Critique vs Criticism

[Steve]

In our instructor training, we are taught to do it as praise-correct-praise. Find something positive to say about what they did. Show them one thing they can do to improve it. Praise them when they do that thing.

I call that the "hug, slap, hug" method, and I think it's a pretty terrible technique. It muddies the waters. Either the recipient of the feedback never hears the constructive feedback because it's so well hidden between praise, or they learn to distrust your praise waiting for the shoe to drop. When someone is doing something you want them to keep doing, just give the positive feedback and stop. If they are doing something you want them to stop doing, give them the constructive feedback and stop.

At the very least, make sure you finish with the takeaway. So, if you want to start with a bit of fluffing, "Nice job, overall, Bob. You have a lot of enthusiasm." Finish with some specific positive or negative takeaway. "I notice you are doing X. Focus instead on doing Y." Or, "I can see that you're really focusing on doing Y. Nice job."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my day job I'm a high school art teacher. This is exactly how I introduce students to doing critiques. Kids at that age can be really insecure, so I begin with informal self-critiques.

I ask them to begin by identifying at least one positive aspect of their project. Then they need to discuss something they would have liked to do better and finally conclude by considering how they might use this information to get even better results on their next project.

The two answers that are not acceptable are 1. "My project is perfect exactly as it is and I wouldn't change a thing." and 2. "It totally sucks and there isn't anything good I can say about it."

The error of #1 is pretty self-evident, and for #2, I point out that if you look hard enough, there is something useful to be gained ....even from what you think is a total failure. After all, even poop is good for fertilizer.

....So it's really more than the "oreo" technique of just sandwiching criticism inside layers of praise. It's examining the good and the bad, and considering how you can use knowledge of both to improve. In other words, what you said.

One of the training companies I've done work for teaches a similar approach (so contract trainers can help each other out). They call it "LBs and NTs". You talk about what you liked best (including what you're planning to steal from them), then what they could do to be even better next time. As with your approach, when this is used to prep new trainers, the new trainer gives their own LBs and NTs first.

I think the focus on "next time" or "next project" puts the focus on moving forward. What they just did is what it is, now what can we use from that to do better in the future?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I call that the "hug, slap, hug" method, and I think it's a pretty terrible technique. It muddies the waters. Either the recipient of the feedback never hears the constructive feedback because it's so well hidden between praise, or they learn to distrust your praise waiting for the shoe to drop. When someone is doing something you want them to keep doing, just give the positive feedback and stop. If they are doing something you want them to stop doing, give them the constructive feedback and stop.

At the very least, make sure you finish with the takeaway. So, if you want to start with a bit of fluffing, "Nice job, overall, Bob. You have a lot of enthusiasm." Finish with some specific positive or negative takeaway. "I notice you are doing X. Focus instead on doing Y." Or, "I can see that you're really focusing on doing Y. Nice job."

I think the problem often is in how people try to implement the concept. Firstly, they often get over-focused on the exact formula (when the concept is really about making sure they know it wasn't all bad). Secondly, the "compliments" are often added as a softener for the constructive feedback. If the praise is genuine, then it should be automatic. And if the issue isn't part of something they did well, then adding some irrelevant or insincere praise just makes it all worse.

I suspect this approach was really designed to get managers to give some danged praise. It's easy in some situations to get focused on fixing things, and only giving feedback when something is wrong, which can lead to the folks getting the feedback feeling like you don't really appreciate them. If you routinely give positive feedback when things go well, that part is accomplished without needing this as a crutch.

 

[Steve]

I think the problem often is in how people try to implement the concept. Firstly, they often get over-focused on the exact formula (when the concept is really about making sure they know it wasn't all bad). Secondly, the "compliments" are often added as a softener for the constructive feedback. If the praise is genuine, then it should be automatic. And if the issue isn't part of something they did well, then adding some irrelevant or insincere praise just makes it all worse.

I suspect this approach was really designed to get managers to give some danged praise. It's easy in some situations to get focused on fixing things, and only giving feedback when something is wrong, which can lead to the folks getting the feedback feeling like you don't really appreciate them. If you routinely give positive feedback when things go well, that part is accomplished without needing this as a crutch.

When I was in the USAF decades ago, there was a saying that one "awshit" cancels out a dozen "attaboys." In sales, a similar rule of thumb is that people are likely to share outstanding service with one other person, but share bad service with 10. I don't know if there's any actual science to either of these, but they were widely shared pearls of wisdom.

In management, this same concept is that you should be looking for things that people do right and praising them for it as often as possible. I don't know if there's a ratio that makes sense, but I will say if the constructive feedback is more than 10% of your overall feedback to an employee, they will get the impression they aren't doing a good job. If they really aren't, great... sometimes, that's the look you're going for. However, if they are doing just fine, messing up the balance of good to bad can send great employees into a tailspin.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When I was in the USAF decades ago, there was a saying that one "awshit" cancels out a dozen "attaboys." In sales, a similar rule of thumb is that people are likely to share outstanding service with one other person, but share bad service with 10. I don't know if there's any actual science to either of these, but they were widely shared pearls of wisdom.

In management, this same concept is that you should be looking for things that people do right and praising them for it as often as possible. I don't know if there's a ratio that makes sense, but I will say if the constructive feedback is more than 10% of your overall feedback to an employee, they will get the impression they aren't doing a good job. If they really aren't, great... sometimes, that's the look you're going for. However, if they are doing just fine, messing up the balance of good to bad can send great employees into a tailspin.

I agree those ratios are probably more conceptual than anything. My experience (and what I know of basic studies that seem to relate) supports the concept that most people need more positive feedback than most of us give without thought, and more positive feedback than constructive (possibly because we, as a culture, don't get enough of the former in other areas). As with anything, there are people who are exceptions - both in what they need as recipients, and in what recipients seem to need from them. And they are just that: exceptions.

