Latest news with #sociopolitical
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Forbes
How Criticizing With Care Makes Leaders More Persuasive
How can leaders ensure that when they criticize other people, their criticism leads to change rather than defensiveness and resistance? Research shows an answer: pairing criticism with care. Leaders criticizing with care avoids defensiveness and backlash to open hearts and minds. Generally speaking, criticizing people for the harm they do to others is a challenging, although quite common, responsibility for all types of leaders. For example, team leaders might need to criticize team members for unfair treatment of their colleagues. Or, executives might feel they should criticize groups of people while speaking out on sociopolitical topics. Apple's CEO Tim Cook criticized conservatives for legislation that allowed businesses to refuse serving customers for religious reasons, and Whole Foods's CEO John Mackey criticized liberals for endorsing healthcare policies that he saw as too aggressively expanding government control and causing deficits. But these criticisms may fail to persuade the people being criticized. How can leaders conduct honest conversations without inspiring defensiveness, denial, or backlash? That is an essential managerial skill. As Troy Hiduke Campbell, chief scientist from On Your Feet, put it to me in an interview: 'The problem that research has pointed out is that people who are criticized become defensive and resist seeing any error in their behavior. And that defensiveness stops criticism from changing hearts, minds, or behavior. Instead, criticism often leads to costs for leaders.' In the worst case scenario, the sting of criticism leads a criticized party to not only resist, but to retaliate. When a CEO criticizes a group, it can lead to backlash, like consumers who disagree with their stance boycotting the CEO's company. For example, liberals boycotted Whole Foods after John Mackey's comments, and Apple was put under scrutiny by a conservative group for operating in countries with human rights issues in response to Tim Cook's comments. In fact, a 2019 Aflac survey of over 1,600 American adults found that 53% reported halting use of company products because of disliking a company's stance on an issue. Backlash can have financial consequences: when Starbucks' leadership was met with activist outrage as a result of its perceived support for Israel during the Gaza conflict, its sales dropped by 11% across the globe and its share price plummeted, losing the company around $11-12 billion in market value. The backlash ultimately led then-CEO Laxman Narasinham to be replaced. And this isn't isolated: Edelman's 2023 Trust Barometer involving 32,000 respondents from 28 countries found that 63% of consumers globally will buy or boycott a brand based on its stance on societal issues — highlighting how missteps in tone or empathy can have lasting reputational consequences. Showing just how sensitive people are to criticism, even subtle, merely implied criticism can backfire. As Professor Nathan Warren from BI Norwegian Business School said to me in an interview, 'We've found in research that anti-prejudice campaigns that focus exclusively on harm to a single group can be counterproductive. Audiences can interpret the message as implying that only one group deserves concern, and that others are morally blameworthy, leading to defensiveness and denial.' This phenomenon can help explain why initiatives such as Starbucks' #RaceTogether campaign backfired. The 2015 campaign frequently appeared to people like it was confrontational or accusing customers of wrongdoing. This perception existed even though Starbucks' then-CEO Howard Schulz specifically stated in a memo to employees that they 'didn't want to point fingers or place blame' with the campaign. The campaign was mocked on social media and even in a Saturday Night Live sketch. Of course, sometimes leaders don't care if their criticism is heard and leads to change; instead, they criticize because they want publicity or to show solidarity with the people who are harmed. But when criticism is aimed at changing the behavior of the people causing harm, from the conference room, to the board room, to the press room, leaders face the challenge of criticizing effectively — and there are few established strategies for this. So what can be done? Recent research I co-authored in the Journal of Business Ethics with Troy Hiduke Campbell, Professor Nathan Warren, Professor Steven Shepherd from Oklahoma State University, and Professor Katie Mercurio of California State University, Chico, introduces an effective technique for persuading people to change their minds called 'dual concern.' Dual concern combines criticism with an honest expression of concern about the criticized group's welfare. Here's an example: instead of a simple criticism like 'Managers are being unfair to their employees. They sometimes ignore feedback from their team and fail to show appreciation. This needs to change,' a dual concern criticism might say the exact same criticism, but also highlight the harms that managers experience, adding, 'But employees can also be unfair to their managers. They sometimes assume the worst about their decisions and complain behind their backs. This also needs to change.' Another technique is to highlight harm from a third party, by saying something like 'But managers are sometimes treated unfairly by executives. They are given shifting priorities without clear guidance and pressured to deliver results without the necessary resources.' These additions acknowledge the harm that those accused of causing harm face as well. Regardless of the particular way it's expressed, dual concern messages get people to agree more with criticisms of their group, admitting that they need to change their ways. In the context of anti-prejudice campaigns, dual concern is captured by this message from the #StandUpToJewishHate campaign. First pointing out that Jewish hate was on the rise in the U.S., the campaign then pointed out that Black hate, Muslim hate, and Asian hate were also rising - and called on everyone to combat hate against all of these groups as well as others. As real-world examples illustrate, business leaders can express dual concern to avoid defensiveness even when their criticism of a group is not explicit. An example is how Serena Williams described her new venture capital firm: 'Seventy-eight percent of our portfolio happens to be companies started by women and people of color, because that's who we are. On the other hand, my husband is white, and it's important to me to be inclusive of everyone.' Research on dual concern suggests that if Serena Williams had stopped after the first sentence, men and white individuals might have inferred that she does not care about their outcomes, but the second sentence is likely to stop these groups from inadvertently feeling alienated. Back in 2008, research led by Professor Matthew Hornsey from the University of Queensland echoed the need to criticize with care. These researchers found in a series of experiments that when critics paired their criticism with sincere comments about a criticized group's valuable qualities, or acknowledged that their own group had similar problems, the criticized group perceived the criticism as more constructive and were more convinced by it. When leaders use dual concern criticisms, the criticized people feel more cared for by the critic, which reduces defensiveness and increases persuasion. As Professor Mercurio described to me in an interview: 'Dual concern works not because it softens the truth, but because it restores the relationship. You can disagree with someone's actions while affirming concern about their welfare.' Focusing on concern matters as companies are called upon to prioritize social impact. A 2022 poll of over 5,700 American adults from Gallup and Bentley University found that 88% said that companies should make the world a better place, but only 24% agreed that companies do it well. Affirming concern can help companies to effectively take up the mantle of social responsibility and stand out. Dual concern criticisms can be more effective than alternative persuasion techniques like pairing criticism with compliments (the classic strategy of 'I like you, but…') because dual concern criticisms rectify the (often mistaken) assumption that a critic thinks the criticized group is immoral and not worthy of concern. Criticism often leads a group to immediately think that the critic does not care about them, and dual concern helps to fix that. In a world where leaders (and everyone) must at times criticize people for causing harm, we need better strategies to make this happen. For leaders, this isn't about sugarcoating hard truths, it's about being strategic with your influence. Next time you need to call out harm or challenge group behavior, ask yourself: Am I balancing honesty with care? Do they know I still see them as people worth reaching? Dual concern isn't just a communication strategy, it's a leadership imperative.
