Constructive criticism is a communication technique intended to identify and find solutions to problems in a positive way. Anyone can use the strategy, although professionals can provide more thorough analysis in many cases. It usually applies to work a person does, or to an individual’s behavior. People respond to the method differently based on their own experiences, preferences and psychology, but a good, well-timed delivery can make a person more receptive to the message.
Unlike general criticism that is negative, a constructive analysis, as the title implies, builds someone up. It identifies at least one problem and gets a person to think about what caused the issue. It also invites her to find possible solutions to whatever is going wrong. By promoting problem solving and self-improvement, it advances a person to the next level of behavior or achievement.
This type of analysis often is associated broadly with work a person does, especially in fields such as art. People also use it when they look at behavior. Although experts in a particular area might be able to give a more thorough analysis, it is not necessary to be a professional to apply this technique. Friends and parents, for example, use it to guide loved ones through tough periods or help them develop certain behaviors or skill sets.
Some individuals take constructive criticism too personally, reacting more with emotion than logic and allowing what others have said to hurt their self-esteem. These people generally miss the fact that whatever was said was meant with good intent. They typically are consciously or subconsciously willing to accept whatever the other person says as being the truth.
The opposite can happen, as well, however. In these cases, the advice gets completely rejected. Those being criticized become defensive, sometimes even verbally attacking the person or group that tried to help. This might happen because self-esteem is overly high, or it might happen because the individuals being criticized are trying to protect themselves against feeling bad. Another reason is that the recipient doesn't respect the speaker.
Ideally, when a person gets criticized, they respond with a balance of these two scenarios. They react emotionally to some degree, but they are able to use logic and to stay objective to see the elements of truth in what has been said. The next step is to self-analyze and develop a game plan for how to make improvements in the project, situation or type of behavior. Doing this requires the ability to identify at least some of the good, personal qualities or resources available. That, in turn, requires awareness of oneself and the environment.
How someone goes about delivering constructive criticism affects how receptive another person is to it. When an individual gets overly detailed and too assertive in the critique, the person being evaluated might feel overwhelmed and become defensive. The same thing can happen if the message is too loaded with emotion.
Generally, even though the person giving the constructive criticism should be able to connect emotionally with the person being assessed, the critique should be fact-centered. It should focus on just one issue at a time and start broadly, getting more precise as the conversation goes on. It also should use “I” language and be balanced with some positive points, as this is less likely to make someone respond defensively. Lastly, making an effort to use questions can help, as it gives the person being assessed a chance to respond, promoting solid two-way communication.
As an example, someone might say, “I’m absolutely loving the effort you’re putting into catching the ball out there on the field, but I feel like getting to the ball a little sooner would give you a chance to improve your technique. What do you think about your speed? Do you have some ideas on how to shave off a little time?”
The above message is effective because it offers some positive reinforcement first, disarming the listener. It clearly identifies that technique needs some improvement, even pointing out that speed relates to the problem, but the speaker’s use of “I” language keeps the listener from feeling attacked. The delivery also ends by giving the person being critiqued the chance to respond with his own thoughts, opinions and feelings. It puts finding a solution into the listener’s hands, making him feel empowered.
Therapists are one group that has to modify constructive criticism delivery slightly. They usually want to remain as neutral and objective as possible with clients, so they pay more attention to the use of “I” language and are careful not to introduce their own emotions or opinions. One reason for this is because there are legal ramifications associated with implying or giving directions outright to clients. Most therapists also believe that therapy is more effective when the client learns how to formulate and implement his own solutions to identified problems. Some clients are too emotionally fragile to accept much criticism, as well.
Even when people know how to use constructive criticism well in terms of phrasing and content, when they deliver their message is just as important as how they deliver it. If a person is extremely upset, for example, his emotional state might prevent him from truly absorbing what the evaluator has said. Giving the message soon after a problem is identified is also a good idea, because the more time that passes after a mistake or opportunity for improvement, the less relevant or urgent the issue seems. Those who offer these types of messages therefore have a responsibility to pay attention to the recipient and his circumstances to figure out if the time is right to talk.