Direct public criticism is unremarkable in some research cultures and genuinely damaging in others — and the damage is invisible to the person delivering it, because the recipient's response looks like acceptance.
This is not about avoiding difficult feedback. It is about the feedback actually landing.
What varies
- Whether criticism in front of colleagues is normal or costly.
- How directly disagreement with a senior person can be expressed.
- Whether silence means agreement, disagreement, or deference.
- How much softening language is expected before the substance.
Giving feedback that lands
- Give substantive criticism privately, in writing where possible.
- Be specific about the work, never about the person.
- Say what would fix it, not only what is wrong.
- Ask how they would prefer to receive feedback, early in the relationship.
- Separate "this is incorrect" from "I would do it differently".
Receiving feedback across the gap
- Indirect phrasing may carry a strong concern.
- "Perhaps we could consider" may mean this is wrong.
- Ask follow-up questions rather than assuming a mild comment is mild.
- Thank people for raising problems, visibly.
In group settings
- Praise publicly, criticise privately.
- Do not put someone on the spot to defend work in front of their own students.
- Invite comment on your own work first to set the tone.
- If you criticise publicly by mistake, address it privately afterwards.
Building a channel that works
- Agree at the start how disagreements will be raised.
- Have regular one-to-one conversations, not only group meetings.
- Notice who never disagrees and create a private route for them.
- Someone who never disagrees is not agreeing; they are not speaking.
One thing worth remembering
Ask early: how would you prefer to receive feedback on work in progress?
It signals that you know norms differ, gives the other person permission to state a preference, and takes thirty seconds. Almost nobody asks it, which is why so much well-intentioned feedback lands as something other than what was meant.
Câu hỏi thường gặp
What varies in feedback norms?
Whether criticism in front of colleagues is normal or costly, how directly one can disagree with a senior person, whether silence means agreement or deference, and how much softening is expected.
How do you give feedback that lands?
Give substantive criticism privately and in writing where possible, be specific about the work never the person, say what would fix it, and separate this is incorrect from I would do it differently.
How should you receive feedback across the gap?
Recognise that indirect phrasing may carry a strong concern, that perhaps we could consider may mean this is wrong, ask follow-up questions, and thank people visibly for raising problems.
What applies in group settings?
Praise publicly and criticise privately, do not put someone on the spot in front of their own students, invite comment on your own work first, and address any public criticism privately afterwards.
What does it mean when someone never disagrees?
They are not agreeing; they are not speaking — which means a private route needs to be created for them.