Arab News
7 days ago
- Business
- Arab News
What is the ‘New Middle East' ... the real one this time?
There is hardly a journalist or political analyst, or even an amateur posing as either, in the Arab world who has not, at some point in recent decades, written or spoken at length about the 'New Middle East.' And yet, the Middle East we see today is something altogether different from what we were told to expect, both in substance and in the circumstances surrounding it. Our region has become, much like our lives and our sociopolitical imaginaries, untethered from familiar coordinates. One could even say it is now open to all possibilities. To be clear, this is not a veiled swipe at our political elites, nor at the political consciousness of our peoples or their capacity to learn from past mistakes and, from there, to choose a better path forward. Not in the slightest. Today, we are in the same boat with the most politically sophisticated and institutionally entrenched societies on Earth. We are all grappling with similar complexities and facing threats that do not discriminate by region or political tradition. There is no longer any guarantee that words like 'democracy' or 'good governance,' even in countries with rooted democratic traditions, will mean much if they are voided. Thus, such concepts will not, on their own, save societies from the turmoil they now face or the turmoil we will face. Just yesterday, I heard a leading expert say that the widespread use of artificial intelligence in the basic, everyday infrastructures of human life is now only a few months away. That is on the technological front. On the political front, Portugal has just joined a growing list of European countries betting, through the ballot box, on the radical far right. In last month's snap election, the populist, quasi-fascist Chega party surged to second place, just behind the center-right Democratic Alliance and ahead of the formerly ruling Socialist Party. Chega's recent rise in Portugal will embolden the broader spread of neofascist populists across Western Europe: the likes of National Rally in France, Vox in Spain, the Brothers of Italy, Reform UK, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands and Alternative for Germany. But this is no longer merely a Western European problem. Far-right populism is now well entrenched in countries across Northern and Eastern Europe, most prominently Hungary. Of course, of all Western democracies, the US presents the bleakest example. A historical rupture with few parallels anywhere else is underway in Washington, and it threatens not only the two-party system that has long been the pillar of American representative politics, but also the very principle of the separation of powers. The same single popular and populist political movement has taken control of all three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. To this, we can add the unofficial 'fourth branch,' the media. While it was once largely free of partisanship, the media has now become a central weapon in the ruling movement's arsenal thanks to the rise of new media: online platforms, AI and the oligarch-owned newspapers and television networks, not to mention the suspension of public funding for state media. We may be faced with even graver challenges than others amid Washington's shifting definitions of its allies and enemies. Eyad Abu Shakra There is no doubt that the institutions owned by figures like Rupert Murdoch (Fox News), Elon Musk (X), Mark Zuckerberg (Meta) and Jeff Bezos (The Washington Post) are shaping what may become America's new (and perhaps enduring) political culture. It speaks volumes that nearly every one of the 30 members of President Donald Trump's administration were in Fox News' orbit. Meanwhile, the world apprehensively follows the sweeping shifts underway in the US landscape. Economic wars are no trivial matter, nor is the fact that the man in the White House has upended notions of who is a US ally or an enemy and who its partners or competitors are. However, in light of the rapid and ongoing developments, it has become increasingly difficult for any single country to directly influence the global economic players or military and political forces. As a result, everyone is watching, hoping, anticipating — quietly, of course — either searching for alternatives or trying to limit the damage. As for the Middle East and the Arab world, we may be faced with even graver challenges than others amid Washington's shifting definitions of its allies and enemies. The US is a global power with interests and priorities everywhere. Accordingly, there is little room for sentimentality. There are no permanent interests in a world whose rules are evolving and being redefined. In our region, Washington maintains a strong strategic relationship with Israel, which is widely regarded as the most influential foreign actor in the halls of American politics. Its lobby groups fund many key figures in Congress and exert a lot of political influence. Then there is Turkiye, a pivotal NATO member and a regional power with immense religious, ethnic and geographic clout, allowing it to shape US decisions. And last but not least, Iran also has a significant say in American policy circles. Like Turkiye, it is seen as a crucial link in the Middle Eastern chain. In every round, experience suggests, Washington's goal is to win over Iran, not destroy it. In this landscape of uncertainty and rapid change, one must ask: Are we, as Arabs, still capable of influencing the regional climate and shaping the priorities of major players?
