7 Examples of Constructive Feedback For Managers

Call us AU: +61 2 8288 8000 HK: +852 3104 8606

7 Examples of Constructive Feedback for Managers – EmployeeConnect

post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-23272,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-title-hidden,hide_top_bar_on_mobile_header,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.1,qode-theme-ver-10.1.2,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.7,vc_responsive

7 Examples of Constructive Feedback For Managers

Whether were looking at improving performance in a sportive or professional context, receiving constructive feedback is precious. Feedback allows people to modify their behaviour to help them attain their goals. For a manager, giving feedback is a way to help employees reach the goals that they have been assigned. It consists in identifying the gap that exist between expectations and objectives.

Giving great feedback is an art form in itself. While not giving any feedback at all is certainly a top managerial mistake, not giving a constructive feedback is just as unproductive. If we stress so much the importance of giving constructive feedback, its in fact for a very good reason. A managers feedback can encourage or discourage, strengthen motivation or damage it. So what is it that refrains our ability to provide feedback in the first place? What does positive and negative feedback look like? And finally how should we proceed to provide valuable feedback? This is what were going to explore in this article.

Providing  feedback is an effort in itself, it simply doesnt come to us naturally. Although we do appreciate the work of our employees, we sometimes fail to verbalise it. We may think: What a great job did John do to complete that project!, yet forget to say it out loud. The fact of thinking positively about the work of our team act as a trick that makes us feel like we did express our appreciation.

Some managers are also scared to provide feedback, both positive and negative.

If I tell him that he did a good job, hes going to rest of his laurels comes from a combination of fear and belief.

She know she had a great year anyway based on a belief.

I have already given him a feedback on his work but was the message really clear?

And when feedback is negative, a manager can be scared of the reaction of his employees, not finding the right words to communicate his impressions,

We can highlight four main types of feedback that a manager can give to an employee. You need to be aware that each doesnt have the same effect on the person who receives it. Two types are particularly recommended because they are considered constructive for good reasons: POSITIVE + SPECIFIC and NEGATIVE + SPECIFIC.

Motivating (POSITIVE  + SPECIFIC) Maintains or improves self-esteem

Example: Mark, I appreciate the fact that you accept to put in extra hours to help us. We need to complete this project by tomorrow and without your collaboration, wed never be able to make it in time. Thank you!

Corrective (NEGATIVE + SPECIFIC) Maintains self-esteem

Example: I can see on your timesheet that you were in late three times this week: on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Each time your delay varies between 15 and 24 minutes.

Flattering (POSITIVE VAGUE) Creates suspicion and mistrust. Impacts self-esteem negatively.

Example: Hey Beth, youre the best! I know that I can rely on you.

Provocative (NEGATIVE VAGUE) Reduces self-esteem

Example: I knew from day one that you had weak areas.

Whats best than an example to demonstrate the effect of a positive or negative feedback? Imagine that Im your supervisor and I say to you:

Feedback 1:I dont think youre capable of undertaking this duty.

Feedback 2:Ive read your project and I expected something more consistent given your level of experience in this domain.

Feedback 3: I find that theres a flagrant lack of professionalism within your team.

How would you feel if your manager was to give you these feedbacks? Now, lets have a look at a revised version. Im still your manager, but this time I say:

Feedback 1:You will need to master control procedures before we assign you this duty.

Feedback 2:In order to move forward with your project, you will need to bring more details on phase 2 and 3, and add supportive  information.

Feedback 3:You will need to work with your team to ensure you are able to meet deadlines.

The more we believe in our capacity to accomplish something, the more we trust ourselves to do it well, which in turn increases performance. By giving a positive and constructive feedback, an employee knows exactly what they need to improve . A great feedback is motivating by nature. For example:

I have appreciated your professionalism during this meeting. Thanks to your preparation, you were able to dive right into the problem, offer two potential solutions, and back up your proposal with facts and statistics.

Your presentation was really engaging. It was well structured, had the right tone, and you were even able to make some jokes with the audience. Now if you need your employee to improve on an element, you could add: And with a bit more practice, youll be able to wrap it up within the ten minutes that are allocated, instead of 14 minutes.

The 6 Guiding Principles for Giving Positive Feedback

It makes a clear distinctions between results, actions and people

It is descriptive and not  accusative

It is prescriptive and provides actionable information

It demonstrates the trust we have in our team or employee and its capacities, even if theres nothing to improve on.

Especially when an employee has set a goal to improve himself, has achieved something outstanding  or out of the ordinary, or is in learning phase. Giving feedback is essential during the entire coaching and mentoring process. After each pre-defined action, whether its been accomplished or not, successful or not.

Whats important is that employees feel supported and engaged while having enough leverage to manage their own development.

