Offering constructive criticism is a challenging task for many IT leaders. Whether it’s implementing an employee improvement plan, addressing a specific situation, or conducting a quarterly review, effective criticism can be crucial to a team’s development and performance.
Constructive criticism can be an excellent instrument for growth, both individually and on the team level, says Edward Tian, CEO of AI detection service provider GPTZero. “Many times, and with IT teams in particular, work is very independent,” he observes in an email interview. “IT workers may not frequently collaborate with one another or get input on what they’re doing,” Tian states. “If you can be intentional about constructive criticism, you can better ensure that your IT workers are constantly improving their skills and work outcomes, even as they work independently.” Improving individual workers improves the team as a whole, Tian adds.
Gone are the days of top-down directives, says Jean-Philippe Avelange, CIO at Expereo, a global provider of managed Internet and hybrid networks, SD-WAN, and cloud connectivity solutions. “Today’s most successful IT teams thrive on open, transparent, and data-driven feedback loops, driving real-time course corrections and sustained high performance,” he explains in an online interview.
Criticism is simply a matter of pointing out obvious failures or errors, says Ola Chowning, a partner with technology research and advisory firm ISG. “Constructive criticism helps the team improve, and, therefore, believe that they can succeed,” she observes in an online interview.
When using constructive criticism, take an approach that focuses on seeking improvement with the poor result, Chowning advises. Meanwhile, use empathy to solicit ideas on how to improve on a poor result. She adds that it’s important to ask questions, listen, seek to understand, acknowledge any difficulties or constraints, and solicit improvement ideas.
Criticism Versus Constructive Criticism
Criticism looks backward; constructive criticism looks forward, Avelange says. Traditional criticism, he notes, focuses on what went wrong, often leaving teams defensive or disengaged. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is inherently solution-oriented and directly tied to business outcomes. “It’s not about assigning blame — it’s about enabling teams to see opportunities to optimize, experiment, and push the envelope,” Avelange explains. It’s an approach that requires a mindset shift, moving from correction to coaching — an environment in which leaders act as enablers rather than enforcers.
With any IT team there are two key aspects of constructive criticism: creating the expectation and opportunity for performance improvement, and — often overlooked — instilling recognition in the team that performance is monitored and has implications, Chowning says.
Appropriate Situations
Timing matters when offering constructive criticism, Chowning says. “Most teams do poorly when confronted with criticism within the midst of a task or event, as well as in any situation that involves people outside the team, or directly on the heels of a failure,” she notes. Give the team time to take a deep breath and step away from a failure or stressful situation, Chowning recommends. “Additionally, conduct your discussion in a trusted space, such as during a team meeting.”
Constructive criticism isn’t a tool for damage control — it’s a permanent, embedded practice in high-performance IT organizations, Avelange adds.
Avoiding Mistakes
The biggest mistake IT leaders make is treating feedback as a one-way directive rather than a dynamic conversation, Avelange observes. “Too many IT leaders still operate in a command-and-control mindset, dictating what needs to change rather than co-creating solutions with their teams.”
Failing to do anything is probably the biggest mistake IT leaders make when facing a problematic situation, Chowning says. “Confronting poor performance of any kind is difficult for leaders — confrontation is rarely comfortable,” she notes. As a result, many leaders either delay action beyond a time when a detailed approach might be beneficial, or they fail to address the situation at all. Additionally, if there are aspects of the poor performance result that lie beyond the team’s control, it can be a mistake to allow that factor to become an excuse. “A clear understanding and acknowledgement of a constraint is important, but don’t let it stop the team from finding ways to improve.”
Asking questions is the best way to immediately relay disappointment while simultaneously signaling an expectation for improvement, Chowning says. For example: “As you know, we didn’t hit our mark for XYZ this month, but ABC was happening at the same time, and that introduced additional constraints for us. So, what could we have done differently? What should we do differently next time? Let’s talk through it.”
A Final Observation
High-performing teams don’t just execute — they think, challenge, and innovate, Avelange says. “Leaders who fail to embrace this attitude risk creating a passive workforce rather than an engaged, problem-solving team,” he warns.