Blows my mind that there are still people in the world who don't understand basic stuff like: your intentions don't matter. If someone thinks you were mean, you were mean - even if you didn't intend to be! - and you should work to make it right.
There's no such thing as snowflakes who should "grow up" and "learn to take criticism." There's only people who - finally - feel strong enough to call you on behavior that was always wrong.
Yes: it sucks when someone misreads your intentions. It sucks when they ascribe malice. Your instinct is going to be to argue that there was no malice.
But presence or absence of malice by the communicator literally doesn't matter. What matters is someone was hurt.
But presence or absence of malice by the communicator literally doesn't matter. What matters is someone was hurt.
"But what if they're lying about being hurt?" Leaving aside the question of how common that is - let's say it was true, and someone was lying about being hurt.
What if it's a big hoax and we build better communication skills for nothing??
(apologies to @joelpett1)
What if it's a big hoax and we build better communication skills for nothing??
(apologies to @joelpett1)
Finally: when deciding how much to change based on a complaint, pay close attention to the power dynamics in play - both structural and personal.
The way power dynamics work is that, in general, criticism is allowed to flow from the higher-power person to the lower-power person, but not vice versa. The trouble is, higher power/lower power is not a binary designation. You can be higher in some ways & lower in others.
However, one way to start examining your position is to consider whether the person making the criticism is working against any structural power dynamics when they do so, e.g. a women criticizing a man, or a black person criticizing a white person.
Alternatively, are there any structural power dynamics they are _reinforcing_ in making this criticism?
I think of each existing structural power dynamic like a multiplier of the significance of the criticism. Reinforcement means multiply by 0.5, working against means 1.5.
I think of each existing structural power dynamic like a multiplier of the significance of the criticism. Reinforcement means multiply by 0.5, working against means 1.5.
(These are not actual numbers, please don't make a calculator so you can compute what to do in a situation - just be aware that making a criticism against a power dynamic is in an of itself an indication of seriousness.)
In addition to the structural, there are personal power dynamics, related to e.g. status within a community, or level within a company. Nobody forgets about these; they're obvious even for people who are completely oblivious to the structural ones.
This is sort of the opposite of how it works in a hierarchy; generally, you are encouraged to treat criticism from above as a much more serious matter than criticism from below.
I think it's more nuanced than that. I think the seriousness with which you should take a criticism is, in part, a function of how many power dynamics the complainant was working against to make it.
And if it doesn't seem like someone "should" have been hurt or offended by your communication, think about whether any of the major structural power dynamics (gender, race, age, etc.) are in play, and if they are, think about what side you're on.
If you are on the higher power side, think about how high the barrier is for someone on the lower power side to criticize, and see if that helps you understand your different reactions. [fin]
If you don’t want to - oh well. There are plenty of people who DO want to be effective communicators with all different kinds of people. And they want your job. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
