Welcome to From Insults To Respect. As regular readers well know, from time to time I present discussions about the value of dealing with criticism in a manner that can enhance the respect people have for us. I began these discussions by describing how I made a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors displaying different styles of responding to criticism. Then I asked a wide range of people over several years to watch the shows and discuss their reactions.

By doing this, I became very familiar with what people like and respect when it comes to responding to criticism. I then arranged what I had learned into five levels. Level one is the least liked. Each higher level is viewed as more mature, likable, and respected by those who watched the video recordings.

To familiarize readers with the five levels, from time to time, I provide real life examples of people dealing with criticism and then ask readers to rate how the criticism had been handled. This week, while thinking about what my next example might be, a new real life example arose as I watched a tennis match between Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka. The two stars were playing at the U.S. Open to determine which would be the women’s national champion.

During the second set, Serena’s coach directed some hand signals at her, and later he admitted that this was an act designed to coach her. The chair umpire, Carlos Ramos, noticed the hand signals, and announced that he was issuing an official warning to Serena because it is a violation of the rules. At this point, Serena indicated that when Ramos issued the official warning, he had criticized her, accusing her of cheating. Before long, tears, like rain, were flowing from Serena and Naomi’s eyes.

There is a set of Youtube videos (see HERE and HERE) that allows us to observe every detail of what transpired, along with a New York Times step by step description of the relevant events (see HERE). Thus, I think that it is a particularly excellent example of a real life event that chronicles dealing with criticism, the consequences of such actions, and what we, personally, can do to improve our own skills when dealing with criticism.

So, for this little practice session, let’s begin by reviewing the five levels of responding to criticism. Then we’ll go into the details of how both Serena and Naomi responded to the perceived criticism that they experienced at the U.S. Open. After that, we’ll see if we can apply the principles of the five levels to what occurred. Finally, I’ll provide some of my own personal views about how the criticism events were handled.

Five Levels of Responding to Criticism

Before providing the five levels, I want to make sure that readers understand that they are not to be viewed as items written in stone. There may be some situations that might alter someone’s view of what is an ideal response. And individuals are of course entitled to make their own personal set of levels. Nevertheless, the levels are useful because they are generally viewed by a wide range of people in a variety of situations to match their own perceptions of what is a respected response to criticism. Thus, it provides us a way to debate its flaws and strengths, and in the end, we come away having deepened our thinking about important issues.

That said, let’s move on to a description of the five levels of responding to criticism. The actions of level 1 are viewed as the least respected, and each higher level tends to get higher ratings.

The Five Levels

1.  Displays one or more of the following:

• Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without also using the skills described in level 4 or 5.
• Physically attacks the criticizer
• Damages property

2.  Displays one or more of the following:

• Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
• Glares at the criticizer
• Threatens the criticizer
• Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
• Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.
  

3.  Displays one or both of the following:

• Displays defensiveness without directly insulting the criticizer (raising voice’s volume or pitch)
• Displays a lack of interest either by orally indicating this, or with nonverbal cues, or complete silence. 

4.  Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by perhaps making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further.  If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way, and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.

5.  In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.

Here’s What Happened

In the first set, Naomi looked impressive, beating the enormously talented Serena, 6-2.

During the second set, Serena won the first game, and during the second game chair umpire, Carlos Ramos, announced the coaching code violation against Serena. The penalty was a formal warning, and if there had been no additional violations there would have been no consequence to the warning.

Serena, upon hearing that a warning had been issued, approached chair umpire Ramos and, from her comments, it became apparent she believed Mr. Ramos had criticized her for cheating. Thus she said assertively, “You may have thought that was coaching, but I’m telling you it was not. I don’t cheat to win. I’d rather lose. I’m just letting you know.”

Mr. Ramos listened attentively, and nodded his head. Serena then went back to the court and lost that game.

