Imagine you are in a classroom or a meeting. The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect. In your opinion, which of the following is the best thing to do? 

It has been a hot topic whether we should correct others immediately, tell them later, or not do anything when recognizing an error in their speaking. I think it is more plausible to inform them personally.

Regarding disrupting others’ speeches to point out their mistakes, it is not polite, and it will render them feeling embarrassed. Concerning the second method, ignoring the mistake, it is not viable either. Given that if no people correct them, they would make the same mistake repeatedly. Not only would they feel embarrassed when finally detecting the errors, but also listeners may even be misled by their false information.

Telling the teacher or meeting leader afterwards, however, is an effective way to tackle the situation. This is because people are considerably more apt to accept others’ advice when corrected in front of a person instead of a whole group. Take my experience of correcting my history teacher’s error after class as a vivid example. Last week, as my history teacher Mr. Lee taught us about the establishment of China, he said an erroneous date, 1948. I quickly spotted that but remained silence until the class was over. My teacher readily accepted this fault and clarified it to the class immediately, when I told him after class. Mr. Lee confided to me that he prefer to be corrected after the class in that such a minor mistake could embarrass him as a history teacher.

In a corporation, an employee correcting the leaders afterward is more liable to stand out in the workplace. Employers appreciate those workers who can find mistakes and are willing to correct it, because it is one of the propelling factors for an enterprise to improve; however, no one prefer to be criticized before the public, and supervisors are indeed no exceptions. Based on a research done by a group psychologist in McGill University, individuals who criticize others directly in public tend to leave a bad impression. Thus, it is better for workers to correct their managers’ mistakes afterwards when the meeting is over.

To conclude, considering that people tend to accept advice when they are corrected privately, and those who choose to criticize others in private are likely to excel among others, it is ideal to correct others afterwards rather than criticize them immediately or take no actions at all.

It has been a hot topic whether we should correct others immediately, tell them later, or not do anything when recognizing an error in their speaking. I think it is more plausible to inform them personally, which is more effective and help people gain advantage in workplace.

Regarding disrupting others’ speeches to point out their mistakes, it is not polite and renders them feeling embarrassed. Concerning the second method, ignoring the mistake, it is not viable either. Given that if no people correct them, they will make the same mistake repeatedly. Not only would they feel embarrassed after detecting the errors, but also listeners might even be misled by false information.

Telling the teacher or meeting leader afterward, however, is an effective way to tackle the situation. This is because people are considerably more apt to accept others’ advice when corrected in front of a person instead of a whole group. Take my experience of correcting my history teacher’s error after class as a vivid example. Last week, my history teacher Mr. Lee taught us a wrong date, 1948, of the establishment of China. I quickly spotted that but remained silent until the class was over. My teacher readily accepted this fault and clarified it to the class immediately when I told him after class. Mr. Lee confided to me that he preferred to be corrected after the lesson in that such a minor mistake could embarrass him as a history teacher.

In a corporation, an employee correcting the leaders afterward is more liable to stand out in the workplace. Employers appreciate those workers who can find mistakes and are willing to correct them, because it is one of the propelling factors for an enterprise to improve. However, no one prefers to be criticized before the public, and supervisors are indeed no exceptions. Based on the research conducted by a group psychologist at McGill University, individuals who criticize others directly in public tend to make a terrible impression. Thus, it is better for workers to correct their managers’ mistakes afterwards when the meeting is over.

To conclude, considering that people tend to accept advice when corrected privately, and those who choose to criticize others in private are likely to excel among others, it is ideal to correct others afterwards rather than criticize them immediately or take no actions.

It has been a hot topic whether we should correct others immediately, tell them later, or not do anything when recognizing an error in their speaking. I think it is more plausible to inform them personally, which is more effective and help people gain advantages in the workplace.

Disrupting others’ speeches to point out their mistakes is not polite and renders them feeling embarrassed. Concerning the second method, ignoring the error, it is not viable either. Given that if no people correct them, they will make the same mistake. They would feel embarrassed after detecting the errors. Even worse, listeners might even be misled by false information.

Telling the teacher or meeting leader their errors afterward, however, is an effective way to tackle the situation. It is because people are more apt to accept others’ advice when corrected before a person instead of a whole group. Take my experience of correcting my history teacher’s error after class as a vivid example. Last week, my history teacher Mr. Lee taught us a wrong date of the establishment of China. I spotted that but remained silent until the class was over. My teacher readily accepted this fault and clarified it to the class immediately after I told him personally. Mr. Lee confided that he preferred to be corrected after the lesson in that such a minor mistake could embarrass him as a history teacher.

In a corporation, an employee correcting the leaders afterward is more liable to stand out in the workplace. Employers appreciate those workers who can find mistakes and are willing to modify them because it is one of the propelling factors for an enterprise to improve. However, criticizing others before the public is not a favorable behavior. Based on the research conducted by a group psychologist at McGill University, individuals who criticize others in public are likely to make a terrible impression. Thus, workers ought to correct their managers’ mistakes afterward when the meeting is over.

To conclude, considering that people tend to accept advice when corrected privately, and those who choose to criticize others in private are likely to excel among others, it is ideal correcting others afterward rather than criticize them immediately or take no actions.