“You may criticize a friend in confidence, but you must praise him in front of others.” – Leonardo da Vinci – Italian polymath
Trust depends not only on what is said, but also on where, when, and before whom it is said. A correction delivered privately can preserve dignity while making room for candour; recognition offered publicly can strengthen belonging and show others which qualities a community values. The distinction is therefore less about politeness than about managing two competing social needs: the need to improve conduct and the need to protect standing.
That distinction mattered in Renaissance societies, where reputation was a practical form of social capital. A person’s prospects depended on patrons, collaborators, clients, civic connections, and the judgement of observers. Humiliation before witnesses could damage more than feelings. It could weaken authority, narrow future opportunities, and provoke retaliation. Conversely, public acknowledgement could reinforce a person’s place within a network. Against that background, separating correction from commendation was a method of preserving relationships while still permitting honest judgement.
Leonardo da Vinci’s notebooks contain related maxims, including the instruction to reprove a friend in secret and praise him openly.3,6 The supplied wording is best treated as a modern English formulation rather than a securely documented verbatim sentence from Leonardo. A recent account describes the circulating version as modern while identifying the underlying thought as consistent with his moral outlook.1 This distinction matters because famous names can lend borrowed authority to sayings that have travelled through quotation collections, translations, and editorial retellings. The attribution has a plausible textual connection to the notebooks, but the exact wording should not be presented as an authenticated contemporary quotation.
The social mechanics of private correction
Private criticism changes the psychological conditions of a difficult conversation. Without an audience, the recipient has less incentive to defend an image and more opportunity to examine the behaviour, evidence, or decision under discussion. The speaker can also ask questions, hear context, and distinguish a temporary error from a deeper pattern. In organisational research, criticism delivered privately has been associated with more favourable responses, greater acceptance of feedback, and stronger trust in the supervisor than criticism delivered publicly.10 The explanation is straightforward: privacy can signal that the purpose is improvement rather than degradation.
Effective correction is not synonymous with bluntness. It identifies a specific action, explains its consequence, tests the available evidence, and offers a practical path towards change. A manager who says that a report was careless attacks character; a manager who identifies an unsupported assumption, explains its effect on the decision, and agrees a checking process addresses performance. The difference protects both accuracy and agency. It also makes disagreement more useful because the recipient can challenge the analysis without having to fight an implied judgement about personal worth.
Why public praise carries further
Recognition before others performs a different function. It does not merely reward the individual; it communicates a standard to the group. When praise is specific and proportionate, colleagues learn which behaviours contribute to shared success, whether that means careful preparation, generous collaboration, intellectual honesty, or persistence under pressure. A global survey reported by the CFA Institute found that 72% of respondents expected corrective feedback to improve their performance, while also concluding that praise and criticism are complementary tools when used properly.9,15 Recognition works best when it names the contribution rather than distributing vague approval.
Public praise can also repair an imbalance that workplaces often create. Errors are visible because they interrupt work, attract escalation, or require explanation, whereas quiet competence may pass unnoticed. Naming useful work in front of others makes invisible effort legible. It can strengthen the recipient’s confidence and give peers a model to follow. Yet praise should remain sincere. Ritual applause, exaggerated compliments, or recognition given only to highly visible personalities can produce cynicism and make less extroverted contributors feel excluded.
Limits and objections
The rule is not universal. Some people dislike public attention, and public praise can embarrass rather than encourage them. Recognition may also create rivalry if one person’s achievement is presented as evidence that others have fallen short. In such cases, private appreciation, written acknowledgement, or team-level credit may be more respectful. The relevant principle is not that every positive comment must be public, but that praise should be delivered in the setting most likely to honour the recipient and reinforce the desired behaviour.
Private criticism has limits as well. Serious misconduct, discrimination, safety failures, or abuse cannot be hidden behind a preference for discreet conversations. Accountability may require transparent procedures, documented findings, independent investigation, or public clarification. Nor should privacy become a device for suppressing dissent. A leader who corrects every challenge behind closed doors may preserve appearances while weakening the organisation’s capacity to detect error. The boundary between constructive confidentiality and secretive control depends on fairness, consistency, and the recipient’s ability to respond.
