Throughout our careers, there is always a hierarchical power structure in the workplace. Even if you rise to the top of the ladder, there is still feedback that you encounter about your performance each day. This can come from a scientific advisor, board of directors, grant reviewers, journal editors, etc. Too often, people who perceive themselves to be in a position of power offer nonconstructive criticism — and somehow think that this kind of feedback is acceptable.

We all deserve the highest level of respect in the workplace. Criticism of this nature is unprofessional and is never excusable. Unfortunately, there is often little recourse unless there is an egregious offense or exchange. Therefore, the best response is to manage what you can control, because you are only in charge of your own actions. Try to maintain your composure when receiving criticism, take a deep breath, and don’t overreact to the situation. Take as much of the feedback as you can, mull it over, and revisit the criticisms after some time passes so that you can try to make a measured decision about what might actually be useful feedback. It is possible that this person didn’t mean to blow you away with non-constructive feedback, rather they poorly communicated an actual shortcoming of your grant, paper, or study that can be improved upon. Before completely dismissing the comments, consider if there is a kernel of useful feedback within a poorly communicated package.

Focus on what is useful for you as you navigate your project and what you might want to do next in your study, manuscript revisions, or career path, and disregard the rest. By all means, you must disregard any explicit or implicit inferences that you personally are flawed as a scientist!

You control your future, not those who incorrectly perceive that they might.