Difference between defending yourself and being "defensive"?

[elpanadero]

Just something I've been pondering, because somebody at work sometimes gives feedback which is unfairly harsh, then labels people as "defensive" if they tell him why they think he's wrong.

Is it a tone of voice thing do you think? e.g. defending yourself is explaining calmly and rationally why you think he is wrong, whereas being defensive is getting emotional and saying something cutting in the heat of the moment?

I think being defensive is not taking anything onboard, as the person takes everything as a personal slight.

I think defensive is a knee jerk denial, which might include blaming others or dismissing the feedback. I think defending yourself is showing that you've considered the feedback and having a calm and measured response that acknowledges the comments of the person giving feedback. I find helpful phrases things like 'thank you for taking the time to talk this through, I can see why you think xyz. I wonder if abc...' etc.

What is the context for this feedback? Is this a line manager in a formal situation, or an annual review, or just a random colleague criticising other people’s performances? Appropriate response will differ depending on what the context is.

Yes, perhaps, though it would underline mis-use of the word in this case as he hasn't known people long enough to know whether they take everything as a personal slight.

A project director, under pressure to deliver, sometimes unfairly pointing the finger at his direct reports when things don't go according to his plan.

If someone accused me of being 'defensive' in this scenario I wouldn't have it. It would be a character flaw to accept criticism that was unfairly given and misdirected.

No way am I being blamed and scapegoated for other people. It's a sign of a toxic workplace where certain people just want to run the place to suit them and have management weak management believing every thing they are told . If I've fucked up and I know I have then fair enough.