Perfection Messing Up Your Corporate Mojo?

Have you ever noticed how pervasive “perfection” is in our language?

• The phrase “perfect storm” is used to describe a “rare combination of circumstances will aggravate a situation drastically”.
• Last month, ump Jim Joyce ruined a “perfect” game for Detroit Tiger pitcher Armando Galarraga.
• Recently, corporate success coach Ann Farrell ruminated on striving for the “perfect” life.

Perfectionism isn’t limited to solely to our language, either. As a practice, The Quest for Perfect shows up on a regular basis in the workplace, most typically as a byproduct of a company’s culture.

When thinking of how workplace culture shapes employee behavior, a senior leadership work team that I consulted with comes to mind. The team was comprised of the top six leaders of a small manufacturing company and they were grappling with trust issues..  We were working offsite, trying to come up with some workable operating guidelines to ensure a more trusting, productive environment.  At one point, a Vice President bravely stepped out and said, “We are so demanding of each other, there’s absolutely no room for mistakes.” We explored this issue for a few minutes, with several people contributing their perspectives.

Finally, the leader of the team (who held the title General Manager) blurted out in frustration, “Jennifer, you simply don’t understand!  Quality is one of our company’s core values.  We’re at nearly zero defects per million on our products.  We live and breathe perfection. It’s who we are.”

Yes, indeed, Mr. General Manager. Your Culture of Perfection, while admirable for creating superior products, is eroding the relationships of the senior management team.  Our discussion then took a very interesting turn in which I was able to share an alternate perspective on perfection:

Strive for perfection in process and grace with people.

A process doesn’t have feelings, but people do.  When team members demand relentless perfection of one another in the workplace, they create unrealistic expectations for both work output and interpersonal effectiveness.  This is not a call for tolerating mediocrity.  On the contrary, in the workplace people should continually seek process improvement. All the while, they must be mindful: The creatures in charge of the process are human. Mistakes happen.  People misjudge situations.  Tempers flare. As humans, it’s what we do. Expecting perfection in the way humans relate to one another is like expecting every golf game to have a hole-in-one shot. It’s unrealistic.

Back to our struggling leadership team— we invested time defining areas in which “perfection” was an appropriate goal, and situations in which we should encourage a more forgiving stance. We also discussed that pesky gray area of “good enough”. As you might expect, there were varying opinions on when something should be deemed “good enough” to pass inspection— be it a process, a document or an interpersonal relationship.  All in all, it was a fruitful discussion.  Even though we didn’t create the definitive list (there’s no “perfect” list, after all!), we did bring this issue out into the open and develop some perspective around it.

Here’s the rub. . . this company was “successful” by nearly every measure: commitment to its core values, profitability, steady growth, quality products and employee satisfaction.  The company’s culture highly influenced achievement in these metrics. That’s a good thing. Even so, this company still wasn’t perfect. All workplaces, even the highly productive and positive ones, have their downsides because corporate cultures, like the humans that comprise them, are dynamic, influential and yes, sometimes flawed.

The General Manager in my example had his eyes opened that day. He realized that the culture he helped to create, while enviable, still had it drawbacks. His company’s culture of perfection wasn’t so much a problem to be “fixed” so much as it was a dynamic to acknowledge and direct. Leaders of organizations who recognize this and create interpersonal practices that allow some slack are the ones who create vibrant, sustainable corporate cultures.  Imperfections and all.

Photo credit istockphoto.com © Robert Hadfield

Crickets at your team meetings?

So I’m sitting at a large round table, talking with a team of eight senior-level leaders who work for a large corporation.  These are smart, sophisticated people, who have both street cred as field operatives and many years’ experience leading various types and sizes of work groups.  We’re discussing how to ensure that our communications are less command-and-control.  Comments start to flow:

• “We need to be more open-minded”
• “Our younger workforce expects to be part of the conversation”
• “How do we invite more participation?”
• “It’s a more informal process these days….”

Heads are nodding in agreement.  The group is engaged, building on each other’s responses.  Then, one person is brave enough to be the Devil’s Advocate:

“OK, so let’s say that I do all of these things.  I’m asking for input, I’m trying to get them involved. Which, by the way, I think I’m pretty good at.  So I ask for feedback and all I get is, you know, The Crickets.”

To which I inquire— Crickets?

“Yeah,” he says.  “You know—so quiet you could hear the crickets chirp?”

