How to Stop Replaying Criticism From Your Boss

Abstract

This article is about how to stop replaying criticism from your boss, and why one sentence can follow you home. Three pieces of research bear on it. A meta-analysis of 607 effect sizes found that feedback improved performance on average but made it worse in more than a third of cases. Its theory says feedback works less well when attention moves from the task to the self. A review of repetitive thought linked an abstract, evaluative style of going over events with slower emotional recovery, and a concrete style with no such link. Three studies of spontaneous self-distancing linked an observer's view of a painful event with lower emotional reactivity. The three steps at the end are practical readings of this research, not tested methods, and they are not medical, legal or HR advice.

The sentence that follows you home

The review meeting ends at 4:30 p.m. As people leave, your finance director says, "That is not the level I expected from you." You say you will look at it. Back at your desk you close the variance schedule without reading a single number.

At 11:40 p.m. the sentence is still there. You have run the reply you should have given, the reply you would give now, and the version in which he is right. You cannot say what "the level" refers to. You only know that you will see him at 9 a.m.

How to Deal With a Micromanaging Boss in Finance is about being checked from above all day. This article is about a single remark and the hours after it.

How do I stop replaying criticism from my boss?

Research cannot tell you how to stop a thought, and nothing cited here tested a method for replaying criticism. It does point to three things you can work with: what the criticism points at, how you go over it afterwards, and where you look at it from. The next three sections cover this. The three steps after them turn each into something you can do that evening.

What criticism does when it points at you

Kluger and DeNisi (1996) combined 607 effect sizes, from 23,663 observations, on how feedback affects performance. On average feedback helped, with an effect of d = .41. In more than a third of the cases it made performance worse. Their feedback intervention theory says that feedback shifts attention between three levels: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks, which include self-related processes. It predicts that feedback works less well as attention moves toward the self and away from the task.

Read the 4:30 p.m. remark through this. "That is not the level I expected from you" says nothing about a task. It points at you. This is an inference. The meta-analysis was about feedback interventions in general and measured performance, not sleep or replaying, and it did not study finance directors.

Why "why" keeps the loop going

Watkins (2008) reviewed research on repetitive thought. It can have constructive or unconstructive consequences, and the review names three things that may explain the difference: the valence of the thought, the situation, and the level of construal, meaning abstract versus concrete thinking. In the studies it describes, an abstract, evaluative style, focused on causes, meanings and implications, went with slower emotional recovery after failure. Concrete, experiential thinking, picturing events moment by moment, did not show those links. The effects appeared after negative events such as a failure experience and a distressing film.

Read the sentence through this. "Not the level I expected" invites abstract questions: what does he mean, what does it say about me, what happens next. Those are causes, meanings and implications. This is an inference. The studies were not about bosses, and they measured emotional recovery after a failure or a film, not nights of lost sleep.

What looking from a distance does

Ayduk and Kross (2010) ran three studies of spontaneous self-distancing: taking an observer's view, like a fly on the wall, when reflecting on a painful experience. In the first, people recalled a negative interpersonal experience and were assessed again about seven weeks later. In the second, they recalled an anger-related experience while physiological measures were recorded. In the third, couples kept a 21-day diary and took part in a lab conflict discussion.

More distancing went with less emotional reactivity in the short term in all three studies, and with lower cardiovascular reactivity in the second. In the first it also went with lower reactivity and fewer intrusive thoughts over time. The authors explain the benefit by thinking that recounted the events less and reconstrued their meaning more, not by avoidance.

Read the late evening through this. Lying in bed inside the remark, replaying his tone, is the opposite of an observer's view. This is an inference. The studies were about painful events in close relationships, not bosses, and they show an association. They do not show that taking an observer's view on purpose works.

How to stop replaying criticism from your boss: three steps

None of these is a cure, and none was tested on replaying criticism. They aim at three things the research points to: what was actually said, the level of your thinking, and the view you take.

1. Write down the exact words, and keep them apart from what you made of them. Before bed, or on the way home, write the sentence as it was said, with who said it and when. Next to it, write what you made of it. For instance: "Said: 'That is not the level I expected from you.' Made of it: he thinks I am not good enough." The first line can be checked. The second is a reading. This is an inference from Watkins (2008), where concrete thinking did not show the links that abstract thinking did, and no study cited here tested it.

2. Ask "what exactly?" and "what next?" in place of "why?" and "what does it mean?" Swap the abstract questions for concrete ones. Instead of "Why did he say that, and what does it say about me?", write two questions: "What exactly did he see in the analysis?" and "What would I change tomorrow if he were right?" Then write one action small enough to start at 9 a.m. For instance: "Re-read the variance commentary and list three places it could be clearer." This is an inference from the same review, and no study cited here tested it.

3. Take the observer's seat, then bring the criticism back to the task. Write three lines about the evening as a colleague watching would: "A finance director told an analyst after a review that the work was below his expectations. The analyst has not yet asked what he meant." Then ask what you would tell that analyst. The next day, turn the remark into a question about the work and not about you. For instance: "You said the analysis was not at the level you expected. Which part fell short, and what would good look like by Friday?" It is an inference from Ayduk and Kross (2010) and from Kluger and DeNisi (1996) that this eases the replay and moves attention back to the task. No study cited here tested it.

Questions People Ask

Why do I keep replaying what my boss said?

The research cited here describes what goes with replaying, not why you in particular do it. Possible reasons are guesses: the remark was vague, you respect his opinion, your next review is close, or you were already tired. What the research describes is an abstract, evaluative way of thinking that went with slower emotional recovery. Step 2 is aimed at that.

Is it normal to replay criticism for days?

The studies cited here do not say how common it is or how long it lasts. A few hours, or one night after a remark that stung, is one thing. Days of it, or a replay that spreads into sleep, mood or other parts of your life, is another. The last section covers that.

Should I reply to my boss tonight?

If the criticism came by message, draft a reply tonight and do not send it until you have done steps 1 to 3. A reply written during the replay is more likely to answer the sentence about you than the task. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested it. How to Tell Your Boss You Made a Mistake in the Numbers covers the case where the criticism is about a real error.

What if the criticism was unfair?

Step 1 helps here. The exact words show whether the remark pointed at the work or at you, and whether it was specific enough to check. Unfair delivery and valid content can come together. If it keeps happening, a direct conversation is the next step, and Difficult Conversations: A Framework for Honest Communication goes through it. This is a judgement, not a research finding.

When it is more than replaying

Replaying is a habit of thought. It is more when it lasts for weeks, takes hours every day, keeps you awake most nights, or comes with low mood, dread of going to work or physical symptoms. In those cases talk to your doctor. If the criticism comes with humiliation, threats or being singled out, those are matters for HR, an employee representative or a legal adviser, depending on where you work. This article is not medical or legal advice. Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It is not treatment and not a substitute for it.

If the remark was about a specific figure, How to Respond When Your Numbers Are Questioned is about that moment. If you have started to recheck your own work after it, Why You Keep Checking Your Work Over and Over is about that loop.

Sources

• Ayduk, Ö., & Kross, E. (2010). From a distance: Implications of spontaneous self-distancing for adaptive self-reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 809–829. DOI: 10.1037/a0019205

• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

• Watkins, E. R. (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 163–206. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163