Get HR news & tips straight to your inbox

94 Example Performance Review Phrases and Comments for Skills and Competencies

21 Examples of Personal Development Goals for a Better You

7 Examples of Constructive Feedback For Managers

How to Write a Meaningful Self Evaluation (Tips Examples)

Employee Self Evaluation Phrases Examples

Why Emotional Intelligence Makes You More Successful

How to Build High-Performing Teams Through Employee Training and Development

The Importance of Diversity Inclusion in the Workplace

Guiding Principles for Building a Successful Organisational Culture

How to Manage an Unmotivated Employee

Game Changing Performance Management Trends

Boosting Employee Advocacy with Employee Recognition and Rewards

Learn how your business can benefit from workflow driven HR software today

Why Emotional Intelligence Makes You More Successful

How to Build High-Performing Teams Through Employee Training and Development

The Importance of Diversity Inclusion in the Workplace

Heres Your New Killer Interview Question To Cut Through Someones Soul…

The Top 3 Soft Skills to Look for in Candidates

Its Time To Put Performance Reviews On Notice

Constructive Feedback in the Workplace

People, process and software working together for enhanced business results.

From Training to Enhanced Workplace Performance

Constructive Feedback in the Workplace

How you give feedback to employees impacts their motivation to perform and your long-term relationships.

What can you say to your employees and how can you say it?

Where can you give and receive feedback?

How can you bring out the best in your staff?

How do you handle difficult issues without inflaming the situation?

How do you respond to negative feedback yourself?

These are common questions, many of them reflecting frustration and fear of dealing with the hard stuff of managing people. But giving constructive feedback to employees doesnt have to be difficult.

Positive feedback, when you tell people theyve done well, should be easy. For example:

thanking people for doing a job well

commending them for solving a problem for you

discussing progress with teams and praising their commitment

celebrating successes when everyones combined efforts have paid off

This is the kind of feedback that everyone likes; the kind that motivates people to perform well consistently. Here are some more practical strategies for improving feedback at work.

Give feedback to encourage people to continue putting-in great effort, or to help them through setbacks, or when people lack confidence or skills. Respect people for the value of their time, their work and their commitment. Show your respect with words that make employees feel good.

Try saying, Youre right! when someone successfully challenges an idea or work practice. Ask, Can you spare a few minutes? when you need to interrupt someone at work. Then wait for the positive reactions.

A leader must remain optimistic at all times, but how can you convert negativity into something positive? When someone says, Thats a stupid idea! you could respond, How could we change it to make it more realistic? Try the ideas in our guide,2 Way Feedback, and then add your own.

Coaching is the best kind of feedback. Coaching is based on mutual respect, strict confidentiality and trust. A coach believes that people are able to change the way they operate and achieve more if they are given the opportunity and are willing to do something about it.

Questioning is a fundamental skill of coaching. A coach asks questions to:

Our book,2 Way Feedback, will show you how to ask questions and what questions to ask. Coaching strategies then vary according to the willingness and the skills of the person.

Avoid feedback that however unintentionally criticizes the employee rather than their actions. If you leave them feeling humiliated and resentful, they will be even more reluctant to change. You cant ignore the problem if something is obviously wrong, but there is a difference between criticism and constructive feedback.

Talking about a bad attitude is unlikely to be helpful because the person wont know what they need to change. Telling someone they are incompetent or lazy is a personal attack on their character and will probably lead to an emotional response.

Constructive criticism means starting from a different position. Your criticism should be factual, impersonal and timely. The value of changing their behavior must also be clear. You might say, This week Ive noticed youve been late to three sales briefings and now you want to leave early today for a dental appointment. When you behave so casually the rest of the team feel resentful and tomorrow someone will have to do your work for you. So what can we do about it? Now heres a chance for the person to respond.

Some situations may have you feeling anxious and finding the right words to say at that moment may not come easily. So, next time you are about to face a really difficult situation, try this four-step plan:

Prepare yourself checking facts and positions, dealing with feelings.

Approach the situation constructively using the right words that you have prepared.

Deal with excuses respectfully.

Make sure people can do what they say they will.

Do you listen when your staffs complain about a customer or a situation? Or do you dismiss their comments because they havent happened to you? As a business owner or manager you need feedback to find out immediately if something is wrong, or to hear what a customer has said, or if relationships are growing tense.

How do you encourage that kind of feedback? Listen to what people have to say. True listening isnt all that easy; however, our book,2 Way Feedback, shows you how to really listen actively listen. Try listening to your staff, actively listening, even though your schedule is full and business is frantic, and see how trust develops.

Negative feedback? Its a little like letting the genie out of the bottle and then finding you cant put it back. However, accepting negative feedback gracefully and gratefully is a skill of great leadership. Remember, though, other people may not know how to give negative feedback diplomatically, like you have. So take a deep breath and swallow your pride.

You may find these guidelines useful when receiving negative feedback.

Listen without interruption you may learn something of real value.

If you hear something you dont agree with, simply say, Thats interesting! and discuss it at the end.

Ask questions to clarify what exactly went wrong; what you did or didnt do.

Acknowledge what is true, but dont necessarily change your position you may have good reasons for your actions.

Before taking any action, ask for time to think and then get back to the person.

