6 anti-behaviours in design critique, and how to handle them
Do you look forward to your group design critique sessions? Or are they a tedious mix of stale design clichés and politics? Here are 6 anti-behaviours that can get in the way of great group design critique sessions, and some ideas on how to help each other.
Read the design, but read the people too
Design critique sessions are like poker: some of us have picked up how to play the game from others, and we give it a go and hope for the best. We win some, we lose some. Others of us know that there’s an art and science to it, and winning is just as much about reading the people, as well as the play.
To be clear, the one who should win in design critique sessions is the customer. Indeed, in multi-disciplinary product teams, critique has two purposes: to improve the work, and to improve each other. Great critique is:
- Given with practical candour — (doffing my cap to Kim Scott here) wanting both the design and the designer to be better
- Results-driven — aimed at improving outcomes for the customer, stakeholders, or community that will ultimately use what is being critiqued
- Empathetic — attuned to the context, and the person who did the work
- Actionable — the person who did the work is ready and able to make specific improvements
- Timely — at the right time in the project, and in the designer’s process
In over 20 years of being a designer (and training others in design technique), I’ve been in some design critique sessions that were stellar; there were genuine insights that came out of great conversation. The work was better for it. We were all better for it. I’ve also been in some absolute stinkers, too.
Process and structure make a huge difference, and there’s some terrific advice around for what roles and processes to follow. But I’ve always found that the main differences between the great and not-so-great sessions come down to — well — us. Us, and the squishy stuff about the ways we behave and react. We all want to be our best selves when it comes to sharing and critiquing our work with others (physical or online), but sometimes our own natures, biases and hang-ups can get in the way.
6 critique anti-behaviours
Here are 6 ways that critique is sometimes like, and some ideas about what we can do about it. And please note: these are behaviours, not personalities. It’s really not helpful labelling a person according to these. Just like when we critique work, we need to separate the behaviour from the person. And besides, nobody’s perfect. I’ve been guilty of these behaviours more than once!
1. The HiPPO
Let’s get this one out of the way first. The HiPPO is the ‘highest paid person’s opinion’, and that opinion typically comes from the most senior person in the room. Nobody ever really challenges them, so they’re not used to needing tedious things like facts and evidence to back up anything they say.
2. The Frank Sinatra
The Frank Sinatra sure knows a thing or two about great design, and has the hits to prove it. They’re fashionably late, but nobody seems to mind, because they’re always ready with a sassy in-joke, or a pithy quote from some famous designer you should recognise. So don’t be a square, kiddo, and just do it their way.
3. The Coroner
The Coroner will put every pixel of your design under their microscope, and carve up your work without hesitation. And you too, if you happen to get in the way. You better make sure you’ve prepared well, because they are about to — as they say in the CIA — show the instruments.
4. The Grandstander
The Grandstander can’t wait to tell everybody everything they know about customers, about the product, about your design… about anything really. And at great length. To be fair, it may not be all about them, but one thing’s for sure: they’ve probably watched way too many courtroom dramas.
5. The Storyteller
The Storyteller is related to the Grandstander. There may well be some great feedback hidden within the epic tapestry that they are verbally weaving, but it’s probably going to take a while to make itself known. You may start to lose track of the time, that should be spent with others giving their feedback, too. Goodness knows, they probably have.
6. The People Pleaser
The People Pleaser can always be relied upon to tell you what they think you want to hear. They’re fond of the ‘Feedback Sandwich’ technique, but they keep forgetting about the ‘constructive critique’ bit in the middle. Each layer is always mild praise, so maybe it’s more like a stack of Feedback Pancakes instead? Are they holding back? Who knows?
Some ideas for how to handle each anti-behaviour
The HiPPO: “I’m not seeing anything new here…”
The hardest thing about the HiPPO I’ve always found is not that it’s all about their opinion. In fact, their critique can be subjective or objective. And it’s also not that they might be wrong. I’ve been in many critique sessions where the HiPPO is right.
The hardest thing is how everyone defers to them. Because of their seniority or role, there’s this unspoken social contract in place where nobody ever asks them for more detail, or evidence, in case it’s taken as a challenge, which would look like a career-limiting move.
