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!
FYI - I love using Claude to quickly summarize books. It doesn't work on all titles, but it did for Radical Candor. I used the following prompt that I worked very hard on: tldr Radical Candor
Radical Candor is a management philosophy developed by Kim Scott. Here's a brief summary:
1. Core concept: Care personally, challenge directly
2. Four quadrants:
- Radical Candor: High care, high challenge (ideal)
- Ruinous Empathy: High care, low challenge
- Obnoxious Aggression: Low care, high challenge
- Manipulative Insincerity: Low care, low challenge
3. Key practices:
- Give honest feedback
- Solicit feedback from others
- Build strong relationships
- Balance praise and criticism
4. Aim: Create a culture of open communication and continuous improvement
This approach encourages leaders to be direct and honest while showing genuine care for their team members, leading to better performance and stronger relationships.
I entered the same prompt into ALEX:
Radical Candor is a concept that encourages leaders to challenge their team members directly while also caring for them personally. The key ideas are:
Caring Personally: Leaders should genuinely care about their team members as human beings. This means taking an interest in their lives, goals, and well-being.
Challenging Directly: Leaders should be willing to give direct, honest feedback to help their team members grow and improve. This means not shying away from difficult conversations.
Radical Candor sits at the intersection of these two dimensions. It's about giving candid feedback, from a place of caring deeply.
The opposite of Radical Candor is Ruinous Empathy (caring without challenge), Manipulative Insincerity (neither caring nor challenging), and Obnoxious Aggression (challenging without caring).
Radical Candor is not about being brutally honest or giving uncensored criticism. It's about striking a balance between being direct and being empathetic.
The goal is to create a culture of open communication, where people feel comfortable both giving and receiving constructive feedback, knowing that it comes from a place of genuine care and a desire to help each other grow.
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.
At this end of the conversation the “spaghetti sauce” question always comes up.
Would you rather I say something about the spot I see on your cheek or ignore it? Even if I say it as kindly as possible, some might perceive any version of pointing it out as offensive.
Ah Jennifer! A great question. This can feel awkward, especially when it’s someone you don’t know well. I guess I would always want someone to point it out, so I’ll kindly, and discretely as possible, do the same.
Excellent article, in society and family setting it is rare to have that level of openness and transparency, so why should workplaces be different. There is not enough training on conflict resolution. At so many companies hierarchical structures still exist, so that level of openness is surely a big step.
Hard conversations take energy. And everybody has a battery pack that's constantly spending and recharging. It gets further complex when you move from the scale of a few teammates, to hundreds and thousands of teammates.
More leaders should remember this.
The point of radical candor is to be able to have the hard conversations, to ultimately reach shared success and mutual goals. I believe the actual key to that utopia you mention, is focusing on trust within the group. Focusing on trust first, can lead to less energy spent on the hard conversations. When that foundation is there, more radical candor can happen (which, in an ideal world, is good).
I am a little confused by this one since I have never seen nor heard of a workplace that applied these concepts in quite this way. I am more directly familiar with “radical transparency,” which I define as a leader’s stance—not one that all members of an organization would adhere to. With radical transparency, a leader shares his or her challenges along with outside threats to build awareness and trust as well as to establish consent around authority. it is a way to build collaborative teams. It would never be an expectation that team members would practice RT.
Where are the guardrails on that leader’s transparency, Dr. Jim.
A radical amount of it sounds like a person who overshares even personal details that would make listeners uncomfortable?
And, yes, there is a very well known organization that practices this kind of thing to the point of giving people live, digital feedback in the middle of meetings while a team member presents.
In the book Radical Candor by Kim Scott, the idea is not only to challenge directly but to care deeply. So that radical candor is not achieved at the expense of those receiving it; it’s honest, clear feedback that’s founded in strong relationships and given with empathy.
Do you think the title of that book does disservice to the implementation of the core ideas? Maybe the title is the main reason people use the idea incorrectly?
