Usually, the suggested fixes that you're given by a writing workshop are pretty mechanical and, oftentimes, not very coherent. The thing that workshop does well, though, is diagnose the problems that need to be fixed. Because stories are so complicated and need to work on so many levels, it's very possible to create a story that's all tone or all setting or all language or all concept and neglect the other elements.
Which is exactly when your workshop comes in and says something like ,"What are the stakes here? Why should the main character care about this? And why should I care" or "What does this main character want?"
I've heard those complaints so many times in so many different critique groups and workshops. These sentiments are the definition of workshop cliche: a generic thing that you say about a piece of writing that you don't really like. And it's very easy for a writer to dismiss these criticisms with some glib tossed-off answer: "They're interested in seeing whether their philosophy works" or "They want to be alone."
Sometimes, though, these phrases come back to you when you're stuck. And questions that seem like cliches can become very powerful when you take them seriously and use them to interrogate your text. When you use them to cut through the easy, glib answers and really examine, "Why does this matter?" and "What does the character want?"
Writing this book, in particular, has meant abandoning two dozen different paths that were very defensible and plausible ways to go, except that they just weren't the right thing to do. But if I didn't have the sense of the basics that I got from workshop, then I don't know that I would've been able to recognize or articulate what was wrong with what I was writing.