So what to do? I want to give you permission — and I want you to give everybody in your team permission — to separate the critique itself from whoever says it. This is a big reason why so many teams have sessions where everybody supplies their critique as sticky notes, so that it’s easier to take in each piece of critique on its own merit.
But next time a HiPPO is throwing their verbal weight around, keep a cool head and take a moment to assess what is said, more than who said it. Is it results-driven? Is it empathetic to the context? Is it actionable? What could you ask, to help that highest-paid opinion be more useful? Also, keep the session collaborative by including others in on the conversation, e.g.: “Do others think the same?”
The Frank Sinatra: “Here’s how I’d do it…”
Great critique doesn’t try to solve the challenge for you, but helps you think of a better approach, for a better outcome. The Frank Sinatra often tries to give you their solution instead. To be fair, sometimes being more directive is appropriate, but it should still be said in a way that activates you, not diminishes you.
Whether the solution seems better or not, ask questions to try to help them articulate their approach, rather than just the solution itself, e.g.: “That’s a great idea. How might that work if this screen had to show 1,000 songs, rather than 10?”. It might also be useful to help them to see that even though their solution has worked in the past, your context might be different.
3. The Coroner: “There are a lot of problems with this design…”
Always remember that feedback is a gift, even if delivered in a way that makes you feel like a piece of meat. And remember also that The Coroner is probably just trying to do their job in sharing their expertise and analysis; being detail-oriented and laser-focused has probably served them really well in other parts of their job, so they’re just behaving the same way.
Great critique is aimed at the work, not you personally, so during a critique session, do your best to mentally and emotionally separate yourself from your work. Something that has helped me a lot is to mentally picture myself side-by-side with the people critiquing, where we’re all facing the work in front of us, rather than me being side-by-side with my work, and everyone facing me.
4. The Grandstander: “I’ve been on a project like this a while ago…”
The best way I’ve found to inoculate critique sessions against grandstanding is to make sure that your critique sessions have a facilitator to run them, and a structure that’s clear to everyone. Buddy up with the facilitator, and make sure everybody is aware of staying on topic, and respecting each others’ time on the mic.
That said, if somebody starts filibustering, politely interrupt with questions. Interrupting with questions can get things back on track in a way that can make it look like you’re still super interested in what the Grandstander is trying to say. Plus, everybody else in the session will probably be silently thanking you.
5. The Storyteller: “This reminds me of a time…”
It’s true that, as writer and cultural anthropologist Mary Catherine Bateson said, “The human species thinks in metaphors and learns through stories”. Great lessons — even in critique sessions — can be delivered through a story. And some people are really good at it. Unfortunately, some critique session structures are run as tight as a violin string, and there just isn’t time for such stories.
You and your team can make up your own mind how much time you want to invest in critique sessions. When time is of the essence, I’ve used the same tactic for the Storyteller as I’ve done for the Grandstander: interrupt with questions, to help the Storyteller get to the point. If that doesn’t help, try to make eyes at the facilitator, so that they can politely move the conversation on.
6. The People Pleaser: “I like it.”
For some people, it’s better to say something nice than nothing at all. This feedback tends not to be results-focused; it’s usually more about rewarding you and your self-esteem (“Great job!”), or about them (“Yeah, I’d buy it, based on this design”). Like all feedback, it’s still a gift, and should be treated as such. But try to find out specifically why the person likes it, or how it can be improved, e.g.: “What would make it even better?”
If you sense that they are holding back, it might be better to approach them one-on-one after the group session, to see if there is anything else they want to share, but just didn’t feel comfortable doing it in front of others.
Use your knowledge to encourage diversity, not limit it
Another thing I want to make clear about these behaviours is that it’s not about knowing about them to then block off anything we don’t want to hear. Critique should encourage diverse experiences, backgrounds, and points of view. It’s great to stay open to all sorts of feedback, and I hope that thinking about these behaviours can help us get better at receiving the messages of critique, and separating them from the messenger.
I also hope that thinking about these behaviours helps us to spot them in ourselves, so that we can be better messengers of better critique to others in our teams.
Opening your work to others’ critique early and often is a guaranteed way to not only enrich yourself and your design skills, but to enrich your whole team.
What critique behaviours have you come across? What ideas do you have for what works well and what doesn’t, when it comes to giving and receiving critique?
And if you liked this post, please give it some applause 👏 to help others find it and read it too 🙂. Thank you!
