Critique Rituals

Summary

Regular open forum sessions for presenting work and receiving peer feedback to improve quality and foster learning. Use structured formats that maintain psychological safety while promoting honest evaluation.

Context

Software teams, like design studios and research labs, benefit from regular opportunities to share work-in-progress and receive constructive feedback from peers. This builds both individual skills and collective knowledge. It also maintains quality standards.

Problem

Without regular critique sessions, teams miss opportunities to:

• Improve work quality through diverse perspectives and early feedback
• Learn from each other’s approaches and problem-solving methods
• Build shared standards for quality and best practices
• Develop feedback skills essential for collaboration and mentoring
• Create psychological safety around sharing unfinished work

Informal feedback often becomes personal or lacks structure, while formal code reviews may be too late in the process or focused only on technical correctness.

Solution

Establish regular critique sessions where teams present their work to peers and receive structured feedback. Create a supportive environment that emphasizes learning and improvement over judgment.

Core Critique Structure:

1. Presenter sets context: Share the problem, goals, and constraints (3-5 minutes)
2. Work presentation: Show current state without defensive explanation (5-10 minutes)
3. Clarifying questions: Audience asks questions to understand context (3-5 minutes)
4. Structured feedback: Use specific frameworks to provide constructive input (10-15 minutes)
5. Synthesis and next steps: Presenter summarizes key insights and planned actions (3-5 minutes)

Psychological Safety Foundations:

• Work-focused critique: Comment on work, not the person (“This approach…” vs. “You…”)
• Assumption of positive intent: Assume everyone wants to create good work and help others
• Growth mindset language: Frame feedback as learning opportunities rather than judgments
• Shared vulnerability: Leaders and senior team members model sharing unfinished work

Structured Feedback Templates

Specific formats for giving and receiving constructive critique that maintains focus and psychological safety.

Template 1: I Like, I Wish, I Wonder (Simple Format)

Purpose: Quick, accessible feedback format suitable for any type of work

Structure:

• I Like: Specific aspects that work well (be concrete about why)
• I Wish: Suggestions for improvement (framed as wishes, not demands)
• I Wonder: Questions that could lead to exploration (curiosity-driven)

Example:

• “I like how the API design clearly separates concerns between authentication and data access”
• “I wish there was more error handling for the edge case when the database is unavailable”
• “I wonder if we’ve considered how this will perform when we have 10x more users”

Template 2: Glow and Grow (Development-Focused)

Purpose: Balanced feedback emphasizing strengths and development opportunities

Structure:

• Glow: What’s working exceptionally well (specific strengths to build on)
• Grow: Areas with potential for development (growth opportunities, not failures)

Example:

• “Glow: The test coverage approach you’ve taken makes the code behavior very clear and gives me confidence in changes”
• “Grow: The architecture could benefit from clearer separation between business logic and UI concerns”

Template 3: Plus, Delta, Next (Action-Oriented)

Purpose: Feedback that drives immediate action and iteration

Structure:

• Plus: What should be preserved and amplified
• Delta: What should be changed or adjusted
• Next: Specific next steps or experiments to try

Example:

• “Plus: The user research insights are well-documented and clearly influence the design decisions”
• “Delta: The wireframes could show more detail about the responsive behavior on mobile”
• “Next: Consider prototyping the checkout flow to test the assumption about user preferences”

Template 4: Critical Friends Protocol (Deep Analysis)

Purpose: Thorough critique for complex work requiring detailed analysis

Structure:

1. Clarify intent: “Help me understand what you’re trying to achieve”
2. Identify strengths: “What’s working particularly well?”
3. Surface assumptions: “What assumptions are embedded in this approach?”
4. Explore alternatives: “What other approaches did you consider?”
5. Consider implications: “What are the potential consequences of this choice?”
6. Suggest experiments: “How might we test these assumptions?”

Remote Critique Protocols

Strengthen guidance for conducting effective critiques in distributed teams where traditional in-person dynamics don’t apply.