Ah, yes, I do know.  And the other leaders around the table chuckle and nod their heads in understanding.  What leader hasn’t tried to draw out his or her team, only to be met with silence or perfunctory “Nope, we’re all good. Nothing to say.”  While there’s no “truth serum” to get people talking, there are some ways to ensure that your team members will participate when asked.

Think about how you ask the question. Are your questions truly open-ended, or are they statements disguised as a question?  Phrases like, “What’s your reaction to the idea on the table?” and “Who has an alternative idea to offer?” are neutral and invite discussion. If you say something like, “Can we all agree that we need to do XYZ?” or “That’s a great idea, don’t you think?” tend to put the emphasis on your opinions and agenda.  These statements are good for bringing a dialog to a close, but not for creating discussion.

Inspect your consistency. Do you consistently ask for input?  Or, do you only ask on the “easy” stuff—things that don’t take a lot of time to work through?  Leaders who establish a track record of inviting diverse opinions are those who will, over time, get valuable input from their teams. Many leaders say to me, “I’d love to ask for input, but it takes too much time!” This is true; there’s an upfront investment.  Ask yourself, “Will the investment of time upfront pay off in the long run?”  If there is a true urgency and no time for extended discussion, you can still ask for input, but set a clear parameter: “Team, we’ve got a time crunch for this—we can only do a quick 15 minute huddle—what can you give me quickly to be sure we still make a good decision?”

Review your track record of taking action. The biggest mistake that I see from leaders is that they ask for input, (“because that’s our culture—we need to be team-based”) but don’t intend to do anything with it.  If you know you won’t (or can’t) take any action on the team’s suggestions, don’t bother asking.  Of course, you won’t be able to implement all suggestions, so again, set the framework: “I’m looking for 10 – 15 ideas.  After that, we’ll whittle the ideas down to the ones that make the most sense, given our time and budget constraints.”

Do you close the loop? Which of their ideas did you use? Be sure to let them know. Moreover, be sure to let me know if you didn’t use the suggestions—and why.  Be as specific as possible about why the suggestion couldn’t be implemented.  By giving specific feedback now, you can inform the team’s thought process for later, helping them understand the bigger picture issues of budget, strategy, resources, and yes, even organizational politics. This will pay dividends for future “I’d like your input” discussions.

Enjoying the serenade of cricket night-song at home on a balmy evening is a delight.  “Crickets” at your team meetings—not so much. Follow these four simple tips and you’ll reduce the silence at your team meetings.

What’s your favorite dialog-starter?  How do you invite discussion that’s productive and open?

Photo credit: istockphoto.com © Tatiana Popova

As part of my gig as a guest on the HR Happy Hour’s Leadership Show , I agreed to pull together some leadership resources for the Happy Hour listeners.  When I talk with clients about leadership development, they often say one or both of the following:

a)      We don’t have the time to develop something

b)      We don’t have the money to train leaders

This list is designed to help you with both of these challenges. These resources are a list of white papers, downloads and other great freebies offered by some of the most prominent vendors and thought-leaders in leadership development.  Most of the resources listed have a “for pay” component as well, so if your company is in the market for these tools, please do check them out.

“Many hands make the load light” and that is so true with the creation of this list.  A huge shout-out goes to my fellow leadership development colleagues Dave Brand, Dan McCarthy and Susan Zelinski for adding their favorites to the mix. I’m grateful for their contributions.

A Great Place to Start: Great Leadership by Dan McCarthy

Last year, Dan wrote an excellent post on http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2009/02/how-to-design-frugal-leadership.html. It is spot-on with practical suggestions and I agree completely that leadership development need not be pricey.  However, his suggestions do cost some $$, and I promised you “free”—so here we go. . .

Free Downloadable Research, White Papers, Podcasts

Note: some of the resources do require you to enter your contact information before allowing you to download, so you may not consider it 100% “free.”

I’m highlighting the well-known vendors because they have a lot of great content that’s easily accessible.  As Dan McCarthy points out in item #3 of his frugal leadership post, there are thousands of independent niche-oriented leadership development consultants out there. If you know of one that provides similar high-quality content, please feel free to post it in the Comments section.

Aberdeen Group

Achieve Global Research Library

Awesomely Simple Resources site; this is by author John Spence who published Awesomely Simple last year. I just read this book and it’s a really great overall management primer. This site provides additional “how to’s” that are based on the book.  

