You could answer the first point, but the second and third leave you stuck
You can still make sense of the first criticism. While you are listening to the second and thinking about what to change, a third arrives. Then comes, “Why did you do it this way in the first place?”
“Uh, uh, uh…” You no longer know what to respond to first. Later, when you look at it calmly, you can explain yourself. In the moment, though, the words would not come. After an experience like that, it is tempting to conclude, “I’m just someone who can’t think on their feet.”
But perhaps you can pick up on what people say in casual conversation, change an analogy halfway through an explanation, or ask questions with someone else. If your experience varies between situations, that difference is worth examining. One moment when you struggled to speak does not have to become a verdict on your entire ability to respond.
At the same time, you cannot conclude that “it wasn’t a lack of ability; it was my brain’s defensive response.” There are several conditions worth checking: nervousness, fatigue, sleep, preparation, the difficulty of the work, your knowledge and experience, and how the other person speaks to you.
Rather than starting with how to think faster, consider what combination of conditions makes it harder to answer, and how you might deal with them one at a time.
The hard part is not knowing what counts as the right answer
Feedback can help work move forward. “This is our objective.” “This explanation is missing.” “Fix this part first.” “Use A under these conditions, and B otherwise.” “If you’re unsure, check with me at this point.” Specific information gives you somewhere to begin asking questions, even when you are not entirely convinced by it.
The difficulty comes when “That’s wrong” and “That’s wrong, too” keep coming, without any clear indication of what would meet the requirements. You submit A and it is rejected. You revise it to B, and another condition is added. When you produce C, you hear, “Why didn’t you do that from the start?” It can feel less like being shown the right answer and more like a quiz in which you have to guess the answer in someone else’s head.
Requirements do change at work. If new circumstances come to light, revisions may be necessary. But when nobody explains what has changed or how the earlier decision should now be treated, the experience that stays with the recipient may simply be, “Whatever I do, I’m told it’s wrong.”
How harsh feedback feels does not, by itself, determine whether its content is useful. Some corrections are necessary even when they are delivered sternly. Conversely, including a necessary correction does not make shouting or personal attacks acceptable. What needs changing and how it is communicated can be addressed separately.
You may be trying to do seven mental jobs at once
While receiving criticism, are you trying to do all of these things?
- Remember the first point
- Understand the second point
- Work out which to fix first
- Read the other person’s mood
- Find wording that will not sound argumentative
- Clarify the extent of the responsibility you are taking on
- Decide what to do next
That is much more than thinking about revisions to a document. The care involved in keeping the conversation going and the decisions involved in doing the work are all piling up in the same place.
The function that lets us temporarily hold and work with information is called working memory. Imagining a small work desk in your mind may help make sense of it. But the desk is a metaphor. It does not mean that anyone has measured a particular percentage drop in your brain’s capacity in this situation, or established that all of it has been used up on self-defense.
A 2016 meta-analysis by Shields and colleagues combined studies that experimentally induced acute stress. On average, it reported a tendency toward poorer performance in temporarily holding and using information and in switching ways of thinking. Not every cognitive function declined in the same way, however.
This provides background for understanding how stressful situations may affect how easily we can think. It is not research that diagnoses the reason each individual gets stuck for words at work, or establishes that their abilities are not part of the issue. Rather than treating the experience as “my brain completely shut down,” it may be more useful to ask whether you can reduce what you are trying to handle at once.
Fill in the gap between “Think for yourself” and “Don’t go ahead without asking”
“Think for yourself. But don’t go ahead without asking.” “Check with me. But don’t ask right now.” “Get it to me quickly. But it can’t be rough.” When demands like these pile up, it can feel as though you will be reprimanded whichever way you turn.
Yet these demands are not necessarily incompatible. “Develop the proposal yourself, then get approval before putting it into action.” “I’m in a meeting now, so bring it to our afternoon check-in.” “First submit a proposal that meets the essential requirements.” Once those conditions are clear, you can choose how to act.
