Constructive Criticism

Somebody comes up with a bad idea. So you criticize. If you have a difference of opinion, that's OK. But offering value, rather than just an ignorable opinion, requires something more. In order to earn the right to criticize, you have to show what the alternative is; you have to construct an alternative. Doing so constitutes the CriticalStyle called constructive criticism.

Don't just say something "sucks." Say why it sucks -- but don't stop there, either. Offer something that doesn't suck. This shifts the emphasis from the evil to the good. You can then be regarded as civilized -- and you might find it easier to bring people around to your point of view.

Is this always possible? Lets assume it sucks. What if I can't find a better solution? Should I just ignore it and not say anything? Or should I at least say that it sucks and why it sucks, and maybe admit that I'm not better at all because I don't know a better solution?

The problem isn't usually with the solution; it's usually with the understanding of the problem. If you say that it sucks and tell why it sucks, you are helping with the understanding of the problem. Or are you? Therein lies the difference between destructive criticism and constructive criticism.

To criticize is to judge (just checked Webster's). And what things are we truly empowered to judge? Can we judge the value of something to all others on the planet? When I say "it sucks" could I be talking about its impact on anyone else but me? If not, then it is helpful to make that clear. "I can't use this because..." is a more constructive form than just "it sucks", implying universal suckage.

It's usually very easy to take a statement that says "This sucks because it does X and doesn't do Y" and turn it around to say, "Wouldn't it be better if it did Y and didn't do X?" This is what is recommended in HowToWinFriendsAndInfluencePeople.

If you want to be really picky, you could argue that a "wouldn't it be better if..." phrase isn't actually constructing an alternative -- but it is phrased in such a way as to presume that a better alternative can exist and to point the way to it. The problem with "DestructiveCriticism?" is that it basically amounts to "well, this solution sucks. But so does that one, albeit for different reasons. And so does that other one over there. In fact, every conceivable solution sucks in some way. Everything sucks." But if you were to then say, "Let's give it up and go have lunch," then you'd be offering something constructive, even if off-topic...

{I'd suggest, "How about we look at doing Y and skipping X?". It's not using words such as "better" to imply a judgement, it's merely an invitation to explore. If you make it sound like a contest and that there will be winners and losers, then people go into "fight mode" and mentally dig their feet in.}

To criticize is to judge (just checked Webster's).

Is it ? Not in all cultures, and probably not even in all variants of English. I once heard an English scholar on NPR (American network of public radio stations National Public Radio) saying that English unlike other languages doesn't have any proper synonyms, and Thesaurus is only good as far as crossword puzzles are concerned :)

Well, then why don't you enlighten us and tell us what "to criticize" really means? Or are you just going to say that it can mean anything at all, depending on which culture and variant-of-English the reader is affiliated with?

I don't know why you are so offended, but in my culture to criticize is not synonym with to judge, not even to criticize implies to judge is automatically true.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=criticize http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=judge

And it's right there. "Criticize, 2. To judge the merits and faults of." To criticize is to judge. Q.E.D.

You are to quick to draw the QED. That means in some contexts it means 2. to judge the merits and faults of while in others it might have the meaning defined in (1) to find fault with, and in others it is an intransitive verb. Even in to judge the merits and faults of judge should probably be taken as in to reason about the merits and faults of.

Therefore your logic is flawed (I do like CriticizeBluntly, and just to check your ego). By reductio ad absurdum, if I accept your logic ("And what things are we truly empowered to judge?" ) it follows, - because judge is a substitute for criticize - , "what things are we truly empowered to reason about ?" (presumably none or very few).

Let alone the linguistic flaws, your logic is flawed as a matter of principles. It is absurd to say that any criticism that is not constructive is automatically destructive (I suppose destructive means bad). And it is absurd to ask to provide an alternative solution before criticizing an existing one.

You might say something that it is flawed or false, and I just have to say: Buddy, you are wrong because of these arguments, if you want to save your ego by arguing No, I am not wrong because you didn't provide a better solution, how do you dare to criticize me in these conditions ?, well, you're in big trouble.

QED :)

Corollary: ConstructiveCriticism is nice in some contexts, but to require it as sine qua non condition of any criticism at all goes against the CriticalSpirit and is a damn AntiPattern.

It is easy to criticize after the fact. It is much more difficult to lead someone in the correct direction beforehand. There is no value in telling someone he is wrong if he is already aware of it. There is even less value in telling someone he is wrong if he is not aware of it. Teach, don't correct. --WayneMack

Far above, when I said that criticize means judge (according to Webster) I didn't mean that it means that to you. I meant that it meant that to a lot of people a long time ago. (For the Wiki record, the conflict over meaning that ensued did not involve me.)

Criticism is about the discovery or creation of crises. Crises are turning points, more accurately to the language, "cut-off" points. Is it this or is it that? What are the critical factors? Those are the factors upon which a distinction (and a decision) can be built.