Bersin and Associates Research Library

Center for Creative Leadership Podcasts

DDI.com’s Thought Leadership page

Elliot Masie consortium: LearningTown forums

Fort Hill Company’s Knowledge Center

Interaction Associates: much is subscription-based, but look on the left-hand side of the homepage for free downloads, including excellent white paper on Improving Virtual Meetings

Institute for Corporate Productivity  

Jim Collins Leadership articles

Ken Blanchard Companies leadership white papers (creator of Situational Leadership)

Marshall Goldsmith Library “free resources” tab Example: Athena video clips

Personnel Decisions White Paper on Strengths

Seth Godin’s Free e-book: What Matters Now

Tom Peters Free Stuff

The Leadership Challenge Model

Leadership Blogs

Oh, where to start? There are SO many.  Here are some of my favorites. . .

All Things Workplace by Steve Roesler.  When I read Steve’s blog, it’s clear he does his homework.  His insights are supported by interesting statistics paired with real-life examples.

Aspire Collaborative Services by Mary Jo Asmus. Mary Jo is an executive coach and a former HR executive for a Fortune 50 company. She knows her stuff and writes thoughtful essays on the foundational aspects of leadership. 

Bret L. Simmons Dr. Bret (as he’s known on Twitter) is on the faculty of the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Reno. He’s also a leadership consultant. His blog takes on tough topics; plus I like that he assigns his students leadership blogs to read as part of their coursework—a contemporary take on college homework.

Great Leadership by Dan McCarthy. Yes, I already featured him, but his blog is consistent, balanced and practical.  Because he’s a practitioner (not a consultant) he’s not selling a thing. His content is always worth a read.

Human Capital League This blog isn’t strictly leadership-based. It aggregates many blogs that write on the topic of workforce development.  Each day, several blog posts are highlighted on the Human Capital League’s main page.  It’s worth checking out a few times a week.

Lead Change by Mike Henry. The founder of the immensely popular and active LinkedIn group by the same name, Mike blogs on a variety of subjects, all with the overarching theme of creating character-based leaders.

Mountain State University’s  LeaderTalk blog . Written by Becky Robinson in collaboration with Mountain State University’s School of Leadership and Professional Development, the site explores a broad range of insights, and guest bloggers.

The Weekly Leader features a nice round-up of leadership articles, interviews and podcasts on a diverse cross section of leaders from a variety of industries.

On Twitter?

Check out my  Leadership Round Up post.

[Note: I don’t receive any sort of compensation for the parties mentioned in this list. I also don’t specifically endorse any of the services, products or opinions contained within the respective websites, other than to say, “hey, here’s an interesting site, go check it out.”]

Our 5-part series on positive office politics, (The P Quotient) is drawing to a close.  In this final installment, Jane Perdue looks at personal influence, one of four key behaviors needed for a person to be considered politically savvy in a productive way.  

Just tuning in to this fascinating topic?  Start here for the first installment, Politics are Necessary, but Not Necessarily Evil by Jane Perdue at her blog Life, Love, Leadership.

Then, it’s my turn with Networking Inside the Company Walls.

Next up is Mike Henry at the Lead Change Group with Sincerity and Office Politics.

Installment 4 was Susan Mazza on What’s Your Agenda? at her Random Acts of Leadership blog.

Which brings us to the final installment of the series, Influence and Intentions by Jane Perdue. Jane suggests her readers consider their level of personal influence with this question:

Is my word and/or my involvement sufficient to make something happen?

Now that’s a question to stop you in your tracks.  Is the fact that you’re involved in a project enough to get others to join in?  In reflecting on that question, I offer the some follow-up questions:

• Does your track record shine with not only successes, but with recovery from tough setbacks?
• Do people know that when you give your word, you’ll come through?
• If for some rare reason you can’t deliver, will people hear about it as soon as possible?
• Will people listen to your “crazy” ideas because they know that you’ll find a way to make them happen?
• Do you know how to gracefully cut your losses and move on, rather than gripping tightly to an idea so that you can be “right”?
• Do people know that if they follow your lead, they’ll be heard?

If you can honestly answer “yes” to several of these questions, then you are a person of influence. And that, my friends, is what office “politics” should be about.

As part of an ongoing blog series on Positive Office Politics  (follow #OPQ on Twitter), Susan Mazza asks “What’s Your Agenda?” In this blog post, she explores personal motivations and how they show up in the workplace.  She says:

We ALL have agendas. You could say our ambitions, no matter how altruistic or noble they may be, are an agenda.  We also have many underlying personal viewpoints and biases.  Some we are aware of and some we are not.  And they inform everything we think, say and do. 