What needs filling in is the information between the two demands. What can you decide on your own? Which standards must still be met when something is urgent? When, how, and to whom should you direct questions? What work can you continue while waiting for a reply?
In research, not knowing what is expected of you is called role ambiguity. Receiving demands that cannot be met simultaneously is called role conflict. Rather than memorizing the terms, it is more useful to distinguish between “I haven’t been given enough explanation” and “These conditions clash.”
A 2018 study by Mañas and colleagues, conducted in a service company, reported an association between a workplace climate of unclear roles and lower emotional engagement with work and less cooperation beyond assigned duties. However, it was a survey conducted at a single point in time, and it did not establish that ambiguity caused those outcomes. Nor did it test every kind of contradictory instruction or the experience of going blank during a conversation.
Being able to ask questions does not mean never being corrected
Simply saying “I don’t understand,” “This part worries me,” or “I’d like to check something” may feel as though it will invite an attack on your ability or character. That makes asking a question a burden in its own right, beyond the work itself.
Psychological safety refers to a shared belief within a team that it is safe to take interpersonal risks, such as asking questions or raising concerns. Edmondson’s 1999 study of 51 teams in a manufacturing company reported an association between psychological safety and learning behavior. Again, this is not a guarantee that the same results will occur in every workplace.
Feeling safe enough to ask questions does not mean being exempt from criticism or responsibility. Welcoming questions and giving specific feedback about shortcomings in the work can coexist. Does the conversation end at “That’s wrong,” or can it continue to “What is wrong, and what do we need to check next?” That is the difference worth looking at.
People also hold back from asking questions for different reasons. Rather than deciding that “They stayed quiet, so they lack initiative” or “Nobody can learn because of this manager,” check whether there are actually times and ways to ask questions, and opportunities to show work in progress.
Break down what is still unclear into eight points
When the same rework keeps happening, try listing the following on paper or in an approved work note before searching for the right answer entirely in your head.
- Goal: What is this work for?
- Completion criteria: What needs to be in place for this stage to be finished?
- Priorities: Which of the requested changes comes first?
- Decision criteria: Under what conditions should you choose A or B?
- Interim review: When should someone look at it, and how far along should it be?
- Scope of authority: What are you allowed to decide yourself?
- Things to avoid: What must not be done, and which standards cannot be skipped?
- Decision-maker: Who makes the final call?
You do not have to fill in everything at once. Asking “Which one thing should I fix first today?” can make the next conversation more concrete. If things are so unclear that you cannot come up with two possible approaches, it is fine to ask about that directly.
Blank spaces are not proof that someone is deliberately making your life difficult. They may not have decided yet themselves, or the people involved may not have agreed on the conditions. Separate what is known, what has changed, and what remains undecided. This is a way to avoid treating every unresolved issue as a problem with your own ability.
Five ways to respond when criticism keeps coming
The examples below are ways to organize a conversation. They are not coping methods whose effectiveness has been guaranteed by research. Treat them as wording you can choose when it seems safe to use it in the situation. The point is to reduce how many issues you are handling at once, not to beat the other person with a quicker reply.
1. First, list what you have heard
“Let me put that in order for a moment. Have I understood correctly that the first point is XX and the second is YY?”
You do not have to understand everything before speaking. Start with what you have taken in. For anything you missed, ask, “Could you repeat the third point?” If you can show your notes, it may also be easier to spot differences in understanding.
2. Ask which point to fix first before trying to fix everything at once
“You’ve raised several points, so I’d like to confirm the priorities. Should I start by fixing XX?”
If you cannot suggest an order yourself, “Which one should I fix first?” is enough. Keep the list that helps you remember the feedback separate from the order in which you will act on it now. Check safety issues and matters requiring an immediate response first.
3. If you need time to answer, agree on when you will reply
“If I answer immediately, I may miss something that needs checking. I’d like to organize my notes before replying. When would you need my response?”