Can feedback really help to improve working relationships and productivity? Remember, feedback doesnt always have to be negative. Start by looking for occasions when you can give positive feedback and remember to plan carefully for the occasions when you have to give negative feedback and make it constructive. Try some of these ideas and see what happens.

Expert Author:Jennifer McCoyDipEd, BA, MMgt, MEdStud, ACC

Check out our highly practical communication guide for more high impact strategies on creating a culture of constructive feedback in your workplace. Download now and start using today.

Let us show you how to tap into the potential of every one of your employees.

Start creating a culture of constructive feedback today with the help of our down to earth practical guide.

Used successfully by business owners, managers and supervisors at all levels.

Is communication in your organization not as effective as it could be?

Check out our complete employee communication survey pack.

Includes fully customizable form and implementation guide.

Download our latest Product Catalogue

Quickly assess the health of the culture in your workplace with this easy to use checklist.

Criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

needs additional citations forverification

Please helpimprove this articlebyadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

This article containsembedded liststhat

may be poorly defined,unverifiedorindiscriminate

Please help toclean it upto meet Wikipedias quality standards. Where appropriate, incorporate items into the main body of the article.

is written like apersonal reflection or opinion essay

that states a Wikipedia editors personal feelings about a topic.

Pleasehelp improve itby rewriting it in anencyclopedic style.

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

(Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Criticismis the practice of judging the merits and faults of something.

, engraving byJulio Ruelas, ca. 1907

(in British English seeAmerican and British English spelling differences.)

One specific item of criticism is called a

Criticism is an evaluative or corrective exercise that can occur in any area of human life. Criticism can therefore take many different forms (see below). How exactly people go about criticizing, can vary a great deal. In specific areas of human endeavour, the form of criticism can be highly specialized and technical; it often requires professional knowledge to understand the criticism. This article provides only general information about criticism. For subject-specific information, see theVarieties of criticismpage.

To criticize does not necessarily imply to find fault, but the word is often taken to mean the simple expression of an object againstprejudice, no matter positive or negative. Often criticism involves active disagreement, but it may only mean taking sides. It could just be an exploration of the different sides of an issue. Fighting is not necessarily involved.

Criticism is often presented as something unpleasant, but sometimes, that may not be the case. There are also friendly criticisms, amicably discussed, and some people find great pleasure in criticism (keeping people sharp, providing the critical edge). ThePulitzer Prize for Criticismhas been presented since 1970 to a newspaper writer who has demonstrated distinguished criticism.

Normally criticism involves adialogueof some kind, direct or indirect, and in that sense criticism is an intrinsically social activity. Even if one is only criticizing a book or an idea in private, it is usually assumed there is someone who will be made aware of the criticism being expressed at some point, although who exactly will hear it, may also remain unknown. One is still engaging with the ideas of others, even if only indirectly. One can also keep a criticism to oneself, rather than express or communicate it, but in general the intention is, that someone else ought to be aware of it, however that may occur. Self-criticism, even if wholly private, still mentally takes the concerns of others into account.

Another meaning of criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature, artwork, film, and social trends (see the article links below). The goal of this type of criticism is to understand the possible meanings of cultural phenomena, and the context in which they take shape. In so doing, the attempt is often made to evaluate how cultural productions relate to other cultural productions, and what their place is within a particular genre, or a particular cultural tradition.

This section is about the origin and evolution of the meanings of the expression criticism.

The English word criticism is derived from the French

, which dates back to at least the 14th century.

The words critic and critical existed in the English language from the mid-16th century, and the word criticism first made its appearance in English in the early 17th century.

a judger, decider, or critic), and, even earlier, classical Greek language (

means able to make judgements, or the critic). Related Greek terms are

(to sieve, discriminate, or distinguish) and

(literally, the judgement, the result of a trial, or a selection resulting from a choice or decision).

is also the name of a pupil and friend of the Greek philosopherSocrates, as well as the name of an imaginary dialogue about justice written by the philosopherPlatoin the context of the execution of Socrates.

The early English meaning of criticism was primarilyliterary criticism, that of judging and interpreting literature.Samuel Johnsonis often held as the prime example of criticism in the English language, and his contemporaryAlexander PopesEssay on Criticismis a significant landmark. In the course of the 17th century, it acquired the more general sense ofcensure, as well as the more specialized meaning of the discernment of taste, i.e. the art of estimating the qualities and character of literary or artistic works, implicitly from the point of view of a consumer.

To be critical meant, positively, to have good, informed judgement about matters of culture (to be cultivated, to be a man or woman of distinction), but negatively it could also refer to the (unreasonable) rejection or (unfair) treatment of some outside group (to be critical of them). Derivatively, a criticism also referred to a nice point or a distinction, a tiny detail, a pedantic nicety, a subtlety, or a quibble (the sense of what today is called a minor criticism). Often criticism was governed by very strict cultural rules of politeness, propriety and decency, and there could be immediate penalties if the wrong words were said or written down (in 17th century England, more than half of men and about three-quarters of women could not read or write).

