How to criticize constructively — and encourage positive change?

Question and discussions brought from Linked In platform (Clinical Research Professionals)

Martin Robinson • The aim of constructive criticism is to enable the receiver to benefit so that they can improve their performance. Help them to reflect on what they did - what went well and what could have gone better. Get them to do most of the talking and have them offer suggestions and solutions with guidance from you. It's important to reinforce what they are doing well already and agree an action plan to improve their performance in areas where they could do better. They may need support in terms of training, coaching, clarity around performance standards etc. Review the action plan with them periodically to see how they are getting on and use it as an opportunity for them to reflect on the progress they are making

Sanjiv Sharma • Criticizing for the sake of criticism will serve no purpose. The best way is definitely as suggested by Martin. The aim of criticism should always be improvement.

Shwetank Pandit • ya ur right mr Sehgal .Its Important to provide them a guidance to improve there their performance.

Dominique Chesnais • As an auditor, my job is to identify non-compliance issues and to report them. However, I always ensure 1. to refer each observation to an article/a section of the applicable regulations that was not fulfilled, 2. to understand the current working process (SOP), which might have led to the non-compliance and 3. to listen to the auditee(s)' way of working, working conditions, etc.

Audit findings are agreed with mutual respect between all parties of an audit and regulatory requirements are better accepted. Combined annual /quarterly review of all audit findings are even better tools for positive changes.

Gonzalo de Arbelaiz • I agree with Dominique's comment above; I always try that the audit process includes;
- Conscise description of the finding (the error, your criticism)
- A reference to what what not followed (shoud help the auditee to know where to read & learn next time)
- Auditor & team's suggestions about what could have been done to avoid getting to the error stage.
- Auditor & team's head analysis about why did it happen and why was it not detected? What can we ALL do next time to prevent it?
Naturally, this is neither possible nor needed for all findings, and is not only up to the auditor to resolve, but must be a team work.

A frequent error that I see from some colleagues from the clinical QA area is to "blame it on people", rather than identifying the gap in the process; which almost always includes more than one individual. In other words, only few people are so important as to have one big mistake depend on them only.

Also, constructive criticism is only half of what it takes to make encourage positive change, the person receiving feedback has to be open and be able to take it not personally.

Lynda Cedar, Ph.D. • I agree with most of the comments above, I just want to add that in order to be able to criticize constructively the auditor must have extensive experience of auditing and monitoring, and deep knowledge of the guidance, Ethics and industry standard.

An audit is successful when a site has a checklist developed as by the criteria of a successful inspection. Having this in place, it shows the site experience with studies how they behave in a real life. It also helps the auditor to see how does a site works, the culture of project management, if a site has a plan B when something happens during the study and not provided by the SOPs, it helps the auditor to detect the positive and the lacks, and then s/he can proceed as explained in the comments of above.

There is always space to improvement, one always learns from audits, each site and each sponsor is unique, the communication is one of the most important elements that a site as well as a sponsor should look at, because a study is a teamwork, the audit should be an indicator about at least the flexibility of the site and the sponsor to resolve situations if needed and as needed during the entire study.

Agnieszka Bialek • To be able to criticize you must know the personality of your trainee/associate. Not everyone is able to improve if receives negative reinforcement. People who can do that are really strong personalities.
Majority gets more motivation for improvement after they first hear about what went well and where they were strong.
I agree with Martin that it is right way to identify weakness, prepare actio plan for future and together with your trainee/associate check progress.

Lynda Cedar, Ph.D. • No! not at all, because nothing should be taken personal.

The auditor has to do his/her work, and makes sure the site is compliant with the standards of the industry and applicable Guidance. The auditor should follow the GCP, GLP, GMP (depending on what is audited) to justify each recommendation. S/he will issue an audit report, the document is reviewed by the site, then they sit-down to discuss the corrections to be made.

John R. Nocero • Agree - there is a way to criticize that is not personal. Criticism should never be perceived by anyone as a personal attack. If it is, I also think the person delivering the message should be careful in how it is delivered. Discussing why the error occurred, how it can be fixed and then how it can be corrected is very important.

Dr. Sunil Kumar Joshi • There are some people, self centered and difficult to change. The problem is with their attitude. Are there any such sites that provide us with guidelines for constructive criticism?