From maxim to working practice
Applied well, the principle produces a disciplined feedback sequence. First, separate the person from the behaviour and gather enough evidence to avoid reacting to hearsay. Next, choose a private setting for correction, state the observable issue, explain its impact, and invite the other person’s account. Agree a measurable next step and return to it later. When praise is warranted, make it timely, concrete, and connected to a result that matters. Credit collaborators rather than treating success as the achievement of one celebrated individual.
Leaders should also examine power. Public praise from a senior person may carry significant benefits, while public criticism from the same person can feel coercive even when the words are mild. Research on negative supervisory feedback found that interpersonal fairness influenced whether recipients accepted criticism and how they viewed both the supervisor and the organisation.10 Courtesy is therefore not ornamental. It affects whether information is absorbed, whether trust survives disagreement, and whether people remain willing to speak honestly.
The enduring value of the maxim lies in its recognition that feedback has an audience even when the intended subject is one person. Correction is usually most productive when it reduces performance anxiety and leaves room for explanation. Praise is often most influential when it shows a group what deserves respect. But neither privacy nor publicity can substitute for judgement. The practical test is whether the exchange improves conduct without needless humiliation, gives credit without manipulation, and leaves the relationship stronger than a less careful intervention would have done.
References
1. Leonardo da Vinci, genius: ‘You may criticize a friend in confidence, but you must praise him in front of others’ – 2026-10-06 – https://en.as.com/latest_news/leonardo-da-vinci-genius-you-may-criticize-a-friend-in-confidence-but-you-must-praise-him-in-front-of-others-f202610-n/
2. en.as.com · latest_news · leonardo-da-vinci-inventive-geniusLeonardo da Vinci, inventive genius: “There are three classes of… – 2026-10-03 – https://en.as.com/latest_news/leonardo-da-vinci-inventive-genius-there-are-three-classes-of-people-those-who-see-those-who-see-when-they-are-shown-and-those-who-do-not-see-f202610-n/
3. Leonardo da Vinci – 2004-01-15 – https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci
4. Leonardo da Vinci, polímata: “Puedes censurar a un amigo en … – 2026-05-05 – https://as.com/tikitakas/salud/leonardo-da-vinci-polimata-puedes-censurar-a-un-amigo-en-confianza-pero-debes-alabarlo-delante-de-los-demas-f202605-n/
5. Praise in Public, Correct in Private: The Leadership Key to … – 2024-10-20 – https://www.tapmyback.com/blog/howtobeagreatleader
6. The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci/XIX – Wikisource, the free online library – 2017-03-02 – https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Notebooks_of_Leonardo_Da_Vinci/XIX
7. yandoo.wordpress.com · 2025/10/15 · praise-in-publicPraise in public, criticise in private | The Logical Place – 2025-10-15 – https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2025/10/15/praise-in-public-criticise-in-private/
8. Citation de Léonard de Vinci – Blâme ton ami en secret … – https://www.buboquote.com/fr/citation/5570-de-vinci-blame-ton-ami-en-secret-vante-le-devant-les-autres
9. 28 CFA Institute Magazine July/August 2014 – https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/sites/default/files/-/media/documents/article/cfa-magazine/2014/cfm-v25-n4-8.pdf
10. RESEARCH PAPER SERIES – https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/24394/Morris_Criticism.pdf
11. Quote of Leonardo da Vinci – Reprove your friend in secret … – https://www.buboquote.com/en/quote/5570-da-vinci-reprove-your-friend-in-secret-and-praise-him-openly
12. Towards a Better Measurement of Uncertainty and Risk – 2024-02-11 – https://mcl-associates.com/a_guide_to_shaping_productive_workplace_behavior.html
13. Notebook entry (c. 1500), Leonardo da Vinci’s Note-Books (1906) [tr. MacCurdy] – Leonardo da Vinci | WIST Quotations – 2021-03-02 – https://wist.info/leonardo-da-vinci/46064/
14. Balancing Constructive Criticism and Praise: Effective … – 2024-07-05 – https://performance.eleapsoftware.com/balancing-constructive-criticism-and-praise-effective-language-for-performance/
15. Corrective Leadership – 2014-07-01 – https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/research/cfa-magazine/2014/corrective-leadership