In the 19th century, criticism also gained the philosophical meaning of a critical examination of the faculty of knowledge, particularly in the sense used byImmanuel Kant. (SeeOxford English Dictionary). Such criticism was carried out mainly by academic authorities, businessmen and men of property with the leisure to devote themselves to the pursuit of knowledge.

In the 20th century, all these meanings continued, but criticism acquired the more general connotation of voicing an objection, or of appraising the pros and cons of something.

The shape and meanings of criticism were influenced considerably by wars (including two world wars) occurring almost continuously somewhere in the world.

With the growth of specializations in thedivision of labour, and the growth oftertiary education, innumerable different branches of criticism emerged with their own rules and specialized technical meanings.

Philosophers such asKarl PopperandImre Lakatoshave popularized the idea that criticism is a

part of scientific activity. Relatedly, scientific criticism has become a standard expression, just as much as literary criticism.

Gradually it was accepted that criticism is a

process in a democratic society, rather than a sign of inadequacy, or something that should be strictly controlled or repressed.

From the 1970s onward, under the influence ofneo-Marxismcritical theoryandMichel Foucault, it became fashionable in the English-speaking academic social sciences and humanities to use the French wordcritique, instead of the ordinary criticism. The suggestion is that there is adifferencebetween the two terms, but what exactly it is, is often not altogether clear. Often the connotation is that if a deliberation is a critique and not just a criticism, then there is a lot of extra thought and profound meaning behind what is being said. A critique in the modern sense is normally understood as asystematiccriticism, a critical essay, or the critical appraisal of adiscourse(or parts of a discourse). Thus, many academic papers came to be titled or subtitled a critique. From the 1970s, English-speaking academics and journalists also began to use the word critique not only as anoun, but as averb(e.g. I have critiqued the idea, instead of I have criticized the idea). What is often implied is, that critiqueing goes deeper into the issue, or is more complete, than criticizing, possibly because the specialist criteria of a particular discipline are being applied.

From the 1990s, the popular meanings of the word criticism have started to evolve more strongly toward having an objection, expressing dissent, stating a dislike, wanting to dissociate from something, or rejecting something (If you liked it, you would not be criticizing it). In the contemporary sense, criticism is often more the expression of an attitude, where the object of criticism may only be vaguely defined. For example, somebody unlikes something onFacebookor unfriends somebody.

In general, there is less money in literary criticism, while it has become easier for anyone to publish anything at a very low cost on the Internet without necessarily being vetted through critically by others.

Professionally, what it means to criticize has become a much more

matter, where inside knowledge is required to understand the criticism truly; this development is linked to the circumstance, that the

(appropriate use) of criticism, is regarded nowadays much more as depending on ones

, or on the context of the situation (I would like to say something, but I am not in a position to criticize).

Because many more people are able to travel to, or have contact with, worlds completely different from their own, new problems are created of how to

criticisms and their limitations, how to put everything into meaningful proportion. This affects what a criticism is understood to be, or to mean, and what its overall significance is thought to be.

Digital information technology and telecommunications have begun to change drastically the ways people have for getting attention, or for being taken seriously. In turn, this has begun to change the ways people have for

With more possibilities for sophisticated expression, criticism has tended to become more layered. Beneath the observable surface presentation of criticism, which is freely advertised, there are often additional layers of deeper criticism. These are not directly accessible, because they require additional information, or insight into additional meanings. To gain access to the whole story about a criticism, and not just part of the story, may be conditional on fulfilling certain entry requirements (if you dont have the ticket, you dont get the knowledge).

Together with the ability to make finer distinctions of meaning with the aid of digital equipment, the possibilities forambiguityin criticism have increased: is a criticism being implied, or is it not, and if so, what exactly is the criticism? It can take more effort to unravel the full story.

directed toward a person or an animal; at a group, authority or organization; at a specific behaviour; or at an object of some kind (an idea, a relationship, a condition, a process, or a thing).

personal (delivered directly from one person to another, in a personal capacity), or impersonal (expressing the view of an organization, and not aimed at anyone personally).

highly specific and detailed, or very abstract and general.

verbal (expressed in language) or non-verbal (expressed symbolically, or expressed through an action or a way of behaving).

explicit (the criticism is clearly stated) or implicit (a criticism is implied by what is being said, but it is not stated openly).

Different kinds of criticisms can be distinguished as types using the following criteria:

from which the criticism is made (in what framework, from what angle or perspective is the criticism made).

of criticism, what it consists of (what is the criticism).

, motive, use or function of criticism (why is the criticism being raised, what is its aim).

of criticism, language used or medium of expression (in what style or format is the criticism presented).

, transmission or communication for the criticism (how, or by what means, is the criticism conveyed).

or the source making the criticism (from whom criticism originates).

or object of the criticism (criticism of whom or criticism of what).

, place, setting or situation for the criticism (where is the criticism being made).

or audience of the criticism, intended or unintended (criticism directed or addressed to where or to whom).

