Call Attention to People's Mistakes Indirectly

Part 4: Be a Leader — How to Change People Without Giving Offense — Principle 23

“He called attention to other people’s mistakes indirectly.” — Carnegie on effective leaders

The Power of One Word

Carnegie illustrates this principle with a story about a single word that changed how a sentence functioned—and the effect it had was dramatic.

A manager was reviewing a new employee’s work. The work was good in many areas but had a significant flaw. The manager could have said: “This is good, BUT there’s a major problem in section three.” The word “but” acts as an eraser: everything before it is negated. The employee hears: “This is actually not good.”

The manager instead said: “This is good, AND I think section three could be even stronger if we approached it this way.” The word “and” preserves everything before it. The employee hears: “This is good, and here’s how to make it better.” Same feedback. Radically different emotional experience.

This is the essence of calling attention to mistakes indirectly: not hiding the mistake, not pretending it doesn’t exist, but finding a way to surface it that doesn’t make the person feel attacked or diminished.

The Indirect Method: Multiple Approaches

Carnegie describes several techniques for indirect criticism, each suited to different situations.

Approaches to Indirect Correction

The “and” replacement: Swap “but” and “however” for “and” wherever possible. This preserves the positive rather than erasing it.

The question instead of the statement: “I noticed this section reads a little differently—what were you going for here?” invites the person to identify the problem themselves, which is far less wounding and more likely to produce genuine learning.

The hypothetical: “If we were starting fresh, how might we approach this?” This lets people reconsider without admitting a mistake.

The “I wonder if” construction: “I wonder if this might read more clearly if the examples came before the argument?” This is a suggestion, not a correction—it respects the person’s judgment.

The process question: “What was your thinking on this section?” This may reveal that the person actually knows the problem already and has been waiting for an opening to address it.

Abraham Lincoln and Public Rebukes

Carnegie compares Lincoln’s early and later approaches to handling public officials who made mistakes. As a young politician, Lincoln would occasionally write or speak in ways that publicly embarrassed those who had erred. He learned, painfully, that public humiliation creates enemies and never produces what a private, indirect correction can produce.

In his mature years, Lincoln handled mistakes with extraordinary tact. When General Grant made errors during the Vicksburg campaign, Lincoln wrote him a private letter that expressed the disagreement obliquely: “I now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right and I was wrong.” He was acknowledging that he had doubted Grant’s judgment at one point—not accusing Grant of anything. The effect was to preserve Grant’s dignity while signaling that Lincoln was watching and cared.

Public vs. Private Feedback

One of the most important applications of this principle is the distinction between public and private feedback. Correcting someone publicly—in a meeting, in front of their peers—is almost always less effective than correcting them privately. The public setting activates ego defense in ways that private feedback does not.

Carnegie’s practical rule: praise in public, correct in private. And when correcting in private, do it indirectly whenever possible.

The Editing Example

Carnegie gives an example from journalism. An editor reviewing a cub reporter’s story could say: “This paragraph is wrong.” Or he could say: “I have a question about this paragraph—what source does this come from?” The second approach discovers the same problem but through inquiry rather than declaration. The reporter either produces the source (problem solved) or realizes they don’t have one (lesson learned without humiliation).

The second approach also has the practical benefit of gathering information before rendering judgment. Sometimes the “mistake” turns out to be correct and the editor’s assumption is wrong. Indirect inquiry protects you from the embarrassment of falsely correcting someone.

The Self-Discovery Principle

People learn more deeply from mistakes they discover themselves than from mistakes that are pointed out to them. When you ask a question that leads someone to see their own error, they experience a moment of genuine insight. They own the discovery. They are unlikely to repeat the mistake.

When you tell someone directly that they made a mistake, they may correct it—but they are also defending their self-image throughout the exchange. They are thinking about the correction, not about the principle behind it.

Practice: The Indirect Correction

For the next two weeks, when you notice a mistake someone has made:

  1. Pause before responding—do not react immediately
  2. Ask yourself: “How could I help them see this themselves, rather than telling them?”
  3. Try one of the indirect approaches: the question, the “I wonder if,” the “and” replacement
  4. Notice whether the person corrects the mistake—and whether their demeanor is defensive or open

Reflection

Think of a time when someone corrected you directly and publicly. How did it feel? Did it change your behavior? Now think of a time when someone led you to discover your own mistake—perhaps through a question or a gentle suggestion. Which experience produced more lasting change?

Key Takeaways

← Previous: Chapter 22 Next: Chapter 24 →