So true!

As I read this post, I found myself wondering to what degree the label “hidden agenda” or “playing politics” is driven by the trust level between the players involved. For example, let’s say that Pete has a poor track record with Bob when it comes to being forthright. Therefore Bob doesn’t trust Pete to “tell it like it is” and is leery when Bob describes something in vague terms.  Does it then follow that Pete attributes a “hidden agenda” to Bob? Pete may think to himself, “Why doesn’t Bob just come out and say what he has in mind for this project? What’s all the cloak-and-dagger stuff about anyway?”

But has Pete considered Bob’s viewpoint?  Does Bob have a legitimate reason for not being forthcoming? Maybe Bob has a “hidden” agenda, maybe not.  One thing’s for sure—Pete can’t crawl inside Bob’s head and see his motivation.  So, maybe a better optionfor Pete is to pay attention to his own motivations and worry less about Bob’s intentions.  Better yet, Pete could put it on the table and talk about it. “Bob, I’m not sure I’m clear about what you’re plan is.  Would you be willing to give me more detail?”

To Susan’s point, human beings can’t avoid having motivations and ambitions.  We can, however be willing to examine our own motivations and ensure that they are focused on a mutually beneficial outcome. When we make sure our own intentions and motivations are well-placed, we know we can trust our agenda.

It’s great when a fellow blogger inspires me to get revved up on a topic. And so it is with Mary Jo Asmus’ series on the role that employees should play in helping their leaders improve.  Last week, in response to her post “Bad Manager or Flawed Human?” the discussion on her blog was lively.  She followed it up yesterday with “Dialog with Your Manager”.

Mary Jo feels strongly about this topic.  She firmly believes that employees must “own” part of the process—they must be willing to step up and give feedback to their bosses.   She writes,

“Many of us want to be able to turn to one another in our communities and workplaces with dialog that will further the healthy relationships that help us, our leaders and organizations, to grow. How can this happen if we don’t take some personal responsibility for addressing the behaviors of managers that harm us and ultimately destroy  “the greater good”?”

I feel strongly about this topic too.  In an ideal world, we’d all be big boys and girls and would willingly and skillfully engage in productive conversations for the greater good.  As I mentioned on MJ’s blog, we don’t, however, live in an ideal world.

So how do we move towards that ideal?  It’s a matter of helping people be willing and able.

Willingness: Assessing the Reality of the Threat

I believe employees want to help make their workplaces better.  The reality of actually doing something about it makes people nervous. It’s like there’s this big, gray unknown territory in between what they know should do and are actually doing. If employees’ default response is “it won’t do any good” to provide feedback to their boss, then they conclude that inaction is the best choice.  Perhaps they believe that “something bad” in will happen: the boss will yell or there will be retribution of some sort.  Speaking up is like stepping up to a dark abyss and deciding to jump.  Scary.  And fear doesn’t typically foster risk-taking. So first, we need to help employees achieve the desire to move from “wishful thinking” (“I wish my boss would…”) to actually engaging their boss.

Those of us in mentoring or coaching roles (internal or external, formal or informal) must help our colleagues assess how real the threat is.  I find that people often exaggerate the perceived outcome.  “I can’t approach my boss.  Are you kidding me? He’d blow a fuse!” Or, “No way, I don’t want to get fired!” My colleague Bob Anderson calls this “Makin’ Stuff Up”.  People imagine an outcome that is possible and turn it into something (in their minds, at least) that’s probable.  Then they decide not to act because they perceive that the risk is too great.

Questions to help evaluate the reality of the threat:

• To what degree are you comfortable approaching your boss with feedback?
•  Have you ever given your boss feedback before? How was it received?
• Consider the nature of the feedback—is it highly sensitive, or something fairly benign?
• What’s the worst thing that will happen? How probable is that worst-case scenario?

Even if employees are willing to give feedback, they are often unsure of how to proceed. That brings me to the second point: once employees decide to act, they must possess the proper skills to do so.

Ability: How To Give Feedback That Helps?

Even the most well-intentioned feedback won’t have positive results if it’s poorly delivered. Giving feedback to someone higher in the food chain is daunting.  Equipping employees with a few tools to do so  helps them have a “recipe” for what to say.  My favorite definition of feedback is: “Information that lets people know whether or not their actions had the intended impact”. By positioning feedback as “information” the feedback giver keeps the conversation neutral in tone.