 

[Steve]

I agree those ratios are probably more conceptual than anything. My experience (and what I know of basic studies that seem to relate) supports the concept that most people need more positive feedback than most of us give without thought, and more positive feedback than constructive (possibly because we, as a culture, don't get enough of the former in other areas). As with anything, there are people who are exceptions - both in what they need as recipients, and in what recipients seem to need from them. And they are just that: exceptions.

I never know around here, but I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I never know around here, but I think we're saying the same thing.

I'm a bit sleep-deprived, so I may be babbling a bit.

 

[Diagen]

Are there real examples you can cite.

 

[mograph]

In theory, I think that the "start (this), stop (that), continue (the other thing)" might work if it's applied to more than one individual during the session.

Then again, describing the likely effects of actions might make it less personal: "if you do X, here's what's likely to happen. If you don't want that result, consider doing Y, which is likely to lead to this other consequence."

 

[drop bear]

I call that the "hug, slap, hug" method, and I think it's a pretty terrible technique. It muddies the waters. Either the recipient of the feedback never hears the constructive feedback because it's so well hidden between praise, or they learn to distrust your praise waiting for the shoe to drop. When someone is doing something you want them to keep doing, just give the positive feedback and stop. If they are doing something you want them to stop doing, give them the constructive feedback and stop.

At the very least, make sure you finish with the takeaway. So, if you want to start with a bit of fluffing, "Nice job, overall, Bob. You have a lot of enthusiasm." Finish with some specific positive or negative takeaway. "I notice you are doing X. Focus instead on doing Y." Or, "I can see that you're really focusing on doing Y. Nice job."

The poo sandwich.

 

[skribs]

Some of it is knowing the student, and knowing how much instruction they need and how much critique they can handle (both intellectually and emotionally). My typical approach after giving a piece of advice:

• If they follow the advice well, congratulate them. Then, maybe give them another piece of advice. I'll stop at that point, as if I give a third piece, they'll usually forget the first.
• If they improve, but it's clearly a struggle, congratulate them, and let them keep working.
• If they try to improve, but aren't able to, then I'll acknowledge the attempt, but find another way to help them.
• If they shut down, I back off.

With that in mind, let's use a specific example. I'm teaching a front kick. A student is swinging their leg around knee height. (Brand new student, either really young or really uncoordinated). I tell them to chamber their knee and snap the foot forward instead of swinging their leg. They're able to do that. "Good job on the snap. Now, I want you to do that, but bring the knee up higher so you kick above your waist." Then, after they do that, I tell them "Good job. Keep kicking just like that."

Notice what I did there?

1. Something positive. "Good job on the snap."
2. Something to improve. "Now, I want you to do that, but bring the knee up higher so you kick above your waist."
3. Something positive. "Good job. Keep kicking just like that."

 

[HighKick]

Some of it is knowing the student, and knowing how much instruction they need and how much critique they can handle (both intellectually and emotionally). My typical approach after giving a piece of advice:

• If they follow the advice well, congratulate them. Then, maybe give them another piece of advice. I'll stop at that point, as if I give a third piece, they'll usually forget the first.
• If they improve, but it's clearly a struggle, congratulate them, and let them keep working.
• If they try to improve, but aren't able to, then I'll acknowledge the attempt, but find another way to help them.
• If they shut down, I back off.

With that in mind, let's use a specific example. I'm teaching a front kick. A student is swinging their leg around knee height. (Brand new student, either really young or really uncoordinated). I tell them to chamber their knee and snap the foot forward instead of swinging their leg. They're able to do that. "Good job on the snap. Now, I want you to do that, but bring the knee up higher so you kick above your waist." Then, after they do that, I tell them "Good job. Keep kicking just like that."

Notice what I did there?

1. Something positive. "Good job on the snap."
2. Something to improve. "Now, I want you to do that, but bring the knee up higher so you kick above your waist."
3. Something positive. "Good job. Keep kicking just like that."

In you example, would you have also shown them what chamber the knee looks like, what snap the foot looks like, and what swinging the foot looks like, or would you just try to teach them orally?

 

[Praveeny28]

"Critique" and "criticism" are associated terms, but they have distinct meanings/connotations in multiple contexts.

Critique allows objective Analysis. It is a thoughtful and systematic evaluation of something, such as a work of art, literature, research paper, performance, or any creative or intellectual work. It is typically more objective in nature. It is used in a Detailed Assessment. A critique often involves a detailed examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the subject under review. It may consider aspects like structure, style, content, and overall effectiveness.
It is also used for constructive feedback. While critiques can point out flaws or areas for improvement, they tend to provide constructive feedback aimed at helping the creator or author enhance their work. A critique is not solely negative; it can also include positive feedback and recognition of what was done well. They are common in academic settings, art and design circles, and when evaluating scholarly papers or creative works.
Criticism is the expression of one's opinions, judgments, or assessments of something, often with a more subjective and personal tone. It may be less structured and more casual than a formal critique. It can be either negative (pointing out flaws or shortcomings) or positive (praising and appreciating aspects of something). Criticism can apply to a wide range of subjects, including art, literature, movies, music, politics, and everyday life. It's not limited to formal assessments.
It may carry more of an emotional or evaluative tone, depending on the critic's perspective and personal biases. While critique is often used in specific contexts like academia or the arts, criticism can be applied in everyday conversations and discussions.
The main difference between critique and criticism lies in their approach and tone. A critique is a more structured and objective evaluation, often with an emphasis on constructive feedback, while criticism is a broader term encompassing both subjective opinions and judgments, which can be either positive or negative, and may or may not be as detailed or constructive.