By A. Craig Fisher, Ph.D.

When you consider all the barriers that athletes face in their search for success and then think of all the ways coaches assist athletes in reaching their goals, there is something that just does not fit: That is the major form of giving feedback to athletes.

Negative feedback, commonly and accurately called criticism, far outstrips positive reinforcement as many coaches’ major communication style. Add a sarcastic flavor to the criticism and what you have is one of the prime factors destroying athletes’ self-confidence. The real tragedy is that no coach intends to be destructive and would surely argue that this is not the case. Let me suggest that you withhold judgment on this matter until I have completed my essay on the perils of criticism.

Allow me to get you personally involved in the discussion by asking you to respond to a series of questions.

• Does being criticized ever leave you angry, resentful, belittled or feeling rejected?
• Do you sense you ever make others feel this way, even unintentionally?
• Do you ever hesitate to offer helpful correction for fear of offending someone?
• Have you ever heard an athlete claim, "Coach is on me"? In your days as an athlete, did you ever say that?
• Right now, can you recall three times in your life when you really appreciated being criticized?

These questions begin to put a different slant on criticism, I hope, because you can see the picture from the receiver’s side rather than from the myopic view of the giver of criticism.

Criticism was originally conceived as a neutral, objective appraisal of ideas and actions. To criticize meant that you communicated in a way that enabled others to use the information to their advantage and benefit. Criticism, then, was a tool to enhance personal growth and relationships. Does your experience match this description? Or might it be valuable to consider just how criticism works?

Sid Simon, prominent growth therapist, suggests that people are connected by thin gossamer threads along which communication passes. When a person (the giver) sends along some critical comment such as, "How many times do I have to tell you," the barbed arrow is acknowledged by the receiver who immediately sends back an equally caustic reply: "What gives you the right to talk to me that way?"
The reply might be verbal or nonverbal, depending on the equality of power in the relationship. The athlete typically would not throw verbal darts at the coach following critical feedback, but the nonverbal signs can be just as obvious. The important point is this: The receiver of the criticism loses a little chunk of self-confidence because of the negative message and immediately responds by sending an equally harmful reply. Not surprisingly, criticism begets criticism and soon threads are so stretched or torn that communication ceases. But consider who loses the most in this exchange of criticism.

It is well known that success tends to beget success, whereas failure tends to beget failure. Equally well known is the adage that sugar attracts more flies than vinegar. The cost to the receiver of criticism, basically negative feedback, is a loss of self-confidence, the opposite of what the coach intended.

But this is only the beginning of the criticism cycle. When the athlete’s self-confidence is threatened, a protective strategy (albeit subconscious) is to send the return message to the coach to “right the ship.” Overtly or covertly, the coach is bound to receive emotional backlash, either in the form of anger or silence. The critical coach ends up the big loser because he or she is labeled a critical person who may see how such an innocent and maybe non-thinking comment gets blown out of proportion (from at least the coach’s perspective). The intention is to be helpful but the criticism achieves just the opposite result.

Why is criticism so destructive? First, criticism tends to close paths of communication, not open them. Coach criticism is intended to be a one-way street; no acknowledgment is called for, only the idyllic hope that the athlete will internalize all that the criticism entails and be grateful. Interestingly, it is the coach who labels the criticism constructive because “after all, that’s my job and I want my athletes to achieve their potential.” Need I belabor the point by asking you to consider if the majority of athletes see constant streams of criticism as helpful. Very few athletes believe that constructive criticism is that beneficial.

Second, as stated earlier, coach criticism is usually followed by the particular athlete’s self-justified emotional response (shouting back, denial, silence, moodiness). If you think about your past experiences, my guess is that you have seen all of these responses. Adding this emotional layer to the failure experience prevents athletes from being able to sort out what might be helpful to them.

Third, most criticism offers no suggestions for improvement. Where is it written that athletes tend to perform better when they are told what they are doing wrong?