This is clearly an example of an individual attempting to boost their ego and show their ’superiority’ by means of stepping on top of someone else. The injury to anothers credibility, reputation, feelings, etc. is not the concern of the individual who does this. No, it is simply the opportunity to aggrandize themselves, and no thought whatsoever is given that this opportunity is being taken at someone elses expense. The reference to a third party (her daughter) in support of her pronouncements is further evidence of the obvious attempt at self aggrandizement, and is a very toxic and manipulative technique itself. It is an example of someone not “playing fair” in their communications, who does not have the self-confidence to speak for themselves, and who knows they cannot honestly support the position they have taken and is not operating from a personal sense of honestly and integrity.

As far as your comments coming across as ‘bruised or defensive’, Meryl, you most likely responded to the review too soon, as throughout your comments you consistently refer to “I”. I believe this is what gives the sense of your having written from a sense of hurt, introspection, and attempt to gather the troops to your side. Simply the choice of which person, or perspective the response is written from makes all the difference in the world. I know you know this, and in a sense I feel like I’m preaching to the choir here, but the fact that no one else has pointed this out leads me to think some additional explanation may benefit others.

On occasion (more often than I care to admit, honestly) when writing a first draft about an individual, or directly to an individual, it helps to just get the ideas down in the first person, using “I”, “you”, or referring to the person by name if the note is intended to be read by someone else. However, upon proof reading the material written in these circumstances, it is very easy to see that it is most often far too direct an assault on the other party. It also becomes clear that a communication written in this manner has the effect of presenting myself as acting on a personal level, of only writing due to an emotional upset, and places the focus on a problem that I appear to have rather than on the issue I actually desire to make known to the party who will read this.

One or two edits, for the purpose of reducing the emotional content and making the communication on a less personal level is what is needed. Changing references to ‘you’ or ‘they’ or the individual’s name to “the individual”, “the customer”, or “the team member” for instance places a bit of distance and removes the emotional content. It is far easier for people to read of a situation presented in a factual manner from which they can determine their own thoughts, actions, judgements, etc. and keeps their focus on the matter that was intended to be brought to their attention. As far as the references to “I”, well, most often it works best to change those reference to either the third party (”they” or the ‘royal “we”‘) or to refer to the position itself impersonally, such as “the manager” or “the author”, “the writer” etc.

Well, this has gotten rather long for such a posting, it seems…. but I certainly hope it helps those who come across it… and I hope it helps clarify the misunderstanding of those who commented on your response, Meryl…

Peace…

Re “bruised feelings.” Any comment on the motives or emotions involved in an editorial response is pure conjecture. It is a human tendency to make assumptions about others’ thoughts, feelings and intentions - and to present these assumptions as fact. We have all been amateur psychologists at times! But it is counterproductive to good communication, and hardly power talk.

In my view, the fact that the review in qestion gives only one star is not the point. It has absolutely nothing to offer. Therefore I see no obligation to dredge criticism like that for meaning.

Granted, there are other, better, ways to write a critique, and this wasn’t the best choice of words. Sometimes when people post things on the web, they have a misguided sense of annonymity.

However, that being said, it seems that you spent a little too much time focussing on the negative, 1-star review, than accepting it as one man’s opinion. Your comment about others posting their “5-star reviews” gives the appearance that a 5-star review is all you’re interested in, rather than reading between the lines of the “…teenager…” comment and getting to the crux of the post.