People need to know the basics of giving feedback:

• Describe what you observed. Keep it specific.  Only describe something you personally heard or observed.  Otherwise, it’s just hearsay.
• Express the impact it made. Talk about how that behavior made you feel, or the business impact it had (increased mistakes, decreased communication).
• Ask for a change in behavior, if applicable. Say something like, “In the future, would you consider…”

Keep in mind that people have become conditioned to the phrase “I have some feedback for you.”  They may noticeably tense in preparation for what they’re about to hear.  That’s OK.  As long as they are willing to listen and the feedback giver follows the “recipe” above, the conversation has begun.  It may be bumpy and awkward, but it’s a start.

What’s Your Role?

What’s your role in this?  If you’re a leader, what are the ways you encourage feedback?  If you’re a team member, how do you work up the courage to give feedback to your boss? I agree with Mary Jo’s assertion that workplace dynamics won’t improve if we don’t talk with another and assume some measure of risk. The question is, how willing are you to step into the abyss?

Today is Thank Your Mentor Day, which is part of National Mentoring Month.  Who knew?  Over the years I’ve had LOTS of fantastic mentors, and this is a perfect time to give them a well-deserved shout-out. The list below represents my former work team leaders, company executives, peers and fellow entrepreneurs. Interestingly, none of them were a “formal” mentor to me.  I simply paid attention to their actions and their advice.  It’s served me very well.  In alphabetical order:

Deb Bailey—You’ve got to be willing to lose big in order to win big.

Janet Cortright— “Competition” is in the eyes of the beholder.

Sarah Gutek— Perspective is a valuable business tool. Don’t overreact to every little crisis.

Jack Hannigan— If your actions can’t “stand the light of day”, then you’d better rethink them.

Eric Hicks— Be elegant, not profane. It’ll serve you much better.  

Mary Urban Wright— Being a good sport never goes out of fashion. 

Who has helped you grow professionally?  Why not take a moment to let them know how their advice has helped you?  Send quick email, text or DM. . .you’ll be glad you did. 

Mentoring Resources

National Mentoring Month Resource Page

Inc. Magazine Article on Mentoring (Includes several reference links) 

Business.com Mentoring Directory

When was the last time you heard an employee say “Wow, the implementation of that new program (system/process/idea) was smooth!” My guess is you’ve rarely (perhaps never?) heard that.  There are oodles of reasons why the launch of a new system goes awry— competing values, unclear objectives, unrealistic deadlines, budget constraints and so on. 

Here’s another reason that gets buried underneath the more observable causes:  human beings’ reaction to change.  Many people trot out the old saw “people fear change”, yet so few rarely factor that aspect into their plans for introducing something new.

For example, let’s say that you’re a Vice President that has 250 people in your division and you need to announce a large system implementation.  First up: the project plan.  You identify key players and ensure that plan is created, with deadlines and accountabilities.  Then, you create  a communication plan.  Maybe you’ll hold kick-off meetings, or you’ll do a video download via YouTube or an internal video newsletter, or you’ll send an email outlining the plan.  If you have a really strong employee communication plan, you’ll probably also hold some sort of feedback session to gather input from employees.  To follow it up, you’ll enlist the support of your management team to reinforce the message via departmental meetings.

Whew!  The Plan is rolled out and employees are on board. Right? Wrong.

Here’s the deal: just because you said it, doesn’t mean they get it.  “But I communicated it several times and in several ways!” you’ll protest. Yep, you did.  But it takes awhile for these things to sink in.  So here’s what really happened:

The rumor mill kicks into action. In hallway conversations and via snippets of emails, texting and (gasp!) Twitter or Facebook, people talk. With each iteration of a person’s reaction to The Plan, information gets twisted and reshaped, sometimes into an unrecognizable form of the original Plan.  One of my favorite sayings is “In the absence of information, people make it up—and boy, are they creative.”   Whenever there’s a perceived information vacuum, people do indeed get creative—and, I’ve noticed—they tend to go to the extreme.  So if, for example, a change is announced in which there will be “some” new job responsibilities for X job title, it gets re-crafted into “my entire job is going to change!”

Notice that I said perceived information void.  It’s not that leaders fail to communicate, it’s that they underestimate the number of times they need to do so.  Call it the Ambiguity Factor— for each organizational layer an employee is removed from the decision-making, the level of ambiguity increases.  Leaders who are at the epicenter of the decision-making are much more comfortable with The Plan because they helped shape it. As leaders communicate the plan, they need to listen for resistance and lack of clarity.  Then, they need to act quickly to clarify misperceptions and offer reassurance when necessary.  Because if they don’t, the Ambiguity Factor kicks into overdrive and employees will don their creative thinking caps and create their own perception of reality.

