Public Criticism: Why Engaging Doesn't Work
When I interviewed an engineer for a client, he unfortunately turned out to be unskilled in areas he said he was skilled in. When he didn’t know something, he became angry with me. After the interview, he sent me a long message pointing fingers at me and the company. I tried to resolve it, but what followed was a LinkedIn post attacking me and the company. This led to me thinking about how to handle such a situation:
Either don’t engage, or post “I’m tempted to post my side of the story but I don’t engage in public criticism of candidates.” and withdraw.
There’s nothing you say that can’t plausibly be refuted by the other side or his supporters1. If I were to say that “The engineer couldn’t answer questions”, it could result in a retort “That’s because the questions were asked in a hostile tone!” A neutral bystander wouldn’t be able to tell which is correct without doubt.
When I look at disputes where I was not involved, even when I was convinced by an argument, I heard a counter-argument that made me doubt again. For example, when a saleswoman Brittany Pietsch was fired by Cloudflare for not making a single sale, she surreptitiously recorded the video and posted it online, saying that they didn’t even give her enough time to make sales, and a good part of that limited time was during the long Christmas holiday. She sounded right — the company fired her without even giving her a fair chance to prove herself! Then other people responded that sales is not like engineering; it’s a sink or swim culture. Chris Prince responded that their data shows that this amount of time (even with Christmas) is sufficient to predict future success, so letting her go saved everyone time and her humiliation. Now Cloudflare sounded right. Now, if she were to make a counterargument that her manager was setting her up for failure, that could make some people think that she’s actually in the right, and the CEO wouldn’t know it, being so many levels up from her manager.
You can’t win by debating.
Which means you shouldn’t participate in the dispute2.
We may feel an intense need to vindicate ourselves to onlookers, but we should recognise that our instincts sometimes don’t serve us, like being defensive when given negative feedback.
People who bought his story or know and trust him already.
A public dispute is a performance, and engaging in one means you’re performing for an audience, whether you like it or not. There are different types of audiences, none of whom will think better of you if you engage with the dispute:
Allies, who already believe you: you don’t need to say anything.
Enemies, who already believe the other side: you shouldn’t engage with the dispute because they’ll twist your words against you.
People who are uncomfortable that a dispute is happening and want it to go away: you shouldn’t engage with the dispute because that will make them further uncomfortable, making them think twice about working with you in the future.
Truth-seekers, who genuinely want to figure out who’s right: since everything you say can be plausibly refuted, engaging with the claims doesn’t actually help you convince them. Mature truth-seekers know that they can’t judge when they haven’t been there.
Character judges, who’re looking to judge not who’s right in the dispute but how each side is handling the dispute: just post “I’m tempted to post my side of the story but I don’t engage in public criticism of candidates.” They’ll observe you handled it gracefully and are the kind of person they want to work with.
Gossip-seekers, who are entertained by the dispute. These are the same people who read trashy tabloids about who Justin Bieber slept with last weekend. These people draw out the dispute, perhaps subconsciously, say by asking, “You said the candidate reacted angrily, but that could be because you were humiliating him.” But since everything you say can be plausibly refuted, you’re only providing sordid entertainment for them, at the cost of your own humiliation, just as driving your car into a pond provides material for an IDIOT DRIVERS Youtube compilation.
What’s common between all these types of audiences? That engaging with the dispute won’t leave you in a better position than when you started.