Rethinking Constructive Criticism
Today, I’d like to talk about the phrase “constructive criticism” and recommend that we remove this phrase from the lexicon of business jargon.
Several months ago, my dear wife Linda and I were chatting as the day was winding down, and the topic of constructive criticism came up. In a moment of philosophical reflection, she wondered why we continue to use this phrase because of its focus on the negative. “How can I be constructive and negative at the same time?”, she thought. “These two words really don’t belong together.” Since then, we’ve periodically revisited the subject in search for the optimal alternative.
Oxford defines criticism as “the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.” The same source defines constructive as “serving a useful purpose, tending to build up.” The conflict between these two words is clear and I agree with Linda that we should find an alternative phrase. “I’m going to criticize you, but I’m going to try to do it in a way that builds you up and doesn’t tear you down.” In my experience, most recipients of “constructive criticism” can see through the constructive sugarcoating and end up focusing on the negative.
So what’s the alternative? After thinking about this deeply as I’m whacking weeds with my fancy new EGO trimmer (see last week’s Muse), I believe the replacement phrase for constructive criticism is influenced by the relationship between sender/receiver and the depth of knowledge the sender has. In all cases, we should retain the word constructive, as our goal in human discourse should be to build others up and not tear them down. Here are two options for the second word in the phrase:
Feedback: I would use the phrase constructive feedback if the intent is to evaluate or to help course-correct an individual, team, or product/service. Here, there is the presumption of knowledge and/or understanding on the part of the individual who is sending the feedback. Said differently, feedback should come from someone who is a stakeholder in the value stream that is under consideration—feedback should come from someone who is close to the work or the issue at hand.
Observation: Alternatively, I would use the phrase constructive observation in cases where the sender is not deeply connected to the subject or subject matter. Put differently, if you’re an armchair quarterback or sideline commentator, you’re not in a position to provide meaningful feedback, let alone criticism, and are instead relegated to the position of observer.
So let’s reserve the phrase constructive criticism for those rare occasions where we have earned the right to criticize through experience and/or relationship—the bar for its use should be high and we should employ all our emotional intelligence muscles before we dole out constructive criticism. In all other cases, let’s speak of constructive feedback when we know what we’re talking about, and constructive observation when we’re a casual observer.
