Sometimes. Depends on context. If the flaws make a solution unworkable, then they’re worth bringing up. If you support the concept but would also like the flaws to be worked on, then it’s worth tactfully bringing up. If no solution other than absolute perfection will satisfy you, shut the fuck up.
There’s a lot of idiots and bad actors sabotaging good solutions because they want perfect solutions, and then we end up getting no solutions. So yeah. Don’t do that.
I would formulate it differently: Expecting perfect solutions is a common tactic for opponents of an idea.
That’s what I was getting at but I think you said it better.
Agree with this. I think tactfully pointing out minor issues you see can be helpful because the implementor is closer to the problem and may have just overlooked the issue and can come up with a solution easily. I’ve been on the giving and receiving end of this, and so long as everyone is behaving professionally, it’s always been helpful.
On the “tactful” note, I’ll generally say something like: “I don’t have a solution, but I see problem. I don’t know that this is reason enough to hold up this PR. I’ll leave it up to you.”
I don’t have to be professional chef to know that the food is bad.
“Food is bad”, doesn’t help us get better food, it just brings out the unpleasantness. “Pay more for better ingredients”, or “hire a new chef”, states the problem in a way that gives us a potential solution, or something specific to argue about (budget)
Generally, no, but context and approach matter.
The ability to notice a flaw isn’t the same as the skill, experience, and background that might be necessary to design a useful solution for a particular issue, especially complex issues. It’s generally reasonable to say, “I don’t know of a better solution, but I can predict that x and y problems will likely result from your proposed solution.”
It’s especially valid to warn someone when their proposed solution will harm people or make things worse. You don’t have to have a better solution to try to prevent someone from doing something ill-conceived or hasty or reckless.
If the stakes are low or the person proposing a solution is likely to be sensitive to criticism, it might work better to try to approach your response as an attempt to help them refine their solution, rather than just opposing it outright. Be considerate of their feelings and make it clear you’re working together.
No. Criticism is a very important thing but needs to be delivered positively to be heard. Lots of people don’t have better solutions but can always help improve what’s currently on the table.
Only if you’re in a stupid ego-based culture.
If you actually want to get shit done, you need to be able to criticize ideas regardless of whether you have a better idea.
If the problem must be solved, and the option to do nothing isn’t acceptable, then yes. Unless you’re pointing them out to help mitigate them, with the acknowledgement that you will accept them regardless.
Criticise, yes. Constructive feedback no.
When you criticise without a solution you sound like a person who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Don’t do X.
Ok, why?
Because it is bad.
… But how is it bad?Where as constructive feedback offers alternative paths to achieve the same goal.
Don’t do X, it is more faster/efficient to do Y in order to achieve your goal.
I don’t need to know how to repair a helicopter, to know I’m not going to get on one that has a broken rotor.
So no, you don’t need expertise or a solution to be able to identify obvious flaws.
In your instance, the obvious solution is to repair it first.
How is that connected to this discussion?
I think a big factor here is the size of the group you’re working with. If you’re frequently shooting down others and contributing no constructive alternatives in a working group of, say, 5 or fewer people… people are gonna get tired of your shit really quickly.
Feedback as part of a larger scale effort can always be useful, though.
The German constitution has an interesting clause by which MPs may not launch a vote of confidence in the government unless they have an alternative government line-up which is ready to take over. Apparently it has some role in the legendary stability of German politics.
No, even if something is the lesser of multiple evils, it still isn’t immune to criticism, it just means there’s more reason it must be “tolerated”.
I try to do is build it with them and see what flaws we as a team encounter. That way it is us finding problems and solutions instead of me sitting in the back screaming complaints.