A little later, during one of the changeovers, with Serena leading 2-1, she went over to chair umpire Ramos and indicated that she was not ready to put to rest her concern that she believed she had been accused of cheating. Thus, she very civilly explained to Ramos that she understood why he may have thought her coach was coaching, but she stressed that she never did that. Ramos nodded, and then Serena calmly said again that she did not cheat, and Ramos said, “I know that.”

Serena responded, “O.K., thank you so much.”

At this point, Serena may have thought that she had persuaded Ramos to reverse the call on the code violation, which never happens.

Serena won the next game, breaking Naomi’s serve, making the score 3-1.

In the next game, Serena hit a backhand into the net for an unforced error, allowing Naomi to break right back. At this point, Serena was still in the lead, 3-2. Nevertheless, her response to losing that game was to fling her racket into the ground, breaking it.

Throwing a racket is an automatic code violation, and because it was Serena’s second violation, Naomi gained a point for the next game. Ramos had clearly announced, “Code violation, racket abuse, point penalty, Mrs. Williams.”

Serena did not react, just going over to her chair during the break. When Serena returned to the court on the deuce side, apparently expecting the score to be 0-0, she was told to move over to the add side of the court because the score was 0-15. Serena approached the chair again, initially confused by the score. “This is unbelievable, every time I play here I have problems,” Serena said to Ramos.

When Ramos explained that Serena had a point penalty for smashing her racket, she calmly said, “Yeah, that’s a warning.” Then chair umpire Ramos explained that she already had a warning for the coaching violation, and here Serena raised her voice, and looking exasperated, cried out, “I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! I didn’t get coaching! You need to make an announcement that I didn’t get coaching. I don’t cheat. I didn’t get coaching!”

As Serena was saying this, Ramos was leaning toward Serena, nodding, indicating he was listening to what she was saying. He did say something very briefly and softly to her, but I couldn’t make it out.

Serena, in response, cried out, “You need to…you owe me an apology! I have never cheated in my life!” She appeared to be glaring at Ramos.

Serena continued from here to say, “I have a daughter, and I stand for what is right for her, and I have never cheated! You owe me an apology. You are never going to umpire for one of my matches again!” While saying this she at times yelled and wagged her finger at Ramos.

Finally, returning to play, Serena loses the next game, and the game after that, handing the lead over to Naomi, 4-3.

Upon sitting down for the between game break, Serena returned to her response to the criticism she had received from Ramos. Waving her finger at him and clearly yelling, she said, “For you to attack my character, then something is wrong, is wrong! You attacked my character!”

Ramos denied this, and Serena replied,”Yes, you are! You owe me an apology!”

Ramos said something I couldn’t make out, and then Serena yelled, “You will never, ever, be on the same court as me as long as you live!” She then called Ramos a liar as he is looking squarely at her, and leaning his body to her, clearly listening to what she had to say.

Ramos, at this point, if he was following the strict rules of the tournament, could have issued Serena a code violation penalty for this because the 2018 Official Grand Slam Rule Book states,

“… verbal abuse is defined as a statement about an official, opponent, sponsor, spectator or other person that implies dishonesty or is derogatory, insulting or otherwise abusive.”

Calling Ramos a liar clearly implies dishonesty. Rather than penalize her, Ramos patiently turned away.

At this point, Serena is on pretty risky ground, but she still refuses to let up. She says to Ramos, while glaring at him,”When are you going to give me my apology! You owe me an apology. Say it! Say you’re sorry!”

Ramos can be heard saying something very briefly, perhaps warning her that if she keeps this up she will be getting another code violation penalty, but I can’t really make it out. Serena replied, “Then don’t talk to me! Well, then don’t talk to me.”

Ramos can then be seen in video recordings complying with this request, turning his body and eyes to face a direction away from Serena.

Serena then said, “How dare you insinuate I was cheating!” After a brief pause during which Serena took a bite of something that looks like an energy bar, she then said to Ramos, “You stole a point from me! You’re a thief!”

