In general, research has shown time and again that argumentative and
assertive communication traits serve to construct positive communication
environments and positive affect and the self and others, while hostile
and aggressive communication behaviors destroy. This is true in the
contexts of parent-child, married couples, dating couples, siblings,
work and colleague relationships, and instructor-student relationships.
Specific to a work environment, employees with argumentative supervisors
report much greater job satisfaction than do employees with aggressive
supervisors.
In the context of giving and receiving constructive feedback and
criticism, it is important to understand the differences between
assertive/argumentative communication, and hostile/aggressive
communication. The fundamental difference is the focus of attack. When
attacks are focused on a person's position, they fall under the category
of assertive or argumentative. When attacks are focused on a person's
characteristics, history, behaviors, or any other component of the
individual, they are considered hostile, and possibly aggressive.
If you want your feedback and critique to be constructive, then it is
necessary that you use constructive communication behaviors when
delivering your it. If your feedback and/or critique includes commentary
such as, "Don't be an idiot," "What did you do it this way for?"
(implies something's wrong with you), "I know your dad's not a great
writer, but I hoped for more from you," (attack on significant others),
"Let's see if you got it right this time," (implies a history of getting
it wrong), "These expectations aren't hard for most people, but I know
they're kind of hard for you," (implies incompetence), or, "All right,
you got it done! There's hope for you after all!" (mockery, implies
incompetence), you are engaging in verbally aggressive behavior, which
is not at all constructive.
For your feedback and critique to be
actually constructive, not only do these types of comments need to be
avoided, but the entire focus of the discussion needs to center around
the work product, itself.