Ankur Sharma • I believe that criticism can have a positive or a negative effect based on whom you are criticizing and how you're doing it (whereby it can become a constructive criticism in some cases, while destructive in others!).
A lot depends on how the person who is being criticized perceives it. In that case - it becomes a double edged sword.Until you're a mystic or a psychologist, you can never know how a person would perceive what you have said (its not proven that how accurately even they can do it). There are instances when your criticism may be welcomed and it might even improve the work quality at your work place however at other times, the work may just go haywire - and at such time the team-work and the quality of results does get affected over a period of time. (You might get your work done at that particular point of time in the way you wanted, but in the long run - it would give you more management problems than you might have thought of - they might come subtly and not with a clear cause effect relationship).
However, having said that, it does not mean that criticism is futile and should not be done at all. There are times when it necessary (even useful) to criticize, but what I would suggest is caution.
The aim is to bring about a change in a person or the way some work is done. Criticism is the easiest way out of this. When I say that this was done wrongly and it should have been done in this way - I am taking the easiest way out - doing something which even a donkey sitting behind the desk can do - ordering.However, it might seem easy only in the beginning - its repercussions would take more of a genius than an Einstein.So why not do some hard work in the beginning.
So, what I would like to do is have a look at the work. See the positive points - note them down; look at the negatives - note them down as well. Call a meeting (it includes the person whom I want to criticize - or shall I use a better word - change!) Tell the people concerned about the agenda beforehand and give them some time.In the meeting talk about the beauty of the work first and the strong points I had seen and ask everyone to tell what modifications can be done in the work (I'm just giving an example - the things could be done in other way as well. What s important is to catch the nerve.) so that it can be done in a better way. People would come out with their suggestions. The aim is to get the people have a critical view of their own work first. Ask them to work on their own suggestions and give a your critical views here and there when they are working on it instead of giving it upfront.
In this way, you are not pinpointing anyone in particular and getting your thing done in a pleasant way.It is a kind of a carrot and stick policy. You are giving something sort of sugar and enteric coated pill of criticism with antioxidants - so that it is less bitter, slow and less harmful.
That is what I believe is a good way or 'criticism'. I have my own shortcomings though and might not be correct everywhere. Some people here might be wiser and more experienced than me. This is just my view. Criticisms of all kind are welcome!

John R. Nocero • Good Evening Ankur,
I agree with your point of view. If the person is perceiving the criticism as personal, it should be given in a way that allows the person to save face. I think it is hard for some people to truly evaluate themselves, and even harder sometimes to not feel like you are being attacked, especially when you put your heart and soul into a piece of work that you are proud of. Thanks for sharing.

Douglas Trudeau • I think for someone to first accept criticism with grace, they need to first acknowledge that their way of doing something is in some way, wrong. So the first step to criticism is to make the person aware of their own work, how it compares to others.

Once they have realized something is wrong, a simple suggestion or comment would suffice.

John R. Nocero • Good Evening Doug,From your experience, is this often difficult to do?

Douglas Trudeau • It depends on the person and the level of authority you have. For example, it can be extremely difficult to get a colleague to realize they're doing something wrong. However, a boss or manager, gentle comments or comparing results of work done by different people can clue someone in about how they might be doing something wrong.

Melvin paul • The term 'Critisizing' can come across differently to different people. To be honest majority of the people do not like any critisizm at all. However providing constructive feedback is always the best way forward. One can explain to the person how things could have been better if certain tasks could have been performed in a better manner.

Always provide the final picture or the outcome of any action and allow the person to decide in which way they would like to take.

You would see positive change only when there is constant support and assurance that making mistakes are human and we should learn from them and move forward and not keep repeating the same mistakes again and again.

Nilisha Ponkia • I agree with Melvin, the term "Critisizing" can come across diffenetly to different people. Because there are some people, who dont want to change their attitude because of they are self centered and very difficult to change.but for the critisizing u want that much power in ur hand to tell about the mistakes to the person who did the mistakes.

Dr Suketu Patel • we are not critisizing any one at personal level but we criticise the way job done( considering ethics and regulation)

Nidhi Saxena • Crticisim is going to effect a lot but it depends upon the behaviour of person criticising and the person who is critisized. It also depends upon the relationship between two. Positive changes can be expected if the tasks are discussed thoroughly and analysed critically. And emphasis should be given to appraise the better and positive things rather than concentrating on the negatives. At the end suggesting better ways of dealing with the situation.

