A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways (Proverbs 21:19).

I've absorbed my share of attacks, through my years in leadership.  I've swallowed a lot of bitter criticism -- and rightfully so (seeing how I'm far from being a perfect person).  I've learned to turn my critics into my coaches and become a wiser, more well-rounded leader by regularly seeking to work with my "rivals" to identify blind spots and actively shore up areas of weakness.  These "learning opportunities" are not easy.  I have to actively counteract my desires to defend myself in such situations.  But I do it because I want to become a better leader and a better person.

But I've also learned, along the way, that there are some critics who can be won over by actively listening and engaging in a process of mutual edification -- and that there are some critics who turn out to be perpetually unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue and prefer to remain on the outside, taking pot-shots at anyone who thinks differently than they do.  And as nuanced as these situations can be (that is, they're rarely black-and-white instances of good versus evil), it seems that there is a key distinguishing factor in determining which critics can be constructive and which critics can be destructive:  their teachability.

In healthy, constructive criticism, dialogue is created.  Harsh opinions may be shared -- but there's also room for reciprocal questions to be asked, times of self-examination, ownership of any personal issues which may play into the difficulties, and the humility to admit that misunderstandings are possible.  But in unhealthy, destructive criticism, there is no room for dialogue.  It's only, "Shut up and listen while I tell you all the things that you're doing wrong."  If any questions are posed -- or if even the hint of exploring potential areas of personal ownership within any contributing factors is suggested -- then the leader is immediately branded as an inquisitor, a hard-hearted hater, and a bad listener.  If it's ever suggested that "nobody's perfect," the critic will jump up on a soapbox and declare how a leader needs to be held to the highest of standards (regardless of how double those standards might be).  In short, a wicked man puts up a bold front -- pretending that he is the righteous one, the prophetic one, the pure-hearted one.  But an upright man gives thought to his ways -- viewing conflicts as an opportunity for personal growth (as well as relational growth or organizational growth), admitting that he might not know everything that's playing into a given situation, and being willing to receive instruction and not just dole it out.

Unfortunately, it seems that there are a lot more of the people in the "wicked" category than in the "upright" category.  But regardless, a leader does well to accept all criticism with grace and humility.  If the leader also puts up a bold front in trying to combat the bold front being put up by his critics, stalements and sabotage result.  But if the leader is willing to give thought to his ways -- no matter how flexible, teachable, or humble the critic is being (or not being) -- he will benefit in the long run.