The Myth of Radical Transparency
Some leaders contend that radical candor and transparency are the foundation for the optimal organizational culture.
The aim of creating the conditions for extremely candid feedback and transparency around matters typically not discussed sounds like the ideal environment to get things done with excellence.
Imagine if everyone really shared what they really thought almost all the time. How much better would our decisions be? How much more efficient and productive would the organization become if people were willing and expected to speak their minds and defend their data and assumptions?
Radical candor leaders reason that full openness inside an organization and between team members has too many advantages not to push toward it.
While creating a culture that promotes more candidness and openness should be the goal of every leader and organization, “radical” candor or “radical” transparency takes the idea of openness to the extreme.
By creating norms whereby team members are encouraged to offer their unbridled and unvarnished opinions on nearly every matter, leaders desire the kind of unfiltered discussion that quickly gets to the heart of any issue with the goal of finding the best answer.
Unfortunately, the uncensored honesty unleashed by radical feedback and transparency quickly frays relationships and soon produces the opposite climate it is designed to promote.
Team members in a radically open environment become guarded and defensive. Conflict commonly breaks out over simple issues. Disputes and disagreements create hurt and hardened feelings that produce a chilling effect on future conversations.
In an ironic twist, the extreme openness creates far more cautious communication and sharing.
Leaders who desire “Radical Transparency” often underestimate the negative effects and long-term impact of uncensored honesty and openness. Human beings in all organizations and cultures have a need to project and sustain a self-image and identity.
In more situations than not, people want to be seen as cooperative, likable, agreeable, and smart. When repeatedly challenged to defend their ideas and viewpoints, that identity becomes threatened, and people move to protect it.
To save face when continually contested, they lash out or withdraw. So, in a radically transparent culture, some team members take the license to act more aggressively while others disengage and move inward.
Those organizations that boast of such radical candor usually experience high levels of stress, turnover, and dissatisfaction. In several notable examples, an external brand of radical transparency is a false projection of what actually happens inside the everyday meetings and discussions of the organization.
Enterprises that maintain a radical transparency rarely sustain this approach over time. They learn quickly that too much of a good thing can even apply to candor.
Don’t be fooled by the promise of an organizational utopia with radical transparency where no one gets their feelings hurt and everyone holds “truth” above the need to think well of themselves.
Good leaders strive to create more candor and openness but understand the limits of what people can handle. Uncensored honesty and transparency destroy relationships and undermine the desire to collaborate.
Too much of anything is bad, but too much candor can actually produce less of it. Be careful not to cross that line.
I think today's post is responding to the 'weaponized' version of Radical Candor. At other companies, we were strongly encouraged (forced?) to read whatever book a senior leader above us read and was moved by. Some titles I remember: Who Moved My Cheese?, The Loudest Duck, Growth Mindset, Grit, Crucial Conversations, the list goes on. The books recommended are most always Pop Psychology books. Something the leader picked up at the airport or bookstore. Did you read this? You haven't read this, I thought you were a reader? This book changed my life! We need everyone on the team to read it...now! The leader recommends it because they read and found something that seems to justify or validate their world view or current behavior, i.e., "See, I'm not a dick. I'm just someone who believes in giving Radical Candor." The books you find at the airport or in the business and leadership section at your local chain bookstore aren't all bad. But leaders are less likely to recommend titles that offer richer and deeper insight on the subject like, Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, or The Conflict-Positive Organization: Stimulate Diversity and Create Unity. My recommendation - you'll find more lessons on leadership in the history, philosophy (I'm biased toward Stoicism), and biographies than you'll find in the business and leadership section (there are some good titles in the personal improvement section too). Happy reading!
What if we strived for honesty, transparency and candor through the lens of curiosity and care? I have seen situations in which people hide behind values of “transparency” and “candor” as a way to justify meanness couched as honest feedback. For me, this is not ok. I believe we owe it to our colleagues, coworkers, colleagues and stakeholders to be kind. First we can seek to understand a situation fully by asking questions, being curious and getting clear on our own intentions. I often think of the construct of the three gates in the context of transparency. Before speaking, we must consider whether or not these words can pass through:
- Is it true?
- Is it necessary?
- Is it kind?
If the answer is no to any of these, it should give us pause.
I do believe in transparency and candor and I also believe in kindness. I think there is a way to have both.