Tushar Pagar-Patil • Dont you think Its all about one' skill

Victoria Locke • When dealing with people, it is better to provide "developmental feedback" rather than "criticism". Compare the results with what the expectations were, and ask them what they can do to improve so that the gap between results and expectations can be closed. When appropriate, I start with some positive comments, then lead into what can be done to improve, emphasizing that we always want to improve what we do...who wants to get stuck or deliver sub-par results?

Dr. Shiva Murthy Nanjundappa. MD (Pharmacology) • Critic should know the consequences of change he is expecting.
Critic should also know to handle emotions - self and others.
Even if you cricize, you should do with a smile.
Never allow personal intentions to disturb the spirit.
Know that there will be counters while cricizing and have the answers for all.
Proove that all said and done for the improvement.
Console others that sometime unintentionally mistakes can happen and there is room for corrections.
Give expamples of your own mistakes and tell them how you corrected over a period of time. This will improve the listening capacity of the group.

Hope these tips will help to handle the situation.

Shannon Inman • I manage CRAs and expect just as much from my employees as I do from myself. I tend to be very direct but often have difficulty selecting with right words when it comes to critisizing their work or job performance. I don't have the resources to attend lectures on the topic, but would be very interested in reading a book to help me improve my interpersonnal skills. Anyone with book recomendations that has delivered tangible results in this area of self-improvement?

Suganthan Thambiraja • I believe maintaing the self-esteem of the receiver is an important aspect of delivering criticism constructively. The criticism has to be thought out and delivered at the appropriate time and place.

Vinoth Kumar T • Good question Raman :)
I agree with what Ankur has wrote, constructive criticism may not be considered positive by everyone.

Personally I think the following steps should help.

1. Remember to keep your communication clear, open and flexible so that there is room for discussion for both of you.
2. Before you to criticize, it is very important that you emphasize the person's positives. You can probably appreciate the person's past good work, maybe his past achievements, skills, etc.
3. Now go straight to the point where he/she has done a mistake and provide a clear insight on the problem. Make them realize the price of their mistake and make sure they understand the consequences.
4. Offer solutions and directions in handling the problem so that he/she can be prepared before it happens the next time.
5. Make sure that you communicate regularly to that person so that he/she feels empowered and is convinced that they have a point of contact whom they can rely on.

Jenny Choi • A world with no criticism but only praising would make us no different than the animal kindom in my opinion. As a person who highly values constructive criticism, I think the best approach is to lay out the negatives and end it by shedding light on the positives the individual brings to the organization. Lead by sample.....

Renuka Gahlawat • Criticizing constructively to me means is counting upon both the good points as well as the bad points. So criticizing and praising go hand in hand. Merely criticizing the person would degrade the person and I feel every person on this living earth has in it some strength, hence the motive of the criticism should be to help re-discover the person through counseling. Also, it depends on the employee’s persona to take the feedback positively or negatively. So I feel criticism to encourage positive change is also an art.

Rekha Anand • That's a great discussion! Going through the comments the one that caught my attention was the use of "Developmental Feedback rather than criticism" from Victoria. I whole-heatedly agree with her.I personally feel that "criticism" is an art; with two key players: the giver and taker. During my academic curriculum I got to watch a video on criticism and the take was: The giver of criticism should pass a self test which is basically a period of cool to validate the criticism you are giving, followed by EPM formula ( Empathize, Pinpoint problems and Move Forward). I completely agreed with this as in absence of these simple rules you generally get defensive or evasive responses ..and you don't want them if you believe that the growth of colleagues is directly proportional to growth of the company.

The other part is the receiver of the criticism who should follow 4A theory. Anticipate,
Ask Questions, Agree to Something and Analyze. The best that works for me is agree to some part of criticism because that removes the silos and generally outcomes are prolific.

Habib GHEDIRA • Criticizing is a "parent-children"-like professional relationship that should not exist anymore. When you observe someone criticizing, it's always obvious that he can be criticized him self.

So the right way to achieve the aim is by undergoing an evaluation and reconstruction of means and methods of the action by 2 persons : one with the experience of the action (the action supposed to be criticized) and the other with former experience and/or knowledge concerning this action.

L. B. • Something that has worked really well in our team is that everyone is encouraged to find areas that can be improved. Everyone also has to watch out for human errors (his/her own and those of others too). This means that nobody, even the principal investigator, is safe from "criticism". When the team members see that the PI takes criticism very well, they will gladly follow by example.
In this way the team knows that improving the project is the common goal. Because comments target the project and not the person, nobody takes them personally or negatively. Everyone is reminded that to err is human, but all errors must be caught. It works.