It was at this point that Ramos said, “Code violation, verbal abuse, game penalty, Mrs. Williams.” Thus, the score stood at this point, 5-3 in favor of Naomi.

Serena ignored this, and went back on the court, taking a position to receive a serve from Naomi, but because she lost a game as a result of the code violation, it is Serena’s turn to serve. She didn’t seem to understand this, so Ramos called both players over to his chair and clearly explained what the situation is. Serena responded by laughing, and asked, “Are you kidding me?”

Ramos, indicated he is not kidding. Serena replied, “Because I said you are a thief because you stole a point from me, but I’m not a cheater.” She was not yelling at this point, just looked amazed.

Again Ramos said something to Serena, but I could not make it out. Serena, replied, “But I’m not a cheater. I told you to apologize to me. This is…excuse me, I need a referee.”

Serena now began to make her case to the highest official at the U.S. Open, during which she began to cry. “You know my character,” she said, “and this is not right. This has happened too many times, this is not fair. To lose a game for saying that, this is not fair. Do you know how many men do much worse than that, this is not fair. Because I’m a woman, you are going to take this away from me. You know it, and I know you can’t admit it, but I know you know it.”

The official made it clear she can’t change the ruling, and Serena replied, “I know you can’t change it, I get the rule, but I’m just saying it’s not right. This happens to me every single year, and it’s not right. That’s all I have to say.”  Then Serena returned to the court, and upon easily winning the next game, went over to one of the officials, and, while shedding tears, continued to argue that it is not fair that she was penalized a whole game because men have said much worse. The official, who is the president of the United States Tennis Association, listened in what strikes me as a caring manner, but made it clear that she can’t change the chair umpire’s ruling.

When Serena returned to play, it was Naomi’s turn to serve. Naomi easily won that game, and, consequently, the match and the U.S. Open Championship.

After the final point, Serena, graciously walked over to Naomi and gave her a hug.

Several times after the final point there were waves of boos from the crowd, and Naomi clearly had tears streaming from her eyes. It was not clear if these boos were tears of joy, or in response to the boos. She later reported that she “kinda thought the boos were directed at me,” but most observers felt they were actually directed at Ramos for issuing the penalties.

Moments later, the master of ceremony announced it was time to present the trophies, and another round of boos were heard. Naomi once again began to cry. Serena put her arms around Naomi, smiled, and said she was proud of her and that she should know that the crowd wasn’t booing at her. Naomi returned a genuine smile.

When it was Serena’s turn to say something during the awards ceremony, she graciously said, while choking back tears, “She played well, and this is her first grand slam, and I know that you guys were rooting, and I was rooting too, but let’s make this the best moment that we can. We’ll get through this, but, let’s give everyone the credit where credit is due, and let’s not boo anymore, we’re going to get through this and let’s be positive. Congratulations Naomi. No more booing. Thank you to my team, you guys are amazing.” Serena, begins to wipe away her tears, which were streaming from her eyes. She manages to continue, saying, “Thank you to the crowd, you guys are the best in the world. Thank you so much, and I really hope to go again to continue to play here again. We’ll see. It was a tough year for me, but thank you so much.”

The crowd gives her a warm round of applause, and Naomi applauded, along with the others in the ceremonial party. Then the announcer said, “And now our champion, Naomi Osaka.” The crowd does provide her a hearty cheer.

The announcer, talking directly to Naomi, notes that this was a long time dream for her to play against her idol, Serena, in this championship game, and then asked her, “How does the reality compare to that dream?”

Naomi responded by saying, “Um, I’m going to sort of defer from answering your question. I’m sorry.”

The announcer replies, “No problem.”

Naomi then goes on to say, with tears in her eyes, “I know everyone was cheering for her, and I’m sorry that it had to end like this.” She wipes her eyes, and continues, “I just want to say thanks for watching the match, thank you.”

