Critique with Etiquette

At some point in every professional’s career, they will have the opportunity to critique some element of work. It may be the performance evaluation of a subordinate, providing 360-degree feedback for a superior, evaluating some project or presentation, or even providing feedback to a professional trainer. As with any new experience, there can be a learning curve to effectively delivering critique or feedback. In addition, most often, the manner in which that critique is phrased, worded, or delivered may dramatically impact how it was received and whether the person on the receiving end will accept the feedback as learning.

In today's world of social media, I'm often surprised at how loose or even harsh individuals can be even with the simple task of responding to a blog or LinkedIn remark. When Facebook first became popular, many individuals used it as a vetting tool to let the world know how they felt about something. If you are a parent, you've probably used the cautionary phrase to your children "What hits the internet, stays on the internet!"   

                                             Interpretation: What you put in writing in a public domain can reflect on your overall persona and character.

Returning to the theme of critiquing with etiquette, let's examine a few scenarios and their pressure points. 

As a supervisor tasked with providing personnel evaluations to employees, you quickly learn that the manner in which you relay improvement opportunities can impact the overall outcome of the message. Assuming you are truly focused on assisting the professional in improving their skills, the message may be more successful when delivered in a constructive, coaching atmosphere rather than one that is reprimanding or confrontational.  Similarly, if you've had the opportunity to provide 360-degree feedback to a superior, you quickly learn the "art" of relaying any concerns in the most positive and politically correct manner possible. Even if the feedback is given through an anonymous sealed survey you can be assured that many superiors will try to evaluate who specific comments came from based on the wording, phrasing, and writing style. Both of these scenarios are incidents where individual evaluators learn to be cautious with their words and delivery.

Now let's discuss the concept of critiquing a speaker, presenter, or educator. Even the university process has gone to a method of allowing the students to critique the professor.  There are many theories out there on whether this particular process is a good or bad thing. Much can depend on how the university postures the process with the students as well as with the professors. Many students have not had experience with the art of constructive feedback and hence they utilize the process to vet their anxieties at the end of the semester. Often the student doesn't have a vested interest in what and how they relay the information because they look at it as critique with no accountability because they will never have the instructor again.  This can actually be more detrimental than the university realizes.  In addition, in today’s world of utilizing an increasing number of adjunct professors to deliver course content, universities don’t necessarily properly inform the instructor about this process and how it may or may not impact any future courses they may be considered for.  The difficulty here is that most adjunct professors are instructing based on their professional expertise and not from a strict syllabus perspective.  If the university had not properly prepared the adjunct instructor for student expectations, the feedback received at the end of the semester can often be misunderstood from both perspectives. 

This same theory can be applied to the feedback process utilized for professional presenters or speakers who are delivering some type of presentation at a meeting, conference, or other professional setting. Our professional societies want to ensure the programs made available to their constituency are providing the level of information expected. Typically, some survey or feedback form is distributed allowing participants to rate the speaker on several characteristics and provide comments.  In theory, this is good practice.  In reality, it can present several difficulties.  In our desire to allow for open feedback, we provide for the confidentiality of the person completing the survey. However, this authority absent accountability can create an atmosphere where feedback may not always be constructive and can actually border on offensive.

A simple example relates to a well-versed colleague who was presenting at a formal convention on a topic he was considered to have expert knowledge of.  He was a volunteer speaker and even paid for his own travel.  On the day of the presentation, he wasn't feeling well but felt confident he could get through the presentation, which he did. Several hours later he found himself in the emergency room experiencing a heart attack. After undergoing surgery and some hospital time, he recovered.  But when relaying this story, he mentioned that a few weeks after the presentation he received the participant reviews via email. Overall, the reviews and ratings were very good with a couple of exceptions. One person’s feedback appeared more as an offensive rant on not just the gentleman's presentation style and appearance but also on his area of expertise. There were no specific comments about what the participant found inappropriate but rather the narrative was filled with degrading comments and then a dissertation of the individual reviewers’ own credentials. The reviewer appeared to think they were more qualified to speak on the topic than the presenter. The point is the feedback was not constructive but truly offensive to the extent that the gentleman has decided he will no longer agree to these invitations to speak. Unfortunately, this is a true loss to the profession.