Criticism is distinction is decision is analysis. These exist coarsely and they exist finely. ConstructiveCriticism is distinction aimed a forwarding the movement, at keeping the baby while releasing the bath water. To discriminate between baby and bath water is to criticize, I should think. As the plug is pulled, so are the two separated.

Well, we are left with two critical problems. One is when you suddenly find out that you are bath water, usually because there's a new baby in town. The other is how to treat bath water when it has feelings. Maybe give it a chance to transform itself into something more desirable, like Perrier?

It's amazing how many words in the language are about separation. I came to Wiki to find that out.

-- WaldenMathews

I think that everybody will likely say and agree that constructive criticism is good. It's almost a truism.

However :

It ain't no SilverBullet. It is not the only valid or justified form of criticism in no matter what context.
It does have its pitfalls.

One pitfall, is that when you start constructive criticism you already decided on your own that the other solution is bad or at least not that good. You divert a little the discussion from the first solution being proposed, and thus you are one step from being condescending. You have to walk a very fine line when you are doing constructive criticism.

Another pitfall that derives from the first one, is that you might discourage the person from defending his idea to the end. What if you were wrong and his idea was the best ? In case you are recognized as an expert by the person being criticized or by the group, the first idea is less likely to have a proper defense.

In chess training ( think of it as a group meeting on how to do this issues ) this is a widely recognized pattern, as a mentor you first have to discuss all the consequences of the proposed idea, and only after you and the other person agreed on its merits, you look for alternative solutions. In no circumstances the student will face a constructive criticism from his mentor, because if he's wrong he has to understand why he's wrong, and if he's right he has to be given a chance to defend his original idea.

The third pitfall is that you might just start a two headed monster, for example : Solution A solves X0. Wouldn't it be better if we apply B so that we also cover Y0. No, because B doesn't cover X1 while A does; X1 is a lot more important than Y0. But B also covers Y1 .... This anti-pattern is very easily to reach if you do a breadth first exploration, and ConstructiveCriticism might help you do just that.

So in order to do some constructive criticism on ConstructiveCriticism I propose that a better variant would be a two step constructive criticism : first the group analyzes as extensively as possible the merits and faults of the first idea/solution, second the group jointly looks for alternative ways. So you don't have to rush with wouldn't it be better if ?. --CostinCozianu

: That sounds like YellowHat BlackHat GreenHat. -- EdwardKiser (fan of the SixThinkingHats)

I agree. When doing PostPartums and even requirements analysis, I always like to look at the current situation without clouding my mind with "how it should be." I only look for alternatives once I've identified the positives and negatives of the current approach. But I'm not a fan of ConstructiveCriticism as defined on this page. I fear that it will lead to a "my way versus your way" argument. --JimLittle

In broad strokes, ConstructiveCriticism is criticism that meets two goals. First, it provides information to the party being criticized, information of the kind useful for making improvements. Second, it reinforces the person's right to remain empowered in solving his or her problem, as opposed to declaring or implying the person incompetent. Criticism that fails to give information is bewildering to the recipient. Criticism that seeks to unseat the problem solver is frightening at worst, annoying at best.

In reality, purely ConstructiveCriticism is an ideal that's hard to achieve without being able to read the mind of the receiver, while nearly ConstructiveCriticism can be achieved without too much difficulty if the two goals above are kept in mind. We sometimes slip from providing information and provide opinion instead. That's not too bad as long as opinion implies the relevant questions. The empowerment problem can be much harder. Most of the debate we see is on this point. There's much good advice on keeping your message civil, but I have a warning: If your deep intent is to derail an opponent so that you can take over his project, you will not be able to constructively criticize no matter how much civility you attempt to inject into your delivery. So if you would be King, better take up a different study. -- WaldenMathews

Bravo Walden!

ConstructiveCriticism by one of the best: OrwellsParody.

ConstructiveCriticism works if the target is amenable to criticism. If the relationship is asymmetrical, the target of the criticism, (perhaps a King) may not need or desire to listen to the criticism. The community affected by the target has an opportunity to use CollaborativeCriticism to understand a King, and perhaps develop methods to level the asymmetry. --DavidForrest

I think that everybody will likely say and agree that "constructive criticism is good".

Count me among the small minority who disagree, then. What is the benefit to be derived from criticism, constructive or otherwise? Criticism comes too late, it is closing the barn door after the horses are gone. --WayneMack

Criticism of past acts might not be productive, but if there is hope that future bad acts might be minimized through discussion/analysis/criticism, it has a benefit.

Perhaps "Criticism" is a negatively loaded term, where some think of it as discussion, feedback, and analysis rather than fixing blame. --DavidForrest

SayItDirectlyButNotCriticizeBluntly is an implementation of ConstructiveCriticism.