Moments later, Naomi turns to Serena, and says, “It was always my dream to play against you, Serena, in the U.S. Open final, so I’m really glad to have been able to do that, and I’m really grateful that I was able to play with you. Thank you.” As Naomi said thank you, she gave a respectful bow to Serena. Serena nodded and smiled.

Deepening Your Thoughts About What Happened

The responses of Serena and Naomi to the perceived criticism that they received at the U.S. Open provides us an opportunity to refresh our thoughts about actions that can enhance the respect people have for us. It can also provide us an opportunity to discuss some important issues that uniquely arise from this specific day’s event.

To enhance the value of this discussion, before moving on to my own views about those events, I would love it if you would first pause here and think about what took place. Then, if you will, rate on a 1 to 5 scale how well you personally think Serena, and then Naomi, handled the criticism that they perceived was targeted at them.

After doing this, look over the five levels of criticism provided above, and see which one best matches how Serena handled the criticism she felt Ramos had directed to her, and then do the same thing for how Naomi handled the criticism she felt the crowd at the U.S. Open had presented to her when they booed. Once you complete this, read on to get my personal impressions.

My Personal Impressions

When Serena came to believe that Ramos accused her of cheating, she assertively said, “You may have thought that was coaching, but I’m telling you it was not. I don’t cheat to win. I’d rather lose. I’m just letting you know.” This was said in a respectful tone of voice. Mr. Ramos listened attentively, and nodded his head. Serena then went back to the game.

During that verbal exchange, Serena did none of the negative actions described in the first three levels of responding to criticism. Nevertheless, her actions didn’t quite match either of the two higher levels. Part of level 4 says, for example, “Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said.” Although Serena’s actions did not fully match this part of the description, given the setting, it made sense for her to cut any discussion short for she had a game to play in front of a sold out crowd and an even larger national audience. So, I think that if her response had ended here, I would lean toward rating her actions as pretty close to a 4.

If there was less pressure to proceed with the game, I would have liked her to have said to Ramos something like, “I think that the coaching code violation means you are accusing me of being a cheater. Is that right?” I say this, because the phrase in the level 4 description which states, “make it clear that they fully understand what was said,” means that the person criticized would first restate the criticism, as he or she understands it, and then ask if this restatement is correct. If Serena had done so, I think Ramos would have said something like, “I’m not accusing you of cheating. I’m saying your coach has violated, in my opinion, the code that says there is to be no coaching during a U.S. Open match. It was entirely on this basis that I issued you a warning.”

Later, after the match, when there was more time, Serena could have checked with her coach to see what he had done to give Ramos the impression that he was coaching. In any case, at this point, she had been given, as a penalty, just a warning.

Unfortunately, Serena did not refrain from additional code violations. The next such act occurred when Serena hit a backhand into the net for an unforced error, allowing Naomi to win her second game of the second set. At this point, Serena was still in the lead, 3-2. Nevertheless, her response to losing that game was to fling her racket into the ground, breaking it. Thus, it seems to me, that she had criticized herself for her unforced error, and responded by destroying her property. This is clearly a level one response. Ramos penalized Serena one point for the next game.

Serena’s actions that led up to Ramos issuing a full game penalty for her third code violation is clearly properly rated a level 2 response. She yelled, glared at Ramos, called him names (liar and thief) and threatened him when she said, “You are never going to umpire for one of my matches again!”

This example of dealing with criticism provides us a fine example in which people, when criticized, are not just upset because of the criticism, but also the consequences of receiving the criticism. Oftentimes the consequences are not as obvious as in this case. Here we plainly see that Serena received a warning, which was, at the time, reasonably assumed to be of little consequence. However, when she broke her racket, because she already had a warning, she now had lost a point. When she called Ramos a thief, the clear consequence was losing an entire game, and, consequently dramatically increased the chances of losing the entire match. She was also subsequently docked by the tournament referee’s office $17,000 ($10,000 for “verbal abuse” of chair umpire Carlos Ramos, $4,000 for being warned for coaching, and $3,000 for breaking her racket).