As a presenter and speaker, myself, I know that when you have a large audience there will always be individuals in the room who have a different perception of the presentation. You learn to try to take the comments in stride and adjust as appropriate for future presentations.  It is certainly everyone's right to have their own observations on the topic. However, as a professional, there are some concepts you might want to consider prior to writing out your critique. 

Use your words

I sometimes hear new parents telling their children to "use their words" when trying to relay something rather than making hand gestures. As professionals, we may want to consider that advice with a small twist.  "Use your words constructively and with proper etiquette". The critique will be much better accepted if the presenter or individual does not feel they are being unduly singled out or attacked. Ask yourself, am I willing to relay the same information to the individual personally. If not, why?

Be specific

If you have concerns about the presentation, especially the accuracy of the topic matter, it is helpful to the presenter to point out the exact areas of your concern.  Broad statements like "the presenter made things up or stated facts improperly" really do not provide enough feedback to help correct the issue if indeed it is true. Try to keep in mind that the purpose of your critique is to provide feedback to the organization as well as the speaker regarding elements that could be improved in the presentation and make the session more beneficial to the participants.  The feedback that is absent constructive suggestions does not provide the necessary information to allow your organizations to ensure they improve their programs. 

Avoid personal references 

Here is where accountability comes in.  Prior to submitting your critique, ask yourself if you are willing to put your name and contact information on the form.  If not, why?  If you had strong enough concerns to express them in a critical manner, give the presenter the opportunity to clarify thoughts. Also, ask yourself if you were required to provide the feedback face to face, would you use the same words.

 

Put yourself in the presenters’ place. 

Often presenters are volunteers and are taking their time out of their day to share knowledge. It is not critical that you have the exact same viewpoint, but the person was obviously invited to speak for a reason. Give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand their point of view.

Consider contacting the presenter 

Regardless of if you had positive or negative comments, consider sending the presenter a personal note.  Those types of interactions can be very beneficial on many fronts and provide learning for everyone. The presenter will appreciate the effort and who knows, you may learn something
 

Regardless of if you agree or disagree with some of these points, take a few minutes to pause the next time you provide some type of review to a subordinate, superior, or presenter.  Ask yourself what the purpose of your comments is and then "use your words constructively and with dignity".

The above are a few considerations for individuals completing the critique.  However, there are also some elements that organizations could consider to improve the overall critique process.  These considerations could assist in ensuring participants are providing the needed information to improve the process, but it could also assist the actual presenter in improving future presentations and deliveries.

 

Provide participants with some brief instructions on completing the survey

Remind participants that information is intended to assist in improving future programs and topics.  Also, ensure they understand the importance of providing constructive feedback since the information will be provided to the presenter as part of the continuing professional education requirements.

Carefully consider the questions placed on the survey

Organizations will often mimic survey forms utilized by other professional societies.  I often see questions such as “Did the presentation meet pre-requisites”, or “Was the presenter qualified to present on the topic”.  In these instances, ensure the questions are relevant to the circumstance.  First of all, did the presentation really have pre-requisites listed?  If not, why is the question listed?  Also, is there a purpose for asking participants if they felt the presenter was qualified to present on the topic?  Hopefully, the conference committee vetted the presenter’s qualifications appropriately.  By including a question such as “Was the presenter qualified”, you are asking participants to provide an opinion where the only basis for their evaluation will be on the presenters’ bio or even the manner in which they perceived the presentation.  Ask yourself; is that what you are looking for?

Another consideration is the scoring scale.  

Keep in mind a scale of 1 – 5 may seem reasonable; however, if you only provide the “averaged” scores to the presenter, it is very difficult to determine the true perception of the presentation.  As everyone knows, one participant rating the session as a “1” and another participant rating the session a “5”, will average to a three.  So, in essence, if the presenter does not have the break-out of the number of individuals providing the various rankings, the average can be misrepresented.  Organizations should consider providing statistical analysis to the presenter that shows how many participants rated the session by each score.

 

Provide basic guidance for “Comments”

As described above in the recommendations for participants, organizations should provide “soft” reminders of the tone of comments and requests for detail behind opinions to enable the presenter to become more effective.  In the end, the evaluation process is to improve the presentation and the offerings.

Overall, both organizations and participants can assist in the improvement process for effective critiques.  We are all trying to reach the same result, a positive learning experience for professionals.