Technology Setup for Remote Critique

Essential Tools:

• Screen sharing: High-quality screen sharing for detailed work review
• Digital whiteboard: Collaborative space for visual feedback and note-taking
• Breakout rooms: Small group feedback sessions before larger group synthesis
• Recording capability: Optional recording for review and absent team members
• Chat channel: Parallel text discussion for questions and links

Technical Considerations:

• Bandwidth management: Optimize screen sharing quality vs. connection stability
• Multiple screens: Presenter uses second screen for notes while sharing work
• Cursor highlighting: Use tools that highlight mouse movements for clarity
• Audio quality: Ensure clear audio for nuanced discussion

Adapted Critique Process for Remote Teams

Pre-Session Preparation:

• Async context sharing: Share background materials 24-48 hours in advance
• Pre-submitted questions: Collect clarifying questions before the session
• Work documentation: Provide written descriptions alongside visual presentations
• Time zone consideration: Rotate session timing to accommodate different locations

During Remote Critique Sessions:

1. Extended context setting (7-10 minutes): More time needed to establish shared understanding
2. Structured interaction prompts: Explicit invitations for participation (“Sarah, what questions do you have?”)
3. Visual annotation: Use digital tools to mark up work being critiqued
4. Chat integration: Monitor text chat for questions and feedback from quieter participants
5. Regular check-ins: “Who hasn’t had a chance to share their perspective?”

Post-Session Follow-up:

• Written synthesis: Capture key feedback points in shared document
• Action item tracking: Clear assignment of next steps with owners
• One-on-one follow-up: Individual conversations for complex or sensitive feedback
• Async elaboration: Opportunity for additional thoughts via text after processing time

Maintaining Engagement and Inclusion in Remote Critique

Participation Strategies:

• Smaller groups: 4-6 people maximum for effective remote interaction
• Rotation facilitation: Different team members facilitate different sessions
• Cultural adaptation: Adjust expectations for interruption, silence, and directness
• Multiple input channels: Combine verbal, chat, and digital annotation feedback

Addressing Remote Challenges:

• “Zoom fatigue” management: Shorter sessions (20-30 minutes vs. 45-60 minutes in-person)
• Reduced non-verbal cues: More explicit verbal checking for understanding and agreement
• Technical barriers: Have backup plans for screen sharing and connectivity issues
• Time zone inclusion: Record sessions and create async feedback opportunities

Building Psychological Safety in Remote Critique

Trust-Building Practices:

• Camera-on culture: Encourage video for better connection while respecting privacy needs
• Personal check-ins: Brief personal sharing before work critique
• Explicit safety reminders: Regular reinforcement of critique ground rules
• Modeling vulnerability: Leaders share unfinished work and accept feedback gracefully

Forces

• Structured feedback vs. informal discussion
• Psychological safety vs. honest critique
• Time investment vs. learning benefits
• Individual vs. collective learning

Examples

Design Studios: Architecture and graphic design schools use regular “pin-up” critiques where students present work to peers and faculty for structured feedback, building both design skills and critical thinking.

Research Labs: Academic research groups hold regular “paper presentations” where researchers share work-in-progress and receive feedback on methodology, analysis, and interpretation.

Software Teams at Shopify: Engineering teams hold weekly “demo and critique” sessions where developers present recent work, architectural decisions, or new tools to gather peer feedback and share learning.

Creative Agencies: Ad agencies and design firms use structured critique sessions called “reviews” where creative work is presented to peers and refined based on structured feedback before client presentation.

Open Source Projects: Many open source communities use “request for comments” (RFC) processes that mirror critique rituals, where proposed changes are presented for community feedback before implementation.

Related Patterns

• Pin-Up Space - Physical space that supports displaying work for critique
• Poster Sessions - Similar approach to sharing and discussing work
• Psychological Safety Practices - Essential foundation for productive critique
• Weekly Cadence - Critique rituals benefit from regular scheduling as part of weekly rhythms
• Rituals as Spatial Anchors - Using consistent spaces creates meaningful associations with critique practices

Sources

• Design studio critique traditions
• Peer review practices in research
• Feedback culture research