You could also propose a time: “Would it be okay if I came back to check this with you at 3 p.m.?” The point is to discuss time to get things in order and the next check-in, rather than silently struggling alone or putting off your response indefinitely. The example time does not indicate how long recovery takes.
4. Match the meeting’s scope to the time available
“Could we use these 30 minutes to agree on the scope, schedule, and check-in points first, and arrange a separate time for a detailed review?”
This is a proposal about the scope, not a unilateral announcement that certain topics are off the agenda. Agree on what to address now without skipping urgent issues or safety-related checks. Thirty minutes is only an example, too.
5. Separate decision criteria from permission to act
“I’m considering option A if the condition is XX, and option B if it is YY. Could we confirm those conditions and whose approval is needed before I proceed?”
Simply saying “I’ll change it later if it’s wrong” and going ahead does not mean you have approval. No reply is not permission, either. Obtain the necessary approval before doing anything beyond your authority, difficult to reverse, or involving safety, confidentiality, costs, or commitments to people outside the organization. If you cannot get a response, use the designated channel for checking or seeking guidance.
Keeping a record is different from continuing to endure it
After a conversation, you can keep separate notes of the date and time, what was actually said, the changes requested, unresolved issues, and the effect on your work. Write interpretations, such as “It felt as though they were deliberately making things difficult,” separately from the facts. If requirements changed, record what changed and when.
Handle work information and personal information only in storage locations approved by your workplace, and share it only with appropriate people who need it. This article does not recommend transferring it to personal cloud storage or AI services, or beginning to record conversations without permission.
If someone is shouting, threatening you, or repeatedly insulting you, you do not have to use these five phrases skillfully so that you can keep putting up with it. Options include prioritizing your safety and pausing the conversation, asking someone to join you, or using another manager or a trusted support channel. Not being able to speak up, or trying something that does not improve the situation, does not have to become your personal failure.
If the distress continues, you cannot sleep, or your work or daily life is affected, you can consult an occupational physician, an occupational or public health nurse, or a healthcare provider instead of deciding on the cause from an article alone. In Japan, Kokoro no Mimi provides information on support services and finding healthcare providers. For workplace labor issues, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare’s General Labor Consultation Corners are another external source of advice. Outside Japan, look for occupational health, healthcare, and labor advice services in your area.
Do not let the version of you that went blank define all of you
Perhaps you can speak in a calm setting, but the words will not come when criticism keeps arriving or conditions are added afterward. If that difference exists, you can look closely at the circumstances that make things difficult instead of ending at “I can’t do anything.”
You can both develop the knowledge and experience you need and review unclear instructions and how conversations are handled. You are not required to solve workplace problems entirely through your own efforts, either.
The next time a second and third criticism arrive, if the situation allows it, try pausing with, “Let me note that down. Which part should we fix first?” Rather than answering everything immediately, clarify the next single point to address. That can be one step from a guessing game in your head back toward a practical conversation about the work.
References (5)
- Shields, Sazma & Yonelinas (2016), “The Effects of Acute Stress on Core Executive Functions: A Meta-Analysis and Comparison with Cortisol.” A meta-analysis of acute stress experiments. Average effects must be distinguished from diagnosing an individual’s difficulties. Read the source
- Edmondson (1999), “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.” A study of 51 teams in a manufacturing company, reporting an association between psychological safety and learning behavior. Read the source
- Mañas et al. (2018), “Consequences of Team Job Demands: Role Ambiguity Climate, Affective Engagement, and Extra-Role Performance.” A cross-sectional survey in a service company, examining associations between role ambiguity, feelings about work, and cooperative behavior. Read the source
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Kokoro no Mimi: guide to support services. Information on finding work and health support services and healthcare providers in Japan. Read the source
- Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, guide to General Labor Consultation Corners. Advice services for workplace labor issues in Japan. Read the source