Hi Mikey, I think it’s possible that those who have not read the book may think that radical means not holding anything back. That would be a great example of why one ‘should not judge a book by its cover.’
The same thing happened to Jocko Wilink’s book “Extreme Ownership.”
I think a lot of people are lazy and want to take an idea and run with it before fully understanding the concept (or reading the book). We can debate all day whether that is the individual’s responsibility to comprehend or the responsibility of the author to ensure title’s do not encourage this human tendency of distorting a concept based on words in a title. But I think it comes down to leaders of these organizations choosing not to operate in one extreme or another. Period. For anything.
It’s about operating in the AND, not the OR. Which, frankly, both “Radical Candor” and “Extreme Ownership” do a good job of illustrating within the outlined concepts and principles.
Based on that, I do appreciate the point being made in this article that too much of a good thing (candor) can have counterproductive effects.
I doubt that there exists a society (of any size) that practices 100% candor, transparency, and related virtues. Boundaries and regulations exist due to our differences, e.g. personality, communication style, et al. Just like in music, space must be left for other instruments to be heard and stand out. This fully loaded approach would favour certain types within any group and kill the overall group strength. Pulling in one direction makes for a strong team but there is room for diversity within our interactions. Differences among us add value to groupthink, keeping all honest, and allowing differing viewpoints on common issues. Isn't that a means of enriching a team?
Guidelines can vary but one I'd propose in place of radical candor would be the Stoic virtues of courage, temperance, wisdom, justice. All that we do can be measured against the four. It takes courage to speak up, so this should not be punished or hampered. When we share ideas, even criticism or critiques, wisdom is a must have. We should have a justice mindset, incorporating empathy for others. Everything too must remain balanced. In the end, to borrow from Augustine of Hippo, "In all essential things we must have unity. In all non-essential things, liberty. But in all things, charity."
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!
You just described a very common lived experience, like you saw my life movie!
FYI - I love using Claude to quickly summarize books. It doesn't work on all titles, but it did for Radical Candor. I used the following prompt that I worked very hard on: tldr Radical Candor
Radical Candor is a management philosophy developed by Kim Scott. Here's a brief summary:
1. Core concept: Care personally, challenge directly
2. Four quadrants:
- Radical Candor: High care, high challenge (ideal)
- Ruinous Empathy: High care, low challenge
- Obnoxious Aggression: Low care, high challenge
- Manipulative Insincerity: Low care, low challenge
3. Key practices:
- Give honest feedback
- Solicit feedback from others
- Build strong relationships
- Balance praise and criticism
4. Aim: Create a culture of open communication and continuous improvement
This approach encourages leaders to be direct and honest while showing genuine care for their team members, leading to better performance and stronger relationships.
I entered the same prompt into ALEX:
Radical Candor is a concept that encourages leaders to challenge their team members directly while also caring for them personally. The key ideas are:
Caring Personally: Leaders should genuinely care about their team members as human beings. This means taking an interest in their lives, goals, and well-being.
Challenging Directly: Leaders should be willing to give direct, honest feedback to help their team members grow and improve. This means not shying away from difficult conversations.
Radical Candor sits at the intersection of these two dimensions. It's about giving candid feedback, from a place of caring deeply.
The opposite of Radical Candor is Ruinous Empathy (caring without challenge), Manipulative Insincerity (neither caring nor challenging), and Obnoxious Aggression (challenging without caring).
Radical Candor is not about being brutally honest or giving uncensored criticism. It's about striking a balance between being direct and being empathetic.
The goal is to create a culture of open communication, where people feel comfortable both giving and receiving constructive feedback, knowing that it comes from a place of genuine care and a desire to help each other grow.
I too am a big fan of stoicism, David. I enjoyed reading through your comments (my version of radical candour).
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.
At this end of the conversation the “spaghetti sauce” question always comes up.
Would you rather I say something about the spot I see on your cheek or ignore it? Even if I say it as kindly as possible, some might perceive any version of pointing it out as offensive.
What are your thoughts?
Ah Jennifer! A great question. This can feel awkward, especially when it’s someone you don’t know well. I guess I would always want someone to point it out, so I’ll kindly, and discretely as possible, do the same.
Excellent article, in society and family setting it is rare to have that level of openness and transparency, so why should workplaces be different. There is not enough training on conflict resolution. At so many companies hierarchical structures still exist, so that level of openness is surely a big step.
Hard conversations take energy. And everybody has a battery pack that's constantly spending and recharging. It gets further complex when you move from the scale of a few teammates, to hundreds and thousands of teammates.
More leaders should remember this.
The point of radical candor is to be able to have the hard conversations, to ultimately reach shared success and mutual goals. I believe the actual key to that utopia you mention, is focusing on trust within the group. Focusing on trust first, can lead to less energy spent on the hard conversations. When that foundation is there, more radical candor can happen (which, in an ideal world, is good).
I am a little confused by this one since I have never seen nor heard of a workplace that applied these concepts in quite this way. I am more directly familiar with “radical transparency,” which I define as a leader’s stance—not one that all members of an organization would adhere to. With radical transparency, a leader shares his or her challenges along with outside threats to build awareness and trust as well as to establish consent around authority. it is a way to build collaborative teams. It would never be an expectation that team members would practice RT.
Where are the guardrails on that leader’s transparency, Dr. Jim.
A radical amount of it sounds like a person who overshares even personal details that would make listeners uncomfortable?
And, yes, there is a very well known organization that practices this kind of thing to the point of giving people live, digital feedback in the middle of meetings while a team member presents.
In the book Radical Candor by Kim Scott, the idea is not only to challenge directly but to care deeply. So that radical candor is not achieved at the expense of those receiving it; it’s honest, clear feedback that’s founded in strong relationships and given with empathy.
Hi Rich.
Do you think the title of that book does disservice to the implementation of the core ideas? Maybe the title is the main reason people use the idea incorrectly?
Hi Mikey, I think it’s possible that those who have not read the book may think that radical means not holding anything back. That would be a great example of why one ‘should not judge a book by its cover.’
The same thing happened to Jocko Wilink’s book “Extreme Ownership.”
I think a lot of people are lazy and want to take an idea and run with it before fully understanding the concept (or reading the book). We can debate all day whether that is the individual’s responsibility to comprehend or the responsibility of the author to ensure title’s do not encourage this human tendency of distorting a concept based on words in a title. But I think it comes down to leaders of these organizations choosing not to operate in one extreme or another. Period. For anything.
It’s about operating in the AND, not the OR. Which, frankly, both “Radical Candor” and “Extreme Ownership” do a good job of illustrating within the outlined concepts and principles.
Based on that, I do appreciate the point being made in this article that too much of a good thing (candor) can have counterproductive effects.
I doubt that there exists a society (of any size) that practices 100% candor, transparency, and related virtues. Boundaries and regulations exist due to our differences, e.g. personality, communication style, et al. Just like in music, space must be left for other instruments to be heard and stand out. This fully loaded approach would favour certain types within any group and kill the overall group strength. Pulling in one direction makes for a strong team but there is room for diversity within our interactions. Differences among us add value to groupthink, keeping all honest, and allowing differing viewpoints on common issues. Isn't that a means of enriching a team?
Guidelines can vary but one I'd propose in place of radical candor would be the Stoic virtues of courage, temperance, wisdom, justice. All that we do can be measured against the four. It takes courage to speak up, so this should not be punished or hampered. When we share ideas, even criticism or critiques, wisdom is a must have. We should have a justice mindset, incorporating empathy for others. Everything too must remain balanced. In the end, to borrow from Augustine of Hippo, "In all essential things we must have unity. In all non-essential things, liberty. But in all things, charity."
"A skunk is better company than a person who prides himself on being 'frank'."
--Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love,