July 18, 2006My Teenager and I Read Parts Out Loud for Laughs
I got my first nasty book review on Amazon this week. The review of Perfect Phrases for Managers and Supervisors included the comment that,
- It was so bad that my teenager and I read parts out loud for laughs.
I don’t expect everyone to love my work, and I know that people who don’t love my work may not choose to follow my communication guidelines of saying what they mean and meaning what they say without being mean when they say it. The reviewer not only rejected my book, he or she rejected my communication principles by using a phrase out-of-context to ridicule the entire book. There are better ways to write a negative review. I find it ironic that this review was of a book that discussed Standards of Responsible Communication which makes it clear why the tone is unnecessary and inappropriate.
Some of my readers who enjoy Perfect Phrases for Managers and Supervisors have already responded by posting their five star reviews. If you’re in the group that finds the book useful, I’d appreciate it if you’d take a minute to say so on Amazon. And to all of you who ever took issue with anything I’ve said, and who told me in a way that was clear, kind and direct, I thank-you.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071452168/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-5148175-9421541?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
You can also bookmark
this on del.icio.us or check the cosmos
This certainly takes the cake as the poison phrase of the week! Quite apart from which, the criticism didn’t even make sense. I can’t help wondering if the book hit a sensitive spot on that reviewer’s conscience, who chose attack as the easiest form of defence. Maybe it was an attempt to distract the teen from recognising the parent’s shortcomings in some of the examples. I would have liked to be more direct in my Amazon review but hope the point was taken: what kind of role model were they being for their teen? Such self-serving choices tend to come back and bite us.
Comment by Sheilah Bockett — July 19, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
Although I have never read this book, I do have, and love, your “Powerphrases” book. But, I also think that your bruised feelings toward this bad review are coming through loud and clear.
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.
Comment by Judy McDonough — July 20, 2006 @ 5:09 am
Judy - Thanks for your comment.
Actually I wasn’t that bruised by this one because I found it over the top in being flip…it’s the ones that I’m afraid are true that I wrestle with! And as far as wanting the five star reviews…well, I am in business and I like to sell books and I’ve gotten great feedback about the book that conflicts with that review so I wanted the good stuff on record too.
I’d love to hear feedback from others as to whether I came across as bruised, defensive or anything else I may not be aware of. I always like to know how I come acrosss. Thanks!
Comment by merylrunion — July 26, 2006 @ 10:14 am
I think Judy has missed the point: this section was an example of a poison phrase. It was relevant to focus on this. What is more, the reference to the five star reviews was just that. To read anything else into the statement is to be presumptive.
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.
Comment by Sheilah Bockett — July 27, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
I didn’t think you came across as “bruised or defensive.” I thought you were just once again bravely sharing an experience from your own life to help you make a point. Which by the way, in my opinion, is one of the characteristics shared by people in “helping” professions that lends to their credibility.
Comment by Kathleen — August 9, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
It seems obvious that the one star reviewer was simply not the intended audience for the material, and so, had no reference to the contexts in which these phrases are so very effective. Had she been familiar with the position from which these phrases are intended to be presented from, she would have valued them, as do those of us who turn to this handy source of reference when looking for ways to effectively and succinctly address various problems we face daily in our roles as managers.
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…
Comment by Glenn — September 6, 2006 @ 10:25 pm