Constructive Criticism

The present guide is on the best way to offer valuable feedback to somebody. Regardless of whether at work or seeing someone, sharing (and accepting) input is an integral part of change. In the event that you have thoughts on how somebody can enhance, don’t keep your thoughts down – rather, share your feedback valuably. (Given the subject is something the individual has requested to get criticism on; else, you are only forcing your judgment on others.)

1. Utilize the Feedback Sandwich strategy

The input sandwich strategy is a well known technique for giving helpful feedback. Usually utilized as a part of Toastmasters and in the professional workplace. A straightforward name I’ve given for the criticism sandwich is PIP, which remains for Positive-Improvement-Positive. (I know others utilize PIP to speak to Praise-Improve-Praise which is not quite the same as how I see it. Read on.)

The way it works is this – your criticism procedure is separated into 3 sections:

You begin off by concentrating on the qualities—what you like about the thing being referred to.

At that point, you give the feedback—things you didn’t care for; the zones of change.

In conclusion, you round off the input with (an) an emphasis of the positive remarks you gave toward the start and (b) the positive outcomes that can be normal if the feedback is followed up on.

The relationship with a sandwich is influenced on the grounds that you to wedge your feedback between an opening and a closure – like a patty is wedged between two buns.

The sandwich technique is a decent structure to use in giving productive feedback on the grounds that by beginning off with the positive remarks, you let the beneficiary realize that you are on his/her side and you are not there to assault him/her. It likewise perceives the things that the recipient is doing well, as opposed to speaking just about the change territories, which can appear to be being coldhearted and inconsiderate—particularly if there is no settled affinity between both of you in the first place. The recipient at that point turns out to be more responsive to your scrutinize.

In the wake of sharing the things you didn’t care for or things you felt can be enhanced, you need to round off the feedback with more positives, since it leaves the beneficiary at a high note, as opposed to abandon him/her dangling with an acrid taste in his/her mouth. It additionally helps the recipient to remember what he/she is doing well and fortifies the settlements of following up on your feedback.

The sandwich strategy is most proper with regards to (an) offering feedback to individuals you don’t know or don’t know well (b) investigating a remark who does not know your feelings regarding the matter. Over the long run however, after you have built up a solid affinity with the individual and the individual knows your position on the point, you can hop straight to the study itself.

A few people may loathe the input sandwich strategy since they feel it’s superfluous to give laud for doing it. Be that as it may, this isn’t the purpose of input sandwich technique and I feel individuals who feel that way confuse its goal. I see the criticism sandwich strategy as an extraordinary route to (an) enable the individual to realize what he/she is doing admirably, (b) utilize that as the establishment to share what can be enhanced, lastly (c) express the advantages that can be checked whether the area(s) of change is taken a shot at.

2. Spotlight on the circumstance, not the individual

While scrutinizing, center around the circumstance close by, not the individual.

Case #1: Giving input on a man’s dressing style

Terrible case: “You’re excessively antiquated. You are continually wearing granny garments that influences you to look so old and exhausting.” — While presumably said with great expectations, this isn’t precisely helpful feedback. It makes an individual assault and influences it to appear like he/she is the issue.

Great case: ‘From my memory, the garments I’ve seen you wear before have a tendency to be dull in hues and dated with respect to current patterns. While there is nothing amiss with that, it makes one seem to be more established in age and unengaged in one’s close to home picture.” — The circumstance is disconnected from the individual. Evaluate is given on the circumstance itself.

Case #2: Giving input on a man’s character attribute

Terrible case: “You’re generally so negative. It’s so depleting to associate with you.” — Like Example #1, this criticism makes an individual assault at the individual. It likewise does not tell the individual what he/she can do, which makes it unconstructive.

Great input: “There have been times when I was harmed by the remarks you gave as they were to some degree belittling. For instance, the last time I purchased my new pack, one of the remarks you gave was that it was a revolting sack. That shocked me and I was very tragic that day.” — While it’s dubious to give useful feedback with regards to somebody’s identity, here, it is effectively expert by isolating the individual’s activities (that makes him/her adverse) from the individual him/herself. This at that point makes it simple to study the conduct without culpable the individual being referred to.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Alamat email Anda tidak akan dipublikasikan. Ruas yang wajib ditandai *