Deconstructing the Constructive Criticism Form
Another bit of musing sparked by fandom, this time on the giving of constructive criticism.
I find it most apparent in fandom, but it also applies to real life, that most people simply don't know how to give constructive criticism. They think that by tacking the phrases "no offense" or "This is just constructive criticism," what they say is magically transformed into useful, well-written... thought. True constructive criticism is hard and despite researching into it, the template for how to give it still sounds silly and trite to me. So, instead of cribbing fill-in-the-blank templates, I'm going to deconstruct a sample of constructive criticism in hopes of amusing myself and others, and possibly being instructive along the way.
The condescension your comments ooze is top-notch, with the perfect tone of noblesse oblige, but it still comes off a little too earnest, too much like you're giving serious thought to what you're saying. Your trolling style could really improve by taking this sentence "There's a few random issues I've noticed on the above." and upping the ante, so to speak, with something a little more knee-jerk, maybe along the vein of "God, that sucked. Why don't you do us all a favor and die, kthxwtfbbq." Remember, when in doubt, always throw in a "wtf". But still, like I said before, the condescension? Wonderfully done, I can't emphasize that enough.
First thought: Yes, it's long. It's not a one-liner, it's not something that can be pounded out in two seconds, off to the next review. And that's the way it should be. Constructive criticism should be well thought out. If I want someone to take what I'm about to say seriously, I should, at the very least, take it seriously as well.
And now, for some compulsive colour-coding:
The condescension your comments ooze is top-notch, with the perfect tone of noblesse oblige, but it still comes off a little too earnest, too much like you're giving serious thought to what you're saying. Your trolling style could really improve by taking this sentence "There's a few random issues I've noticed on the above." and upping the ante, so to speak, with something a little more knee-jerk, maybe along the vein of "God, that sucked. Why don't you do us all a favor and die, kthxwtfbbq." Remember, when in doubt, always throw in a "wtf". But still, like I said before, the condescension? Wonderfully done, I can't emphasize that enough.
Blue - Positive comment
Red - Negative comment/Problem
Purple - Example
Green - Proposed solution
The form becomes "positive attribute, negative comment, positive attribute." Notice that the positive comments bookend the negative in what people who teach others to do this for a living call a "feedback sandwich." For the record, I hate the term.
The first positive statement does a lot. First, it puts the person on the receiving end of the coming criticism in a good mood. No matter how well we think we handle criticism, it always helps to be told something good first. It lowers the defenses a little. It also, in my opinion, establishes that the critic has paid attention, that the critic has earned some "street cred" as someone who has actually read/noticed what he's criticizing on.
The negative comment is also multi-part. It comes in the form of "Problem identified, example given, solution proposed." While the initial positive comment is mostly for the benefit of the recipient, to make him receptive, I think this way of phrasing the negative comment is useful for both the critic and the recipient. For the critic, sticking to the form keeps him on track. It takes a touchy subject (stating what you believe is wrong with the recipient/his performance) and breaks it down in a way that is constructive (hence the name constructive criticism, right?). Instead of spiraling off into dangerous "you're wrong/you suck" territory, it solves a problem, it doesn't attack a person.
For the recipient, I think the key to the three-step is the example give. Problems are easier to ignore/wave away if they remain nebulous. By giving a specific example, it allows both parties to examine something real, as opposed to an opinion. The recipient can poke at the example, can look at it. It may be that the critic is right, that the example given represents a problem. Or it may be that there's been a misinterpretation of the facts. Either way, the example given is where judgment happens, and knowing where helps understand why.
The solution proposed is another judgment call, and it is a courtesy. As a critic, I think it's easy to point out when something is wrong. As a recipient of criticism, I agree, but will point out that finding a solution (the job of the criticism recipient) is harder. Also, and this may just be a personal hang up of the engineer, in most situations I don't think a problem has been properly handled until a preliminary fix is proposed.
The key for both parties to remember is that a proposed solution is not a demanded fix. It's an option that the recipient is free to accept or disregard. The critic is not automatically right for offering it.
At this point, the critic should realize that his audience is, understandably, a little down. Criticism hurts, no matter now nicely phrased. So, what is a critic to do? The answer is, obviously, to return to saying something nice. The second positive comment may just be a reiteration of the first, or it can be a separate positive trait. Either way, the recipient comes out of the process feeling like, on the whole, they're not that bad. That they might have messed up some, but that they also did something right.
And if this sounds like pandering to the recipient, it really isn't. By ending on a high note, returning to the positive of the beginning, the critic is more likely to be heard and less likely to be dismissed. This paves the way for continued discussion and, if necessary, more receptiveness if later criticism is necessary. It's not pandering but building a relationship.
Lastly, notice the tone of the critique. Yes, I freely admit in this case that it's rather tongue in cheek, that the sentences in black would not be appropriate in a "real" critique. Still, attention to the tone is very important. Remaining cordial and positive is hard when you're essentially delivering bad news, but it will get you listened to. Condescension and holier-than-thou attitudes, on the other hand, will get you tossed out as a troll. I freely admit that this is where constructive criticism is most likely to fail, because tone is hard to convey through a text-only medium, and interpretations differ depending on the reader. Still, erring on the nice side of the spectrum helps, and finding the right tone for a constructive critique takes practice.
Now that I've gone off on a long ramble about constructive criticism, I feel like I should end on a disclaimer. I am not an expert. I do not give perfect constructive criticism. I have left more than my share of comments that are "thank you for sharing. This was great." When I do find something wrong that I feel I should address, I try my best to criticize constructively. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's a continued learning process, and sometimes just making the good faith effort is enough. Sometimes it's not. But there's no excuse for not even trying.