I’m reading the book The Power of Respect by Deborah Norville.  She cites a very interesting study from the journal Motivation and Emotion. In this study, a group of researchers from Reed College in Oregon studied whether one form of praise was more effective than another.  The researchers used two different types of praise: “mastery”, which they defined as praise for specific skills that the research group performed during a challenge and “social comparison”, defined as praise for doing better than the rest of the group. The research was conducted with a group of 4^th and 5^th grade students who were observed completing a series of difficult puzzles.

Norville summarizes the research findings: “The children praised for their efforts and skill (mastery praise) were more intrinsically motivated— that is, they were more likely to do the task for the sheer enjoyment of the exercise.  The also tended to take on harder challenges than the kids who’d been told they were better than their peers (social comparison). As the researchers explained, the mastery praise ‘focused children’s attention on building competence rather than proving it.’”  Norville continues, “Mastery praise communicates the child’s accomplishments in terms of the talent he’s honed and the expertise he’s developed, lasting accomplishments that can be built upon and enhanced in the future.”

As a mother, this information is fascinating and instructive for how to praise my kids.  It also has parallels to the workplace. I’m wondering: how much does this research finding translate to adult workers? Corporate “score cards” that highlight company performance, publishing of sales results broken out by salesperson, and employee performance reviews all have a comparative elements.  Those of us in the performance consulting world like to call this “feedback”.  Yes, it’s a form of feedback—based on comparing one’s performance to someone else’s, or in some cases, a pre-defined corporate benchmark or standard.

Let’s assume that that the results of this particular study are valid and would hold true for adults.  Then the question becomes, how do we use this information to more effectively create a motivating environment for employees? This study looked at the effects of 1-1 verbal praise.  And maybe that’s where the learning opportunity exists—when leaders offer praise to their followers, it needs to emphasize the accomplishment of a specific skill. Perhaps the examples I’ve cited don’t translate, because they are more data-driven.  I’m not convinced, though.  Many people are driven to compete, be it in overt “let’s crush the competition!!!” language, or more subtle “Nah, nah, I do that better than you do” thoughts. How can we encourage people to do their own personal best, without introducing the element having someone else “lose” or be “less than”?  Is that inherent in succeeding, or can the two co-exist?

Would love to hear your thoughts on this one . . .

Not everyone’s a critic, but some days it sure feels like it. 

Case in point: in my community this year some very enterprising philanthropists organized a fantastic event called ArtPrize. The event opened September 23, 2009. In essence, it’s an art competition with an “open source” feel.  Artists from anywhere in the world are eligible to submit their art entry.  The venues are any public area in Grand Rapids, Michigan that chooses to accept an artist’s submission.  There are no curators or jurors. All told, 1262 artists in 150 venues are currently being featured throughout the greater Grand Rapids area for a two-week period. Here’s where the “prize” in ArtPrize comes in— the artists are competing for a grand prize of $250,000.  The “winner” will be determined by the art submission receiving the most votes.  Anyone can vote, as long as they register by showing valid ID. Votes are submitted by going to the ArtPrize website or via text messaging.  It’s a very contemporary take on the art world.

From where I sit, the event has been a phenomenal success.  Nearly 20,000 people showed up this weekend to view many of the entries.  Restaurants downtown ran out of food because they were so busy.  There’s been a palpable excitement in our city because of this bold and unique way to showcase art. Several of my business meetings this week have started with, “So, what do you think of ArtPrize?”

But it hasn’t been without its critics.  Comments I’ve seen in various media range from “total waste of time” to “putting a prize value on art is wrong” to “I hope that thing [entry positioned on the Grand River] falls into the river and washes away. No loss.” Sigh. Seriously?

Why are so many people expending so much energy on criticizing something that on the whole seems to be doing so much for our community? Sure, there have been glitches, but this is the event’s first year and those glitches seem nominal.

My hope is that the event organizers are able to sift through the various data points of “feedback” and be able to discern the genuinely helpful pointers from the vitriol.  There seems to be a dearth of one and an overabundance of the other.

Your thoughts?  Is social media is bringing out the critic in us?  Or has it always been there and now there’s just a more accessible way to criticize?