Has someone asked you to offer an opinion on their work? Be honest, they told you. Yet, you hesitate. How will they receive the critique you give them? How can you structure your comments in a way that won’t hurt their feelings? In short, how can you make sure you help more than destroy? You know, that constructive criticism thing?

Offering criticism can take many forms, varied as the style and personality of the one giving feedback. I won’t therefore pretend that what I have to say will apply 100% to everyone. But I do hope some of my thoughts represent common denominators we can all consider as we provide a critique that will have a positive impact on the work we have examined and the person who has produced it. That brings me to the first tip: before you do anything…

Check your motivations

Why are you offering the critique? Are you angry? At yourself, at the work you’ve read, at whatever, and are you trying to “get back” at something with your critique? Perhaps more subtle, are you trying to buttress your own qualifications in the area you’re critiquing–perhaps you’re trying to prove you’re better than? I have to watch out for that one myself; I have to make sure I’m not tearing down someone else’s work so that mine looks better by comparison.

To put it more positively, your critique should result from a desire to help make something better. You should be in it to assist your colleague. As such, you should do whatever it takes to ensure your feedback results in a positive, improved outcome. How so?

The sandwich approach

When I give a critique, I watch my tone. If I’m coming across as overly negative, chances are I’m being unfair, I’m acting in a spirit of grumpiness, and I’m not looking at the whole work in context. Moreover, when the recipient of my comments reads them, my negativity may lead them to disregard some or all of my comments.

What a waste, right? Who wants that? OK, deep breath. Time to take a step back.

Was there anything positive in the work I reviewed? Anything I can highlight upfront, before I dive into the fix-it section of my commentary? I start with that. And I really focus on it. I don’t fake it. I really emphasize it. Whooping up what works is as important as pointing out the failures. Why? Because maybe the fix is to pump up those areas that work. So don’t skimp on this. Then, yes, follow up with a detailed list of demerits (more on this in the next two points), and then close up with at least one positive comment. If nothing else, state your confidence that in light of the positive things you mentioned, once the negatives are addressed, this work has great potential to become all that it can be.

That’s the sandwich: positive-negative-positive. Bread, meat, bread. But how to best offer that meat-negative content? That brings me to my next two points.

Watch your tone and withdraw that index finger

An easy way to have your commentary get drowned out? Your tone. Even if you’ve taken the time to highlight the positive, pointing out shortfalls with snarky comments, or giving feedback that comes across as grumpy risks getting your critique set aside. Along with negative tone, avoid the wagging index finger. “You blew it here,” combines both elements. Drop the “You” (index finger), and drop the inflammatory language (“blew it”). Turn that around by making it about the facts and how you perceived the work. Say stuff like, “I feel this part here suffers from…” and “This would have worked better if…” That last phrase brings up to our next point.

Make your comments actionable

Or as I like to think of it, avoid tossing grenades. Grenades are fun. They make lots of cool, loud sounds, and generate a lot of bright light. But they destroy. Even if you don’t give your feedback with a snarky-grumpy tone, and even if you keep it to the facts, you can toss a tiny grenade when you point out a flaw but do not offer a solution. In other words, make your feedback actionable. For instance, “This is wrong, and I suggest fixing it [like so]” and “If it worked this way, it would avoid [problem X].”

Perhaps this presents the largest challenge of a critique: offering a workable solution. It may not be possible in all cases. First, offering a solution may represent a re-do of the work, and that may take significant time and effort you may not want to invest. In some cases, you may not know enough about the work or the author’s intentions to offer a fully working solution. Even then, attempting a “for instance” suggestion will at a minimum show you’re trying to help. It may even point the author in the right direction. If nothing else it shows you’re approaching the critique with a “we’re in this together” attitude.

OK, those are my thoughts. Obviously they’re not exhaustive, and more ways exist to construct an effective critique. How about you? How do you navigate the thorny critique fields?