And, as usual, click the dragon fetus please:
I find it most apparent in fandom, but it also applies to real life, that most people simply don't know how to give constructive criticism. They think that by tacking the phrases "no offense" or "This is just constructive criticism," what they say is magically transformed into useful, well-written... thought. True constructive criticism is hard and despite researching into it, the template for how to give it still sounds silly and trite to me. So, instead of cribbing fill-in-the-blank templates, I'm going to deconstruct a sample of constructive criticism in hopes of amusing myself and others, and possibly being instructive along the way.
The condescension your comments ooze is top-notch, with the perfect tone of noblesse oblige, but it still comes off a little too earnest, too much like you're giving serious thought to what you're saying. Your trolling style could really improve by taking this sentence "There's a few random issues I've noticed on the above." and upping the ante, so to speak, with something a little more knee-jerk, maybe along the vein of "God, that sucked. Why don't you do us all a favor and die, kthxwtfbbq." Remember, when in doubt, always throw in a "wtf". But still, like I said before, the condescension? Wonderfully done, I can't emphasize that enough.
First thought: Yes, it's long. It's not a one-liner, it's not something that can be pounded out in two seconds, off to the next review. And that's the way it should be. Constructive criticism should be well thought out. If I want someone to take what I'm about to say seriously, I should, at the very least, take it seriously as well.
And now, for some compulsive colour-coding:
The condescension your comments ooze is top-notch, with the perfect tone of noblesse oblige, but it still comes off a little too earnest, too much like you're giving serious thought to what you're saying. Your trolling style could really improve by taking this sentence "There's a few random issues I've noticed on the above." and upping the ante, so to speak, with something a little more knee-jerk, maybe along the vein of "God, that sucked. Why don't you do us all a favor and die, kthxwtfbbq." Remember, when in doubt, always throw in a "wtf". But still, like I said before, the condescension? Wonderfully done, I can't emphasize that enough.
Blue - Positive comment
Red - Negative comment/Problem
Purple - Example
Green - Proposed solution
The form becomes "positive attribute, negative comment, positive attribute." Notice that the positive comments bookend the negative in what people who teach others to do this for a living call a "feedback sandwich." For the record, I hate the term.
The first positive statement does a lot. First, it puts the person on the receiving end of the coming criticism in a good mood. No matter how well we think we handle criticism, it always helps to be told something good first. It lowers the defenses a little. It also, in my opinion, establishes that the critic has paid attention, that the critic has earned some "street cred" as someone who has actually read/noticed what he's criticizing on.
The negative comment is also multi-part. It comes in the form of "Problem identified, example given, solution proposed." While the initial positive comment is mostly for the benefit of the recipient, to make him receptive, I think this way of phrasing the negative comment is useful for both the critic and the recipient. For the critic, sticking to the form keeps him on track. It takes a touchy subject (stating what you believe is wrong with the recipient/his performance) and breaks it down in a way that is constructive (hence the name constructive criticism, right?). Instead of spiraling off into dangerous "you're wrong/you suck" territory, it solves a problem, it doesn't attack a person.
For the recipient, I think the key to the three-step is the example give. Problems are easier to ignore/wave away if they remain nebulous. By giving a specific example, it allows both parties to examine something real, as opposed to an opinion. The recipient can poke at the example, can look at it. It may be that the critic is right, that the example given represents a problem. Or it may be that there's been a misinterpretation of the facts. Either way, the example given is where judgment happens, and knowing where helps understand why.
The solution proposed is another judgment call, and it is a courtesy. As a critic, I think it's easy to point out when something is wrong. As a recipient of criticism, I agree, but will point out that finding a solution (the job of the criticism recipient) is harder. Also, and this may just be a personal hang up of the engineer, in most situations I don't think a problem has been properly handled until a preliminary fix is proposed.
The key for both parties to remember is that a proposed solution is not a demanded fix. It's an option that the recipient is free to accept or disregard. The critic is not automatically right for offering it.
At this point, the critic should realize that his audience is, understandably, a little down. Criticism hurts, no matter now nicely phrased. So, what is a critic to do? The answer is, obviously, to return to saying something nice. The second positive comment may just be a reiteration of the first, or it can be a separate positive trait. Either way, the recipient comes out of the process feeling like, on the whole, they're not that bad. That they might have messed up some, but that they also did something right.
And if this sounds like pandering to the recipient, it really isn't. By ending on a high note, returning to the positive of the beginning, the critic is more likely to be heard and less likely to be dismissed. This paves the way for continued discussion and, if necessary, more receptiveness if later criticism is necessary. It's not pandering but building a relationship.
Lastly, notice the tone of the critique. Yes, I freely admit in this case that it's rather tongue in cheek, that the sentences in black would not be appropriate in a "real" critique. Still, attention to the tone is very important. Remaining cordial and positive is hard when you're essentially delivering bad news, but it will get you listened to. Condescension and holier-than-thou attitudes, on the other hand, will get you tossed out as a troll. I freely admit that this is where constructive criticism is most likely to fail, because tone is hard to convey through a text-only medium, and interpretations differ depending on the reader. Still, erring on the nice side of the spectrum helps, and finding the right tone for a constructive critique takes practice.
Now that I've gone off on a long ramble about constructive criticism, I feel like I should end on a disclaimer. I am not an expert. I do not give perfect constructive criticism. I have left more than my share of comments that are "thank you for sharing. This was great." When I do find something wrong that I feel I should address, I try my best to criticize constructively. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's a continued learning process, and sometimes just making the good faith effort is enough. Sometimes it's not. But there's no excuse for not even trying.
And, as usual, click the dragon fetus please: