Giving Kids the Gift of Critical Feedback
We should respect kids enough to say when and how they could do better
Over recent times the popular culture has taken against ‘being judgemental’. In the era of unconditional approval, being too discriminating or expressing dissatisfaction is somewhat frowned upon. We are presently very sensitive about causing discomfort and those who work with young people especially are encouraged to avoid being too direct or confrontational. Against this backdrop, it is understandable that parents, teachers and coaches alike might feel leery of expressing disappointment or offering feedback that might appear critical. However, what this ignores is that the very nature of competitive sport means that any shortcomings are liable to be ruthlessly exposed by the opposition - and in quite a public manner. For their part, young performers are highly motivated to take steps to mitigate the risk of being shown up in competition and to avoid such a scenario.
It is true that it can be confronting and even a little discomfiting for a young performer to be told they are not performing to expectations. However, if we neglect to point out where the young performer needs to improve then we leave it to the opposition to school them in competition, which is far more confronting. By failing to speak honestly we risk sending them into battle unprepared and ill-equipped.
From this perspective, it does not serve anybody to withhold the feedback and information that would permit the young performer to take the necessary steps to arm themselves before they step into the arena. As coaches we have a duty of care. The urge to spare their feelings often leads us to shield kids from the very feedback that they need. In this way, good intentions can have negative consequences.
“We didn’t get better, we just got older”
- Former junior basketball player, lamenting his youth sport experience
Constant calls of ‘good job’, irrespective of whether it was good, bad or indifferent does not constitute useful feedback. Accepting or even celebrating mediocrity dissuades kids from striving to improve. When praise is given out unconditionally, irrespective of how they actually performed, what incentive is there to work harder or do better? But perhaps the bigger issue is that it can be incredibly frustrating to be told ‘good job’ when it is obvious that they are falling short. What motivated young performers crave in these circumstances is to be told what they need to fix and how they might go about doing it.
Rather than being a kindness it is a sin of omission when we fail to provide critical feedback. At no point should a young performer be unclear about where they need to improve and how they might become better. Whether or not they take this guidance on board and choose to act on it is up to the individual. Whatever the case, we have an obligation to ensure that they possess this information.
To that end, we should be more diligent about what we communicate to young performers. We can be supportive whilst still providing the feedback and guidance that they require. We can be critical, so long as it is constructive. We can be discriminating with our praise and still offer encouragement as they struggle through the process. We can and should recognise and reward effort, even if the execution is not yet at the level we are aiming for.
“A coach is someone who tells you what you don't want to hear, who has you see what you don't want to see, so you can be who you have always known you could be.”
― Tom Landry
In turn, we should help kids to understand that it is a good thing when we take the time and make the effort to offer a considered critique. What this demonstrates is that we care enough about the individual to go to the trouble. This applies especially when it is unclear whether our feedback will be well received. After all, we could easily avoid all this hassle if we just keep quiet, so it signals respect and that we hold them in high regard when we are prepared to be candid. It is also expresses confidence in the young performer’s potential and their ability to put things right. The phrase ‘could do better’ is typically interpreted as an expression of dissatisfaction or disappointment. In fact, this is actually a positive statement, which also has the benefit of being generally true. In most cases they could do better if they invested the time and effort in the right way.
Preparing kids to compete means doing what we can to address any apparent vulnerabilities ahead of time. All parties should be very clear that the purpose of practice is identify and methodically work on deficiencies, as well as building upon strengths. Critical feedback and candid guidance serve the vital function of directing the young performer’s attention to where they need to improve and specifying the action steps to rectify any faults identified.
All that said, the time and place matters. Public remonstrations are unhelpful. Rather, critical feedback is best delivered in a more private fashion during a quiet moment. Whilst there can be merit in conducting an initial debrief or ‘hot wash’ while the experience is still fresh, the ability to take on feedback and process input in the immediate aftermath of competition is typically something that comes with experience and maturity. In general, it is best to wait 24 hours to permit some space to process what just happened and regain their emotional equilibrium before engaging in an in-depth after-action review. Similarly, for parents the car ride home is generally not a good forum for a forensic examination of what went wrong.
Beyond the time and place, the manner in which feedback and guidance is delivered also has an important bearing on how it is received and what response it elicits. Whilst it is important to be candid, we should also be considered in how we convey the relevant information. Critical feedback is best offered in a manner that is concise, measured and matter of fact. It should also be accompanied by guidance on what they can do to address the issues identified. Pointing out faults and shortcomings comes with the obligation to offer suggestions on potential fixes and corrections. All of this should be done in the spirit of encouragement. The young performer needs to trust that we are on their side and be assured that we are committed to working through the process with them and seeing it through to a positive outcome.
It is also a good idea to be strategic about who might be the best conduit for critical feedback and candid advice. Parents in particular are a precarious position in this regard, given their dual role as primary caregiver and sport parent. We can avoid such complications by nominating a messenger who the young performer respects and looks up to. The same words in much the same order often have more impact and are better received when they come from somebody else.
Young performers certainly vary in their openness to receiving critical feedback. Equally this is a crucial skill to cultivate. Providing some space after feedback and guidance is offered for the young performer to go away and digest the information can be helpful to overcome the initial emotion-laden reaction so that the message can be received in the spirit intended and they are in a better position to respond positively.
As encouraging elders, our role is to support the effort to make them better, with the aim that they ultimately realise their full potential. In this context, our approval should be conditional. An important caveat is that as parents we should make it clear that this only applies to this specific domain. Whatever happens at practice or in the arena, this should not spill over into the home environment.