In dealing with criticisms, usually the most important aspects are who makes the criticism, what the criticism is about, and what or whom it is aimed at. It can also make a big difference though whether a criticism is e.g. communicated in person, or whether it is communicated with a letter or telephone message.

For an overview of criticisms from particular political or philosophical perspectives, seeVarieties of criticism. For subject-specific information, see the critical pages onartfilmliteraturetheatre, orarchitecture.

In general, the psychology of criticism studies the cognitive and emotional effects of criticism, the behavioral characteristics of criticism, and its influence on how people are reacting.

The psychology of criticism is primarily concerned with:

, purpose or intent which people have for making criticisms healthy or unhealthy.

of criticism for the self, and for others positive or negative.

which criticism has on other people good or bad.

to criticisms, or cope with them negatively or positively.

of criticism required to achieve the desired effect or outcome.

in which criticisms are delivered effective or ineffective.

to give and receive criticism successfully.

Parents, teachers, lawyers, managers and politicians are often concerned with these issues, because it can make a great deal of difference to how problems are tackled and resolved.

The motivation as well as the effect of criticism may be rational, or it may be non-rational or arbitrary; it may be healthy or unhealthy.

When psychologists study criticism as a type of human behavior, they do not usually study it in general such a general study is often considered to be more aphilosophicalconcern. Psychologists usually study it in specific contexts and situations. The reason is partly technical (it is difficult to construct and prove universal generalizations about criticism as a human behavior) and partly practical (it is more useful to understand particular behaviors which are of direct practical concern).

The most basic rule-of-thumb of criticism which psychologists usually recommend is:

The thought behind this basic norm for criticism is:

If individuals are attacked for their personal characteristics (for being who they are) it may be impossible for them to change, therefore making the criticism useless.

If it is not actually clear what the person

, the criticism may miss the mark. By concentrating clearly and only on observation of what the individual as a matter of fact

, it is less likely, that the criticism will be misplaced, confused or misinterpreted; it is less likely, that the person being criticized is being misunderstood. It would be unfair and unjust, not to say irrelevant, to criticize people for something they have not actually done. It would be a false accusation.

Inversely, if the individuals are respected with a bit of humor, and due credit is given to their positive intentions as human beings, it is vastly more likely that the criticism will be understood, and taken seriously. And if the criticism is clearly directed only to what people actually do that is wrong, instead of who they are, it creates possibilities, options and choices for doing something different and better. They cant change who they are, but they can change their actions. Because peoples sense of dignity is secure in this case, they are better able to respond to the criticism, and indeed do something about it.

The critics may just want to provoke or vent a bit of hostility, but it might backfire, because the people criticized may make a nasty response. The nasty response may prove to the critics, that the criticism was justified, but the critics have brought this on themselves, they have produced their own nastiness. It is easy to do, but may be difficult to live with. In the process, the whole point of the criticism may be lost all that happens is, that there is a quarrel between people who just vent their hostility. This is very unlikely to produce any solution that all concerned can live with.

The basic psychological rule of criticism assumes that people want to use criticism to achieve animprovement, usually in good faith (bona fide). It assumes the critic has a positive intention in making the criticism. The rule may not make much sense if there is an all-out war going on, where the opposition is just trying to destroy and discredit the target as much as possible, using almost any means they can find. Nevertheless, psychologists recommend to respond by attacking what the opponents actuallydo, notwho they are. That way, the critic cannot be accused of unfair or prejudiced treatment of others.

The basic rule is not always easy to apply.

It may be difficult to have respect for somebody who is the target of criticism, especially if there is a history of grievances.

as though people are being respected, but in reality (if you understand the full meaning) they are being

. It might look formally like they are treated as equals, but in reality (informally speaking, practically and substantively) they are being denigrated.

It may be difficult to consider the action which is being criticized, in its own right,

from the person (only you could do something awful like this to me).

Consequently, psychologists often recommend that before a criticism is being stated to a person, the critic should try to get intorapportwith the person being criticized (get in sync with the other person, on the same wavelength). If that is not possible (because they are enemies), the best thing may be not to express the criticism at all, or get a mediator. It may take considerable strategy in order to find a way of making a criticism, so that it really hits home. Rather than shooting their mouth off, it may be wise if people say nothing, until the right time and place arrives to make the criticism.

One problem at thereceivingend is that a criticism may be taken more seriously than it really merits, or that it is taken too personally, even though that was not the intention of the critic. Criticisms are often voiced without knowing exactly what the response will be. It may be that this problem cannot be entirely removed; the best one can do is to judge, on the basis of experience, what would be the most likely effect of the criticism, and communicate the criticism as well as one can.

Another sort of problem is the limitedattention spanof individuals. To express a criticism may require detailed explanation or clarification; it presupposes that the knowledge exists to understand what it is about, and that people are willing to listen. That takes time, and the time may not be available, or people are reluctant to take the time. This can get in the way of the mutual respect required. It may be possible to overcome this problem only by formulating the criticism as briefly as possible, and communicate it in a form which takes the least time to understand it. Failing that, people must make time to discuss the criticism. It can take considerable effort to create the situation in which the criticism will be heard.

