing for authentic, constructive dialogue—because avoiding discomfort only leads to bigger problems down the road. #PsychologicalSafety #Leadership #WorkplaceCulture #Authenticity #PositivityCulture #ConflictResolution #TeamDynamics

Replacing blame with Curiosity… is a huge unlock when it comes to building Trust and Psychological Safety in teams. During high-pressure situations, where there can be tendencies for tensions to be high and fuses short, this can lead to finger pointing and blame both from the team leader and between teams. Over time, it has the effect of eroding trust and effective collaboration. Dr John Gottman’s extensive research on resolving conflict highlights that blame and criticism inevitably and reliably escalate conflict, leading to defensiveness and eventually to disengagement. In a team that lacks psychological safety, these negative behaviours are even more prevalent.   So it’s important that people managers and leaders adopt a curious and learning mindset and approach, recognising that in most situations they won’t have all the facts. They need to be thoughtful of how they approach conflict and role-model the right behaviours to diffuse and enable teams to move forward. For if you believe that you already know what the other person is thinking then you are not ready to have a conversation.    The alternative to blame is curiosity, and one way to achieve this is by being deliberate about the language that is used during these situations. Specifically, language that signals curiosity, as opposed to emphasising blame. Some examples of the type of language that can be used during these times of pressure include:   “Tell me more.”   “How can I help and support you?”   “I imagine that there are multiple factors at play. Why don’t we work through these together?”   “What would be a good result here? How could we get there together?” You see… Blame and skepticism result in cultures of fear and limitations. Whereas curiosity fosters cultures of trust, psychological safety, creativity, innovation and endless possibilities. What would you add? 👇🏽 #culture #psychologicalsafety #trust