In many examples in which someone is dealing with criticism, the consequences of responding in a manner consistent with levels 1, 2, or 3 is not as obvious, but can potentially be enormous. If you respond to your boss’s criticism in a manner that she or he views as immature, you may not get a desired promotion, or, during an economic downturn, you may be one of the first to lose your job. You might not attribute such consequences to how you deal with criticism. Similarly, you might turn off someone you are dating because of the way you handle criticism, and not realize it. Thus, learning about how best to deal with criticism has many consequences, both obvious and subtle.

Here’s another issue that comes up when dealing with criticism that is highlighted in the Serena example. When you disagree with the criticism, what is the quality of your argument for disagreeing? In this example, Serena claimed during an on-court discussion with US Open officials, “Do you know how many other men do things that are much worse than that?” In a USA Today report (see HERE) they tried to throw some light on this issue. Thus, they reported,

“During the three previous Grand Slams — the French Open, Wimbledon and Australian Open — men were assessed 59 code violations, almost twice as many as the women. The men were issued violations for coaching nine times and the most common violation was abuse of racket/equipment 19 times.”

Of course, this is not conclusive evidence for or against the allegation that men say worse things and don’t get penalized like women do. In my view, Serena would have handled this issue quite a bit better if she had said she is concerned that women have not been treated equally when it comes to code violation penalties, and she intends to look into this in a reasonable manner. Then, after the tournament, she could have arranged for an independent analysis of this question. All of these big tournament games are recorded, and such an analysis would be worthwhile in the interest of fairness.

As far as Serena’s coach’s claim that assessing a coaching code violation never happens, USA Today’s analysis indicates that,

“assessing code violations for coaching is not uncommon, according to information provided by the ITF. Of the 31 code violations assessed during the three Grand Slams before the US Open, 11 of them were for coaching — more than any other code violation.“

What else can this example of dealing with criticism highlight? Well, I think it is important to point out that people develop respect for people for many different reasons besides how they deal with criticism. Despite how Serena handled the criticism at this last U.S. Open, her incredible talent as a tennis player has many of her fans remaining enormously supportive of her. Moreover, after her loss, the way she warmly embraced Naomi, and then encouraged the crowd to cut out the booing, certainly enhanced my respect for her.

As for how Naomi handled the criticism that she perceived, she avoided calling the booing crowd any nasty names. She did begin to cry. Crying is not viewed as a reason to assess someone as acting in a manner consistent with the lower levels of the responding to criticism model that we have been discussing if it is followed by displaying actions consistent with either level four or five. Recall that when Naomi heard the booing, besides crying, she said in a soft, choked up voice, “I know everyone was cheering for her, and I’m sorry that it had to end like this.” She then wiped her eyes, and continued, “I just want to say thanks for watching the match, thank you.”

There is a line in the level 4 description that states, “If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable.” I think Naomi did an admirable job in applying this principle in reaction to the booing. I’m rating her response a 4.

Okay then, there you have it, another “dealing with criticism” practice session. I hope you found it helpful.

Such practice sessions are greatly enhanced if once a week you take a few minutes to recall an incident in which someone criticized you. Then, compare your response to the five levels, formulate in your mind, or better, write out, how you would like to handle a similar incident in the future, and practice the better approach in your mind three or more times.

I think it is important to point out here that there are some people who will continue to have a difficult time dealing with criticism even with the help of the practice sessions I have been providing on this blog. Fortunately, there are some well trained counselors who can help you to get to a more comfortable place (see HERE for two such counselors that I personally recommend and provide services conveniently via Skype).

Finally, I hope you’ll soon join us again right back here at From Insults to Respect.

———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Dealing with criticismFive levels of responding to criticismNaomi OsakaResponding to criticismSerena WilliamsU. S. Open Women's National Tennis Championship