As a musician I know a thing or two about group dynamics, especially given the fact that there is no objective best way to do music.
You are correct in that baseless positivity and silence can kill discourse, especially since this typically results in one member involuntarily abusing that freedom of criticism, e.g. by forcing things on others, doing the bare minimum etc. This can make others slowly build up resentment or them working against that person on purpose.
The problem is now, that the polar opposite (brutal honesty) will most of the time result in a similar disfunctional team, as negative feedback without trust will lead to a discourse where thebmain topic is no longer important (e.g. the music), but has become a battleground people use to carry out personal grievances. This can be often puzzling to nerds, since the criticism was just about the topic! Ehy does it suddenly become political when what I said seemed to me just to be the truth? The reason is of course that the best criticism goes to waste if you spell it out in a way and within a context within it cannot be taken to heart.
Let me give you an example: You are playing in a band and there is a new inexperienced singer who always sings out of tune in a specific spot. Now the singer is someone you chose to sing for you and you're still happy with them, if they just could not do that damn thing. Now the worst thing you could do is chew them out in front of everyone, even worse when there are outside people. This is because they are not secure in their position within the group (and to be real for a moment: some people will never be).
The better option is to show them trust and give them a way to improve, e.g. by talking to them 1:1, first explaining how you constantly made the same mistake yourself when you had less experience (or a similar anecdote that makes them understand that you are not stomping on them just because) and then you explain where you feel they could be better (note how this sounds less confrontational than "explain why they are wrong") and then even give them a practical waybout (e.g. a contact for singing lessons etc).
You are telling them the same thing, but without them having to "keep their face" in front of the group.
Later, when trust is there you can tell them that this part was shit, just like you would with your bestie, but not before
You are correct in that baseless positivity and silence can kill discourse, especially since this typically results in one member involuntarily abusing that freedom of criticism, e.g. by forcing things on others, doing the bare minimum etc. This can make others slowly build up resentment or them working against that person on purpose.
The problem is now, that the polar opposite (brutal honesty) will most of the time result in a similar disfunctional team, as negative feedback without trust will lead to a discourse where thebmain topic is no longer important (e.g. the music), but has become a battleground people use to carry out personal grievances. This can be often puzzling to nerds, since the criticism was just about the topic! Ehy does it suddenly become political when what I said seemed to me just to be the truth? The reason is of course that the best criticism goes to waste if you spell it out in a way and within a context within it cannot be taken to heart.
Let me give you an example: You are playing in a band and there is a new inexperienced singer who always sings out of tune in a specific spot. Now the singer is someone you chose to sing for you and you're still happy with them, if they just could not do that damn thing. Now the worst thing you could do is chew them out in front of everyone, even worse when there are outside people. This is because they are not secure in their position within the group (and to be real for a moment: some people will never be).
The better option is to show them trust and give them a way to improve, e.g. by talking to them 1:1, first explaining how you constantly made the same mistake yourself when you had less experience (or a similar anecdote that makes them understand that you are not stomping on them just because) and then you explain where you feel they could be better (note how this sounds less confrontational than "explain why they are wrong") and then even give them a practical waybout (e.g. a contact for singing lessons etc).
You are telling them the same thing, but without them having to "keep their face" in front of the group.
Later, when trust is there you can tell them that this part was shit, just like you would with your bestie, but not before