Theexceptionto the basic psychological rule consists of cases where, it is argued, the individuals and their behaviorscannot be distinguished. This would be the case, for example, if the criticism itself consisted of being there (intruding, trespassing, causing property damage), or not being there (non-response).

In some cases people deliberately seek loopholes in the ordinary rules and channels for criticism, in order to make a criticism which, although strictly not illegal, may have a malicious intention, or offends the target of the criticism. That can cause the ordinary consideration which people have for others to be abandoned. What is legitimate and illegitimate criticism is not always easy to establish, and there may be grey areas in the law. It is rarely possible to make rules for every detail of what people may or may not do. The law itself can also be contested with criticism, if it is perceived as unfair. Nevertheless, the courts usually draw the line somewhere.3

The ability to criticize is something which rarely occurs naturally; it must be learnt. Good critics exhibit several kinds of qualities:

: critics should clearly understand

: critics should be emotionally confident and morally comfortable, both about making a criticism, and about dealing with the response to criticism.

: critics should be willing to question authority, popular opinion, and assumptions.

: critics should research the subject of their criticism to maintain the factual integrity of their criticism.

: critics should choose and apply the correct kind of criticism to an issue, so that the criticism will be balanced, complete and persuasive. Critics require adequate skills in reasoning, research, and communication.

: critics should remain consistent and honest before, during, and after a criticism is expressed.

These qualities are learned through practical experience in which people have a dialogue or debate and give each other feedback. Often, teachers can design assignments specifically to stimulate students to acquire these qualities. But the facility for critical thought usually requires some personal initiative. There are plenty of lazy critics, but one must work hard to be a good critic. The lazy critic is soon forgotten, but a good critic is remembered for years.

With criticism it is always important to keep things in proportion, neither overdoing things, nor being too timid.

People can be too critical, but they can also be insufficiently critical. It is important to strike a good balance: to be neither excessively critical nor completely uncritical.

and focus only on the downside or limitation of things run into the problem that others perceive them as being too negative, and lacking a constructive attitude. If there is too much criticism, it gets in the way of getting anything done people are just anti, but it does not lead anywhere.

, however, are often regarded as naive and superficial (suckers); they lack discernment, they are prone to being deceived and tricked, because they readily believe all kinds of things, which they should not accept just like that, for their own good. If they thought more critically, they would not give in so easily to what others say or do. The idea here is that one should not be so open-minded that ones brains fall out.

An important reason why balanced criticism is desirable is, that if things get totally out of proportion, the critics or their targets can lose their balance themselves. Criticism can wreak havoc, and therefore people have to know how to handle it from both ends. If the criticism is balanced, it is more likely to be successful, or, at any rate, it has more credibility.

When psychologists analyze the effect of criticism on others, they are concerned with how people respond to criticism (cognitively and emotionally), and how criticism influences the recipients behavior.

When people criticize, it can have a fruitful, enriching and constructive effect on the recipient, because new ideas and viewpoints may be generated in trying to solve a problem.

People can also be hurt by criticisms, when they experience the criticism as a personal attack. Psychologists concerned with human communication, such as therapists, therefore often recommend that people should choose the right words to express their criticism. The same criticism can be raised in different ways, some more successful than others.

If people formulate their criticism in the right way, it is more likely that other people will accept it. If the criticism is badly expressed, people might reject it, not because it is wrong in itself, but because they do not like being talked to in that way. Even if the content of a criticism is quite valid, the form in which it is expressed may be socounter-productive, that the criticism is not accepted. Thecontentmay be something that people can work out on their own, but theformconcerns the social relationship between people.

The termfeedbackis often used instead of criticism, because feedback may sound more neutral, while criticism may seem to be about finding fault. A more polite language may be used when there are issues ofauthorityandobedience(who has to follow whom), as well as the need for cooperative teamwork to get a job done (constructive collegial attitude). The question is often who controls the feedback, who is allowed to criticize, who owns the problem and who is to do something about the problem. It may be that managers educate employees to employ a more positive and professional language, in order to get them to see things in a way that ismore productivefor the enterprise.

Especially educators, but also e.g. lawyers, managers and politicians are very concerned with thequalityof criticisms. People might raise all kinds of objections and criticisms, but how good are they? Criticisms can be just noise. They can also be a nuisance if they are misdirected, they get in the way of getting things done.

, with a clear start and a finish, not endless.

, not based on hear-say or speculative thought.

, so that the recipient can both understand the criticism and be motivated to

Not all criticisms have all these features, but if one or more of them is missing, the criticism is less likely to achieve its goal. Almost all guidelines for criticism mention these seven points, although in particular contexts their meaning may be more exactly specified (for example, what it means to be articulate and persuasive can vary according to the circumstances).

Logically, there are just as many ways to get a criticism wrong as to get the criticism right.

: people might accept that the critic has a point, but they cant do anything about it now.

: people get confused over what it is all about, they get lost in it, and become disoriented.

