What’s the best way to approach a person who reacts poorly to criticism

Directly criticizing someone for avoiding responsibility often backfires. When confronting someone who is defensive about their wrong actions, the results are rarely constructive. Instead of the productive dialogue you hope for, you will likely see them becoming more entrenched in their position.

Defensiveness can manifest in various ways. The person might try to justify their actions, shift the blame onto you, or look for flaws in your argument. In some cases, they may completely refuse to engage in any conversation about the issue.

Their response can be summed up by the words "defend, divert, deny, and disengage." This illustrates their tendency to resist accountability.

In these frustrating situations, what options are available to you? How can you effectively communicate with someone who is particularly obstinate? It helps to understand the underlying reasons for their behavior.

Individuals with fragile egos often feel threatened when criticized. Their instinct is to protect their vulnerable self-image by rejecting any form of critique. To manage this defensiveness, it can be useful to employ strategies that encourage a different kind of interaction.

Back in 1986, a book I published titled "Paradoxical Strategies in Psychotherapy" explored unconventional approaches to influencing behavior. Many of these strategies draw on concepts related to reverse or negative psychology.

These methods, though counterintuitive, can be powerful when used correctly. The goal is to reduce resistance rather than reinforce it, allowing for more productive conversations.

Recognizing that some people are deeply affected by their defense mechanisms reveals that the path to communication lies in validating their perspective, no matter how misguided it may seem.

By acknowledging their feelings, you can create a space where they feel heard. At the same time, it is important to express that you cannot condone their behavior.

This technique of validation does not involve agreeing with their perspective. Instead, it accepts that their viewpoint feels real to them. Regardless of its correctness, their beliefs are often held with strong conviction.

When you present your thoughts in this way, it lessens their need to defend themselves. This approach increases the likelihood that they may eventually recognize their mistakes, which they would otherwise deny.

Even if their actions have hurt others, your approach emphasizes their non-malicious intentions. People are generally more open to admitting wrongdoing when they do not feel attacked. By demonstrating empathy, you can better understand their motivations.

This understanding can help them reflect on their actions, even while you subtly indicate that you disagree with their choices.

It is essential to note that this method of intervention only works if you genuinely see their motives in a sympathetic light. Gaining that level of empathy can be a significant challenge, but it is vital for successful communication.

To illustrate this approach, consider a family with one parent and two children, a 12-year-old son and a 9-year-old son. The younger child has autism, which requires more time and attention from the parent. As a result, the older son may feel neglected and frustrated. His feelings of resentment lead him to take out his frustrations by bullying his younger brother.

In this scenario, the older son feels a lack of equity in parental attention. His actions may stem from a deep-seated need for validation and acknowledgment. Understanding this context can help the parent address the situation in a way that encourages healthier communication and behavior within the family.

By focusing on feelings rather than accusations, the parent can foster a more positive environment for everyone involved. This approach allows for constructive dialogue, offering the chance for understanding and growth.

---