Praise Publicly, Criticize Privately
"Receiving feedback in front of a group sends off danger alarms in the human brain...Our brain is constantly on the watch for signals of group rejection.”
Joe Maddon says he rarely holds team meetings.
He believes the act “poisons the room.”
The majority of team meetings, Maddon says, are usually called in response to a negative event such as a lack of effort, discipline, hustle or too many mental and physical mistakes.
Coaches use the time to chew players out, he says, to make themselves feel better and to justify their jobs. Meanwhile players giggle to themselves through the session and the meetings end with little to no lasting impact.
Think about the scene in Bull Durham when the coach gathers everyone in the shower, throws all the bats at them, and labels them as “lollygaggers.” It’s Hollywood, for sure, but those are the kinds of meetings Maddon wants to avoid.
“I read once a really good line, ‘Praise publicly, criticize privately,” Maddon said in The Cubs Way. “I love that. That’s exactly how you should do it, I think. So I attempt to live by that.”
If Maddon has an issue with a particular player, he invites them to his office to share a glass of wine and discuss the problem.
Maddon’s instincts are fairly correct: Studies have found that humans have a tendency to respond to negative criticism in a group setting with the same fight-or-flight reactions of a physical attack.
“Receiving feedback in front of a group sends off danger alarms in the human brain,” writes Erin Meyer in The No Rules Rules, a case study of Netflix’s corporate culture success. “The brain is a survival machine, and one of our most successful techniques is the desire to find safety in numbers. Our brain is constantly on the watch for signals of group rejection.”
So when a coach or a manager begins to light up a player in front of teammates, the amygdala, the most primitive part of the brain, shoots off a warning and pushes that person into an “animalistic impulse...to flee.” In short, the person has a tendency to shut down or grow defensive.
Here’s another movie scenario: In League Of Their Own, manager Jimmy Dugan lights up his outfielder Evelyn Gardner for allowing the tying run to reach second base. Dugan, spewing tobacco juice everywhere, informs Evelyn that she cost their team the lead and Evelyn ends up crying. More yelling ensues, culminating in the memorable “there’s no crying in baseball.”
Is reading a player the riot act in front of their team a productive moment?
While there may be frustration and it may feel like it pointing out flaws in such a manner would send a message, doing so might erode trust between the individual and the manager. And managing people is all about trust.
This isn’t to say you shouldn’t criticize or be critical of players.
Although people do not want to be judged in front of peers -- particularly when it is in a negative light -- Meyer pointed to a 2014 study by the consulting firm Zenger Folkman which found that most people are in favor of receiving corrective feedback. In fact, it is in a group’s best interest to be able to provide each other with a strong feedback loop.
The difference, of course, is how it is delivered.
In Maddon’s case, he says he prefers to have the players conduct any team meetings that require some discussion on their play. It can be easier to absorb feedback when it is coming from respected allies. If he needs to focus on an individual, he pops a bottle of vino and starts a conversation.
Meyer found that Netflix has several rules about giving feedback within their company that has elevated performance. The first is “aim to assist”, that is, feedback should be given with a positive intent.
If you are venting frustration, and dressing down a player because their decisions may have cost you the lead, the feedback is not delivered with the best intent. If you call a player out as they come back to the bench, publicly chastising them for a mistake, this can cause them to be unreceptive to correction. They dig in and get defensive. On the other hand, if you take the player aside during the game or practice, providing insight and a path for correction, this information will be better received.
This leads into the next part of Netflix’s feedback policy: Make it actionable.
Any feedback provided must be coupled with suggestions on how to improve. Feedback like “you let the tying run get to second base and we lost the lead because of you” isn’t going to help the player without an actionable plan.
Providing more details to help correct the behavior, leads to stronger results. You could use John Wooden’s teaching technique. He would provide his instructions in the following pattern: 1) the correct action, 2) the wrong action, and 3) the correct action again. It would be “do this, not that, this'' to reinforce the right method.
Dugan was close to doing that. He told Evelyn the second part (the wrong action) multiple times during his rant. He did not sandwich that with two of the correct behaviors (hitting the cut). He never once reinforced what he wanted out of his player, other than for her to not make that mistake.
What a Wooden instruct might look like coming from Dugan would be “Evelyn, we need to hit the cut-off in that situation to avoid letting the tying run into scoring position. You threw home and that runner moved into scoring position. Next time, hit the cut-off in that situation.”
Good. Bad. Good.
League Of Their Own viewers might point out that Gardner would later hit the cut properly, potentially reinforcing Dugan’s methods. After all, who wouldn’t remember being screamed at to the point you cried.
Here’s the thing: That can work!
Screaming at a player is going to be memorable. That player may internalize that message and make the adjustment. The problem is that it is not a sustainable approach. You can only break a person down a limited number of times before it becomes ineffective. Yelling just becomes noise.
Research has also found that people need to be free of fear in competition in order to be successful. They need the ability to take risks in performance. Fear of failure can stifle that creative process. They may be focused so intently on recognizing when to hit the cut that they miss the ability for other options.
Good leaders need systems to fall back on. Maddon’s system of avoiding team meetings and prefers addressing his players in private, one-on-one conversations. Likewise, Netflix’s feedback process provides a solid outline for productive improvement.
The challenging part is that it takes the ability to control one’s emotions and consider the best impact for the players. Players need your feedback but they need it in a productive way. Embrace the feedback loop but remember that it should be based on positive intent and combined with actionable suggestions.