: people are likely to say, so what?

, or the critic is not really in a position to make it: people will say youre way out of line.

: people are likely just to conclude that so-and-so is in a bad mood right now or hes had too much of it.

assigns blame or states problems without suggesting solutions

(empty criticism): people are likely to conclude this information is not very useful.

no research before making the criticism

: people will say, very interesting, but this cuts no ice.

: why are you telling me this, and why are you telling me about it now?.

The main effect of lousy criticism is usually that, rather than clarifying things, it becomes disorienting or confusing to people. Therefore, lousy criticism is usually regarded as unhelpful, or as an unwanted distraction getting in the way of things. The only thing a lousy criticism achieves is to make it clear that somebody has an objection (although the objection is not well-taken).

Techniques of constructive criticism aim to improve the behavior or the behavioral results of a person, while consciously avoiding personal attacks and blaming. This kind of criticism is carefully framed in language acceptable to the target person, often acknowledging that the critics themselves could be wrong. Insulting language and hostile language are avoided, and phrases are used like I feel… and Its my understanding that… and so on. Constructive critics try to stand in the shoes of the person criticized, and consider what things would look like from their perspective.7

Some people are not open to any criticism at all, even constructive criticism.8Also, there is an art to truly constructive criticism: being well-intentioned is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for constructively criticizing, since one can have good intentions but poor delivery (I dont know why my girlfriend keeps getting mad when I tell her to stop with the fries already; Im just concerned about her weight), or egocentric intentions but appropriate delivery (Im sick of my subordinate coming in late for work, so I took her aside and we had a long, compassionate talk about her work-life balance. I think she bought it.). As the name suggests, the consistent and central notion is that the criticism must have the aim of constructing, scaffolding, or improving a situation, something which is generally obstructed by hostile language or personal attacks.

People can sometimes be afraid to express a criticism, or afraid to be criticized. Criticism can press all the wrong buttons. The threat of criticism can be sufficient to silence people, or cause them to stay away. So self-confidence can play a big role in criticism the confidence to criticize, and the confidence to face criticism. If peoples emotions are not properly considered, criticism can fail to succeed, even although it is well-intentioned, or perfectly sensible. Hence criticism is often considered an art, because it involves human insight into what one can say and cannot say in the given situation.

One styl

Giving constructive

Some of you may cringe at the thought of giving your co-workers constructive feedback. The temptation to simply say good job in a 360-degree review always seems like the safest bet, especially when the recipient is known to have a short temper.

With companies encouraging their employees to give feedback more often, rather than being wary of the inevitable you should learn to use feedback to your advantage. When given the right way constructive feedback can improve your teams efficiency and communication, diffuse tensions and build a positive work environment.

The easiest situation to deal with is when a colleague asks you for advice. This may be a younger employee who wants to learn from your experience or a fellow team member who simply wants to know how theyre doing. If theyre coming to you it shows that theyre already open to receiving feedback and actively want to develop their professional skills. Nonetheless, even in this situation you may still find it difficult to be completely honest.

As discussed in theprevious guide, having a growth mindset will help change your attitude towards both receiving and giving feedback. As an outsider you can provide your co-workers with valuable insights into their performance and point out certain behavior they may not be aware of. If your colleagues feel they can trust you to give honest helpful career advice, theyll be more likely to follow your suggestions, and feel more comfortable coming to you when theres a problem. This can lead to greater cohesion within the team and help you build closer relationships with your colleagues.

If youre unsure where to start, try to figure out if they want feedback in a particular area. Your co-worker may already have a specific skill in mind that theyre trying to develop, for example improving their sales pitch or presentation skills. Starting off the conversation by asking them how theyre doing at work or what they thought about the last project they completed can give you clues.

Sometimes giving peer-to-peer feedback may be mandatory, as in 360 reviews. Telling someone they did a good job or great work doesnt give them valuable information about their performance. Though you may believe opting out in this way spares your colleague the stress of receiving constructive feedback, you may be inadvertently hindering their potential for progress. It may be harder to speak up when your colleague hasnt formally asked you for feedback, but if given effectively it can be a great way to resolve conflicts and get team projects on track.

Its a fact that everyone will have different ways of dealing with deadlines, organization and stress. When working with others these different work styles may clash. For instance, when working on a team project, if one of your colleagues is consistently missing deadlines its essential that they understand the impact theyre having on the rest of the team. You may decide to avoid confrontation hoping theyll correct this behavior on their own. Failing to address the situation, could signal to your co-worker that no one will be too concerned if he misses the deadline by a few hours or even days, potentially encouraging a destructive work habit.

A common misconception is that giving your peers feedback may come across as patronizing. If you believe that your manager should be the only one giving constructive feedback, keep in mind that they might not always be there to notice detrimental behavior. If theyre only going to review the final product, finishing a team project late will instead reflect badly on everyone. As youre the one who works alongside them the most, you will have the greatest insight into your colleagues performance. Following the steps below will help you to deliver your message in a helpful, rather than patronizing way.

