EP #081: Why Your Critics Might Be Your Best Engagement Strategy

A founder reached out recently about a problem. His company sells estate planning services to financial professionals, and every so often an estate attorney shows up in his comments claiming he's practicing law without a license. 

He wanted to know: should he delete those comments? Ignore them? Fight back?

I told him to engage - and to keep engaging as long as the critic kept responding.

Stop Writing Posts Designed to Offend No One

Executives instinctively avoid anything that might invite criticism. They soften their opinions, hedge their claims, and write posts so agreeable that nobody could possibly object…

…and those posts disappear without a trace.

Content that invites pushback consistently outperforms safe, consensus-driven posts because LinkedIn's algorithm rewards engagement - and disagreement is a form of engagement. 

Take the critic who comments "I completely disagree with this" - they're still signaling to LinkedIn that your post sparked a reaction worth amplifying.

I'm not suggesting you manufacture controversy or be abrasive for attention. Authenticity matters most, and if confrontation isn't part of how you naturally show up, don't force it. But if you're willing to state what you actually believe - even knowing some people will push back - you're going to get more visibility than the executive who writes posts designed to offend no one.

The Algorithm Loves a Good Argument

When someone comments on your post and you reply, then they respond and you reply again, that back-and-forth dramatically increases your post's reach. Let me explain.

LinkedIn interprets extended comment threads as a signal that the content sparked meaningful conversation, and every exchange pushes the post higher in the algorithm and exposes it to new audiences.

The estate planning founder I mentioned had been treating critical comments as fires to extinguish. But once he understood how the algorithm rewarded extended exchanges, he started seeing critics as opportunities.

An estate attorney who disagrees with his approach? That's a chance for three or four comment exchanges that boost the post's visibility to everyone else watching.

So when that critical comment lands on your post, you have three options - and only one of them actually helps you.

Deleting Comments Is the Worst Option

Deleting comments is almost always wrong. Your audience can tell when comments disappear, and it signals that you can't handle criticism. And if you delete, you lose the algorithmic benefit of the engagement entirely.

Ignoring is slightly better than deleting, but still a missed opportunity. The comment sits there unanswered, and you get none of the visibility benefits from an extended exchange.

Engaging with the critic is the move. Not defensively, not aggressively - just directly. Something like: "I understand where you're coming from. I don't agree, and here's why. But I appreciate you sharing your perspective."

A response like this shows your audience you can handle pushback gracefully. It often prompts another reply from the critic, extending the thread and boosting reach. And it demonstrates that you're confident enough in your position to defend it publicly.

Your Audience Can Spot an Angry Person

One thing that holds executives back from engaging with critics is fear that the criticism will damage their reputation.

That fear assumes your audience can't tell the difference between a legitimate critique and someone grinding an axe. They can. Think about how you evaluate negative Glassdoor reviews or Yelp comments. You immediately know when someone has a valid point versus when they're just venting.

Your audience applies the same filter to comments on your LinkedIn posts. A thoughtful critique lands differently than "this is unauthorized practice of law!!!" 

Most readers will recognize the latter for what it is, and your calm, professional response only makes you look better by comparison.

When to Walk Away

Engaging with critics works when the disagreement is substantive. If someone challenges your methodology or disputes your data or offers a competing perspective, that's worth a response.

But not every comment deserves an extended exchange. Trolls are different from critics with a real point. If someone is clearly not engaging in good faith - personal attacks, bad-faith mischaracterizations, obvious attempts to provoke - you gain nothing from extending the conversation. A single measured response is fine, and then it's time to move on.

The goal of engaging is productive disagreement that demonstrates your expertise and generates algorithmic lift, not endless arguments with people who aren't interested in actual dialogue.

From Threat to Free Distribution

Back to that estate planning founder. He stopped dreading those attorney comments. Now when one appears, he treats it as free engagement - a chance to explain his position to everyone watching while the algorithm amplifies the exchange.

He used to see critics as a threat. Now he sees them as free distribution.

—Justin

Justin M. Nassiri | Founder & CEO
M: 650.353.1138 | E: [email protected]
250 Fillmore St Suite 150, Denver, CO 80206
www.ExecutivePresence.io

Executive Presence specializes in helping top-tier executives boost their visibility, activate their network, and position themselves as thought leaders via our premium, fully-managed LinkedIn service.

Our unique process involves ex-McKinsey, BCG, and Bain consultants conducting monthly hour-long interviews with our clients, and turning them into impactful daily LinkedIn posts to establish their unique voice and authority. On average, our clients see a 500% bump in engagement in their first 30 days with us. Data is continuously analyzed to improve engagement and identify impactful messaging that you can use for conferences, podcasts, and internal communications.