Scott Pugh • The criticism sandwich:

http://confident1.com/how-to-deliver-a-criticism-sandwich

Shubhanjana Sharma • I and my colleagues have authored what we believe is the most extensive report on Clinical Trials in India. We have looked at the area as scientists rather than what is ordinarily available. We are charging for this. In case anyone is interested please free to contact me via linked in or tusharasnair@gmail.com. Also questions on Indian Clinical Trials are a joy - after all this work - so if anyone has any queries please write to me!

Amy Moore • I am probably saying something that has already been said....I think critism would be well recieved if the reciever has a high regard and respect for the person giving the critism. Respect is the key. Because know one will listen to critism from someone they do not respect. How do you earn respect? By treating others as if their lives add value to yours. We see every day examples of this...from the family member that keeps the family together to the coworker that seems to get along with every type of personality in the office place. How you treat people will determine whether or not they follow you...

Michele Eskridge • I feel constructive criticism should be started on a postive note first. Tell the employee what they are doing right and then carefully select your words to help them learn what you are attempting to help them understand.

Azadeh Nolan • I think everyone here has great feedback. One thing we all must consider is who we are talking to. One must evaluate the person (or persons in group setting) then choose an approach that works best with that personality type or context.

Michele Eskridge • I agree with you Azadeh however when you must critize a person you must remember that you are also trying to teach them so you need to evaluate the way the individual learns best. Personality of the person is to be considered but you still need to make your point. You need to be agressive in education of the person and all people learn differently.
There have been many times I have had to demonstrate a procedure and have the individual demonstrate back to me. This was a very educational, motivating expierence. I felt it to be constructive criticism turned around to an educational moment.

Elizabeth Brown, Ed.M., CCRA • The term "criticism" has a negative connotation for most, feedback is more universally accepted. Things to ponder: was the feedback solicited in the first place or is it voluntarily being given as part of a required evaluation associated with job performance. If the later, it is easier to accept when given in doses throughout the year and not only at the end of a year or end of a project. Getting others to buy into the feedback requires that the deliverer genuinely care about the receiver and is sensitive to body language and tone of voice. Asking the receiver if the feedback makes sense to them shows that the deliverer cares. Concrete examples (evidenced based observations) are best, are more objective and less confusing to the receiver.

Julie Campe • In management - as in parenting and auditing or monitoring - the general rule is: Focus on the problem, not the person. So instead of saying, "This sloppy documentation violates your own SOPs and quality standards and looks like careless work," say this: "The documentation is illegible and is missing items 1, 2, 3 and 4. ... Other sites have developed a checklist as part of their documentation to make it faster and easier to complete and then read later. And then the documenter has to hand-write in only a few spaces for the details of a particular case. Would you like to see a sample?"

abra ori • Find more quality articles at http://lnkd.in/_DPMqF

Jocelyn Clarke, SPHR • Great question! I find that a very simple formula often helps with delivery of constructive criticism -- the sandwich technique. By preceding and following the criticism (sandwiching) with sincere and relevant compliments/praise, you will soften the potentially ego-bruising blow. This may improve the odds that your message will be heard and absorbed.

Snehal Patel • I think crticism should be considered as a feedback in your department. Demonstration is important. The word "WE" is very important. "YOU" should not be used. This will certainly stop the "Blame Game".

Lelia Adelina Paunescu • I agree with Nighi. It is the dynamic between the 2: the one who is critisized, and the critic. The critic has an important role on how he/she is perceived. A certain tone of voice, a certain way of addresing the issue can be perceived worse than acctually it is or even in a negative way if is not said in a caring way that is meant to help improve. Otherwise could be misunderstood as the critic has the mind set that only his/her way is the right way. On the other hand, there are certainly people who when they are critisized, are taking it personally and can not see past that to improve themselves and their work. A criticism in a work place is as good as it is meant to help someone improve by both parties, otherwise should be hiring / firing type.

Artie Jhappan • No one enjoys crticisms.I think once we step away from the negativity of criticisms true self development begins. If I find myself being criticized I have learnt to listen and evaulate if the criticisms are valid first and if the intention is to improve rather than put someone down and then work to self improve. This takes humility...