Employees are often too intimidated to give their boss constructive feedback. Instead you should see it as an opportunity to improve how your work is being managed, and point out concerns your boss may not have noticed. Imagine that in meetings your boss has a habit of immediately shooting down employees suggestions when they dont agree with them. Everyone in the room may feel intimidated to speak up, but no one wants to point this out to your boss. In the next meetings, your boss gets angry at what they see as a lack of participation.

To overcome this common fear its critical to realize that your boss is an employee too and as such they also want to improve their performance. One of the most important parts of their job is maintaining employee retention rates. Receiving feedback allows your manager to check in and work on creating a positive atmosphere in the workplace. Though you may be tempted to give out buckets of gold stars, again, giving only positive feedback will not help them to grow as a leader.

First start off with positive feedback. Recognizing your colleagues strengths will help to balance the constructive feedback youre going to give them and boost their confidence. Steer clear of linking your positive and negative feedback with but, although or however as this can make your compliment sound insincere.

To make sure your feedback doesnt come off as a personal attack, describe behaviors rather than traits. Think of specific examples and base your feedback on observations and facts, rather than judgments. For example, instead of telling them they never listen to others, you could say, I noticed that when Michael made a suggestion in last weeks meeting you disagreed with him before he finished explaining his idea. A good way to be sure youre not making it personal is by using verbs instead of adjectives. Sometimes you interrupt others and forget to leave space for different opinions instead of You are sometimes bossy and controlling in team meetings. To read more on delivery see Impraises blogpost onHow to Give Feedback the Right Way.

There are always two sides to a story. After giving feedback, give the recipient a chance to respond. Maybe they get annoyed when meetings run overtime and have a hard time rejecting ideas diplomatically. This transitions your discussion into a conversation rather than a one-sided review and enables you to confirm theyve understood your feedback. Its only at this point when you understand both sides of the situation that you can come up with an effective solution together.

Once youve given feedback, ask for feedback in return. With this step you can demonstrate that youre open to constructive advice and value their opinion, putting you on an equal footing. Ask specific questions about your performance to show you really want to hear from them and are not just asking as a formality. For more advice see our guides on receivingpositiveandconstructivefeedback.

If youre still unsure how theyll take your feedback, put yourself in their shoes. Imagine the situation is reversed. How would you react if your colleague gave you the same feedback? Would you be angry or grateful that someone pointed this out? Keep in mind differences in personality. It might be more difficult for some people to overcome a fixed mindset than others, but if you can honestly say you would not be offended receiving your own feedback, its a good sign youve planned your delivery well.

Employees are being asked for feedback more and more by their colleagues, manager and company. Fear of offending someone may make you more hesitant to give constructive feedback. If you learn how to communicate your feedback effectively you can help your colleagues grow professionally, diffuse office conflicts and improve your teams productivity.

We respect your privacy and wont spam you.

Great to see your interest! We hope it helps.

13 Ways Successful Entrepreneurs Are Amping Up Company Culture

Find out more about what were doing by clicking the button below

How to ask for feedback in the workplace

You find asking for feedback uncomfortable?Yes, it often comes with anxiety but it is an essential part of personal development. When you actively ask for feedback, you learn more and faster.

1-on-1s are a great method to have a frequent conversation between manager and employee. As communication in the workplace is often one of the weakest spots of almost all organizations, managers can make a big difference by having regular, structured, yet informal 1-on-1s with their team members.

So youve just finished with performance and 360-degree reviews and you notice one of your employees is struggling. Though some employees may take constructive feedback as a great opportunity to implement new insights into their work style, others may instead become discouraged.

Many employees mistakenly see feedback simply as the companys way of assessing who gets a raise, a promotion or who gets fired. You may have noticed that this mindset can elicit different reactions in your team members.

Impraise is a performance management software designed to help employees and managers by allowing them to give and receive feedback in a timely and constructive manner.

Performance reviews need to be beneficial and useful for employees, managers and organisations as a whole. In order for management to make the most out of the process, a template should be designed and used.

Performance review at work can be a scary experience, especially if you find out during one that your managers has not been happy with your work youve been doing. Even worse then the review itself, however, can be the days after it.

Improving employee performance is all about communication. Every manager wants his or her employees to use their talents to the fullest capacity. But realistically, its not possible for this be done 100 percent of the time.

Performance evaluations can be described as the necessary evil. Most employees and managers dislike the whole process,however, its needed to understand the current health of the employees and to determine productivity levels.

Employee performance management is the a process for establishing a shared workforce understanding about what is to be achieved at an organisational level. its is about aligning the organisational objectives with the employees agreed measures, skills, competency requirements, development plans and delivery of results.

An employee performance evaluation is about to be dropped in your mailbox, and like so many others, it sits in your to-do list until the deadline line looms. Then you scurry to fill it by copying your colleagues and just get done with the ritual.

The performance appraisal is and you need to understand how to answer the questions in your self-assessment. The best way to answer the performance review questions is to take a holistic approach to the review.