Do your reviews make 5 from 2 & 2?

A productive design review has only partly to do with the obvious merits & demerits of the design object. Lets explore the other unsaid happenings. To set the stage, the designer has caliber and the reviewer is experienced in the subject. That said, if the review may be in the midst of project, the design/ artifact/ idea may be unrefined.

What are the individual's concerns at a review?

During reviews, both designer and reviewer have unvoiced concerns - 
~ Is the designer distanced enough to retain perspective?
~ Will communication abilities be confused for the design's potential?
Making the designer or the reviewer 'wordy' and bringing an irresistible urge to handhold or help 'SEE' their point. They over-explain to get their ideas across.

Dig-Gold Approach to Review Session

The approach here is to Dig out the real good as it is hard to see. It helps us grow, realize potential and feel successful. Jay O'Callahan (a pioneer of 'Sharing Appreciations' technique) has put it aptly; If our eyes are always looking for weakness, we begin to lose the intuition to notice the beauty... People think that pointing out faults is the only way to improve. This is an ancient way of thinking! Appreciations are not about being polite. They are about pointing out what is alive. The recipient must take it in, incorporate it(1).

For this approach to work both reviewer and designer need to cultivate certain attitudes. 

Reviewer Attitude

As a reviewer you need to be
~ take time to understand the work, and explain the feedback. Reciprocate designer time and efforts with interest
~ a mentor who articulates the good with clarity. Be cheerful and take the onus of setting your protege on the path to success
~ a friend & cheerleader, be supportive and keep all-round morale high
~ a zen-master and open to being wrong
There is no sadistic attitude and the role is not of fault finding.

Designer Attitude

On the designer's end, you need to
~ do your homework, have the research at your fingertips and know what you are doing
~ present quality artifact, thinking and ideas
~ Set context and give a brief about feedback you are seeking
~ look at the work together with the reviewer
~ ask more questions to understand the feedback better
~ keep a check list of feedback comments and review it later to decide the best course of action
~ be open to being wrong and allow the feedback to better your work

Characteristics  of a Good Review Session

A Good review session can be recognized when you see these happening;
~ there is appreciation of the goodness and clarity about how to grow/ expand the goodness
~ there is isolation, feedback and constructive criticism of issues/ fault lines
~ there is a short-cutting of any long stray winding paths the designer may have planned
~ important forward directions are clearly recognizable
~ the designer is able to take a step back, see the reviewer's  and the larger  perspective. The entire horizon of thinking has expanded
~ lastly a visible satisfaction and celebratory mood among participants

There will be no existential questions about the idea or personal attacks such as "This is poorly written" or "This makes no sense".
Sometimes the session turns into a 'trashing'. The designer can convert the trashing or negativity / frustration into creativity to push the idea further. This way the designer learns to be sharp and focused. All around adrenaline levels are high which helps prepare for the rude outside. However this high conflict environment over time tends to adversely affect the morale and well-being of the Designer, the Reviewer, the Design Object and the dynamics of the Organization. At such times best solution is to -

Know when to pull the plug gracefully!

Carefully stop or reschedule the discussion which look like they are headed the argumentative way. Keep an eye out for the following signs.
~ session starts to sound defensive
~ a single point is hashed multiple times without any conclusion at sight (say 10 minutes+).
~ the reviewer thinks that they know an inherently better way (i.e comparing real work to a fictional idea).
~ the discord is created by throwing a parallel approach towards the problem.
~ reviewer delivers judgment without sharing reasons or hearing out the response.
~ the reviewer or designer gets too attached to their impart and considers unacceptable feedback as being insulting.
~ lastly, when tensions and frustrations set in all around.

Quits: The Last & Final Resort

Sometimes the reviewer, looking to shake the designer out of a well-settled comfortable or  hard to change nook, goes ahead with a good shake up and rattling. But there is an imminent risk of this feedback not being taken in the right spirit. Such a 'Last resort approach' should be used seldom.
Ultimately no one wants to be doing a 'what crap is this?' type of work. If for any unfortunate reason, the idea IS crappy with ZERO potential - without much ado, send it to early death right at the sketch or idea level. Such ideas need miracles to turn around!

(1) Jay O'Callahan: Appreciations
(2) The Art of Constructive Criticism by Edward G. Rozycki

Other Interesting reads: 
The myth of constructive criticism? by David Airey
Criticism: Myths and Childishness by Andy Rutledge
Under The Loupe #3: Critiquing by Jason Santa Maria

Next Blog Post: Conducting a good design criticism session + Six Hats Techniques