How to give (better) constructive criticism

Constructive criticism from other people – even people who aren’t “experts” in an area – is easily one of the best ways to get better at what you’re doing. This doesn’t just go for things like writing, speaking, acting, etc., but for just about anything that humans do. If we can get timely, direct, constructive feedback on what we could do better, we get better at it. Period.

But one of the things that I’ve found over the last several years is that many people are really terrible at giving constructive criticism. Over and over again, I’ve seen people, when asked to give constructive criticism about something, give feedback that is entirely unhelpful. They give only kudos, perhaps for fear of giving offense. Or they give suggestions that are vague and unspecific. Or they give their feedback in ways that overwhelm, annoy or offend the person, instead of building them up to do better on the next try.

So here’s a quick primer for everyone who has needed to give constructive criticism (which I expect is everyone who isn’t living under a rock), to help you do it better.

Give some praise.

As I said above, responses that are only praise feel good in the short term, but are ultimately unhelpful for improving what we’re doing. Still, tell the person what they did right, what they did well. Show some appreciation for their efforts. They put the work in to do the thing in the first place, and they’re now asking for constructive feedback in order to do it again, but better. Give them kudos and some respect for that, even if the thing they did was a horrible, raging dumpster fire.

Pick a small number of things to point out as things that need improvement.

What that small number is will depend on the context and medium that you’re giving feedback in; if you’re doing a formal, written review, the number will be a bit higher, likely around five or six. If you’re in a more informal context, like an online course or discussion board, or talking to the person face to face, you likely will need to keep the number down to two or three. If the thing you’re giving feedback on is quite good, the small number of things might be the only things there are to mention; if the thing is the raging dumpster fire, the small number will need to be the things that will bring the greatest improvement. Don’t mention all the other things, that will only overwhelm and discourage the person you’re giving feedback to, and defeat the purpose.

Be specific.

Vague generalities about how they “always” do this are as irritating and unhelpful in constructive criticism as they are in marital spats and employee annual reviews. Tell the person exactly what part or what instance (or if it is something they do many times over, pick one specific example) and tell them specifically what it is that could be better.

Express the feedback as your personal opinion.

Because that’s what it is. You’re telling the person what YOU think would make things better; your feedback is not objective, it is not divine and perfect, it is not the ultimate final word on the worthiness of the thing, or the person who did it. Don’t pretend or word your feedback otherwise.

So for example, if you’re giving feedback on a piece of writing, don’t say “Your piece is too short. Make it longer.”, say “I think the piece is too short for the complexity of your topic. Can you expand on some of your points?”

Which brings me to my next thing to do.

Give suggestions, not directives.

Just like the last point, your feedback is not unbiased, and is not the ultimate and final word on anything. It also isn’t your name and your reputation that is connected to the thing you’re reviewing. Which means that the person who did the thing gets to choose whether to agree and follow or implement your suggestions, or not. If the person thinks that you’re way off base and your suggestions violate the spirit and intent of the piece, then it’s their right to ignore your feedback. Don’t pretend otherwise.

Give the best, most thoughtful feedback you can.

Even if you aren’t a writer, you can give feedback to writers based on your experience of reading other published authors. The same goes for just about every other kind of thing – even if you aren’t a producer or expert or professional critic, you can still think about what you liked about the thing, and what you found boring, what didn’t make sense, what seemed odd, what felt awkward, and so on. Thinking in this way and coming up with these good, helpful things can take practice, but if you just stop to consider, drawing on your experience as a consumer of things, I expect you can come up with a couple of things to say.

I’ve already mentioned a few things not to do, but here’s one more, the biggest thing to not do.

Do not ever make your feedback a comment on the person.

Only comment on the thing. The failings of the thing are the failings of the thing, not the failings of the person who did it. Never, ever word your feedback in a way that suggests otherwise.

Here’s an example to make it clearer. Do NOT say “You’re stupid about this” or “You’re being stupid here” or even “This is stupid.”. These are not acceptable phrases to use in constructive criticism. What would be acceptable are phrases such as “This doesn’t make sense to me because of (reason). Can you explain this better?” or “I think some more research is in order here” or even “I don’t think you thought this through well enough”. Each of the first set of phrases is attacking the person and shutting down possibilities for improvement. Each of the last set discusses the thing, not the person, and stays positive about the person’s ability to do more, and do better.

Much more can (and has) been said about doing constructive criticism better. But for now, if someone asks you to give them feedback on a thing they did, following these guidelines will help you do it better.

[sgmb id=”1″]

Big Patterns, in Math and in Life.

I spent some time tutoring a new student in math yesterday. This girl, like many of my students, struggles in math; as I started working with her, it became clear that she has a hard time remembering how to do specific types of problems, and often ends up stumped, or applying the wrong technique, which naturally results in a wrong answer.

After a little more discussion and some probing questions, I discovered that she wasn’t able to visualize a number line in her head in order to have an intuitive feel for the relationship between numbers, and she didn’t see and understand many of the large patterns in math processes, that make it much easier to remember and apply the specific steps necessary to solve a given problem.

This is, unfortunately, a common thing in my students.

But it makes me wonder – why is this so devastatingly common? So many of my students see math or chemistry or biology as a collection of entirely unrelated facts that must be memorized in a sadistic ritual that they must get through to be allowed into the adult world.

Is that how they’re being taught? If so (and I suspect that it is so) is it because their teachers look at the subject as a collection of entirely unrelated facts that they just happened to be reasonably good at memorizing, or is it because the teachers were taught to teach as if that were the case, and they don’t know how to do it any different? Or maybe a combination of the two?

And the big problem is that this is doing the students and the society that they will eventually be contributing adults within, a serious disservice, because not only does this make school tortuous and frustrating, it also discourages the students from ever going and learning things on their own, since their only experiences of learning are so horrible and frustrating.

It also means that as adults in larger society, they don’t have the mental tools to make sense of larger patterns. It means they don’t have the ability to look at the wide variety of data pointing to how our climate is changing and see why scientists are saying that this is a long term negative pattern that we need to do something about. It means that they don’t have the mental tools to look at the sweep of history to see how we got where we are socially and politically, and how we might change that for the better. It means that they don’t have the mental tools to see and understand patterns in their own lives of how they sabotage their personal or professional trajectories.

Because teachers only ever gave them unrelated facts to memorize, instead of showing them patterns and concepts that made the details understandable, and thus memorable. If they learned to see the patterns and connections, they did it on their own, perhaps despite their teachers, rather than because of them.

That’s why I try to do things differently with my students. Teach them the big concepts, the big patterns, the connections, the relationships, because by doing so, I’m not just teaching them math, I’m teaching them the tools to think at different scales, and go out to find other big, meaningful patterns that will illuminate the details.

I’m not entirely sure that I’m successful at this. But I sure hope I am, because we surely need people in the world with those mental tools, and those perspectives. Now more than ever.

[sgmb id=”1″]