When we're offered unsolicited advice by 'armchair critics' (those who criticise from the comfortable position of not having done what we are doing) it's tempting to ‘do a Jules Winnfield’:

As righteous and rewarding as it may feel in the moment to shut the person down - there is a range of other tools in the kit bag which bring better results.

Is there something to learn from the opinion?

Can the feedback teach you something about yourself that's worth listening to? I love the Disapproval Matrix by Ann Friedman. She separates the relevance of feedback into quadrants based on how rational the feedback is and how well the person knows you.

Opinions worth listening to are those from people who want the best for you, and experts who may not know you personally but are critiquing your work constructively. Both these types of feedback are rational and supportive.

"Tell me more about your expertise in this area" is a good opener if someone's offering professional advice and you're trying to gauge whether they're an expert or a blow-hard.

Opinions you should flick off

Feedback that you should flick off (according to the Disapproval Matrix) includes anything that's irrational, either from people who know you or don't know you. That includes 'friends' who don't have your interests at heart, undermining co-workers, social media trolls - and of course, your own inner critic.

But how to flick off unhelpful feedback?

'You could be right'

A great response to unsolicited advice and opinions that's not in your best interests is :"You could be right." It's factual, neutral and non-committal. It's like hitting a drop-shot just over the net in tennis. Your opponent has to be pretty quick to get to it and put a sting back in its tail on the return.

I used this response to great effect when I got some very unhelpful and vindictive feedback. It took everything in me to respond with: "There's probably a grain of truth in everything you've said." I mustered up the strength to say that the morning after a very, very difficult confrontation.

That, combined with my offer to continue with our plans for the day, completely neutralised a situation that could have escalated beyond control.

'You're entitled to think that'

Again - this statement is factual, neutral and non-committal, but you distance yourself from the unsolicited opinion being offered, while acknowledging the person's right to think whatever they think. This response can elicit an extremely negative response from the person you're dealing with, if they expect you to actively oppose them rather than affirm their right to their opinion. That's when I use the 'broken record' technique - whatever they come back with, I keep affirming their right to hold their opinion. About six months ago my steadfastness caused someone to fly into a rage with me because I didn't get hooked in. That's okay - it was their rage, not mine.

'I disagree with you, and here's why'

When something important is at stake (perhaps a moral or ethical issue) it's important to be more forthright in your response to opinions and advice, even when they are offered constructively.

An Irish colleague of mine was interviewed on national radio just before the abortion referendum in Ireland. In the face of a great deal of inflammatory provocation and poor listening from the interviewer, my colleague held steadfast to her support for a woman's right to choose.

What about you?

How do you deal with unsolicited advice, especially when it's not given in a spirit of constructiveness?

Julia Anderson is the Director of Communication Space, specialising in communications, engagement and public participation. If you're in Wellington and would like to chat with Julia, please contact her on 021 334 540 (+64 21 334540)

What we think

Armchair critics and unsolicited advice