
On Radical Candor - gmays
http://firstround.com/review/radical-candor-the-surprising-secret-to-being-a-good-boss/
======
kimscott
I agree with you there is a huge difference between candor and asshole. Sounds
like I could have been more clear about that in my talk, so this is helpful.

In my experience the difference between radical candor and obnoxious
aggression lies in how much the boss cares about and knows employees at a
human level. I also agree with you that the relationship between a boss and
employee is not a friendship. But it IS a relationship. That was how Sheryl
knew she had to say to me "you sounded stupid," and how she knew I would
welcome her question about whether I felt nervous. Other people on Sheryl's
team were less stubborn than I am, and she could get through to them in a
gentler way. BUT she DID have to get through to all of us.

It's never fun to hear when you've screwed up. I think too much management
advice puts too much pressure on bosses to tell people things that will
inevitably sting in a way that somehow won't sting. That's just not
possible...That's why being a boss is so hard.

~~~
kordless
I think "assholes" might be people who personally care AND practice direct
challenges, but do so in a way that shame and blame individuals. Calling out
mistakes is fine, as long as you don't assign biased blame to the person
making the mistake. Startups are already difficult endeavors without the added
pressures of being directly on the hook for a mistake. Teams should accept the
suffering from an individual's mistakes with the assumption mistakes will be
made by team members. If a given team member makes too many mistakes, then
perhaps a review is necessary, but otherwise, it's a _team_ mistake which can
be learned from and used to improve the team and product.

~~~
kimscott
I think that the key is to make it safe to make mistakes...this also makes it
safe to point them out...

This may be sematics, but in my experience, the bona fide assholes don't point
out mistakes because they care about helping the person who made the mistake
to improve. And so when an asshole sees they've made a person suffer, they
don't care, and don't take the time to reassure the person that they have
confidence in their abilities. When a person is being radically candid and
they see the person is suffering, they take the time to show they care and to
reassure that person they have confidence in their abilities--but it a way
that makes it clear the mistake was a mistake, or that their work isn't good
enough...

~~~
ajb
Sure, bona fide assholes do that. Maybe what GP is getting at, though, is that
there are people out there who, despite genuinely caring for other people,
thing that the right way to react to mistakes is shaming and blaming. Whether
because they don't know a better way, think that other ways are ineffective,
or because of a quasi-religious feeling that it's right to act that way.

------
grandalf
What is candor? Speaking one's mind? Revealing one's deepest thoughts?
Mentioning things that you know some people won't want to hear?

When we think of candor we imagine a straight-talking cowboy type, or a brash
New Yorker, or a direct and confident woman, etc. These images make us feel
that if only we could tell it like it is all the BS would go away.

What candor really means is being unguarded. Think candid camera. We are
candid when we make no pretense and avoid posturing, when we keep it real.
This means we don't tailor our perspective and behavior to get a specific
result or to seem impressive, we just do our own thing, like the victims of
candid camera videos.

Real candor requires trust. Where organizations have major trust lapses is
where candor seems the most lacking.

If a project is behind schedule, the organization should simply respond
appropriately, which means either changing scope or changing the timeline.
When there is finger pointing and pressure to lowball estimates, there is a
trust breakdown from the outset.

If there is sufficient trust, there is no issue with candor because you just
say what you want and everyone knows you are trying to make things better.
When trust breaks down, your words might seem critical or like personal
attacks.

So having radical candor is great, but it means having radical trust. It must
be safe to be on either end of the candor event :) That includes cases when a
team member is not able to perform or when a team member wants a promotion
that he/she isn't quite ready for. It must be OK to be honest in either
direction, which means the firm should respect it if the employee wishes to
leave, and the employee should respect it if the firm isn't happy with
performance and there doesn't appear to be a path to improvement.

All in all, having a systems mindset and a growth mindset goes a long way
toward having a high trust culture. But startups are at a disadvantage from
the start since everyone is expecting a massive growth trajectory and in many
cases founders are quick to blame mistakes on specific individuals to explain
a bad quarter. Having a culture of trust requires the team taking it on the
chin and the board supporting and encouraging a systems approach.

So if your founder is the only one in board meetings, chances are that is
because blame is being cast and deception is occurring on in both directions.

------
cryoshon
"Sandberg pushed forward, asking whether Scott’s ums were the result of
nervousness. She even suggested that Google could hire a speaking coach to
help. Still, Scott brushed off the concern; it didn’t seem like an important
issue. “Finally, Sheryl said, ‘You know, Kim, I can tell I'm not really
getting through to you. I'm going to have to be clearer here. When you say um
every third word, it makes you sound stupid.’”

"“The vertical axis is what I call the ‘give a damn’ axis,” Scott says. “Part
of the reason Sheryl was able to say to me so bluntly, ‘You sounded stupid,’
was that I knew that she cared personally about me."

This doesn't sit well with me because I am skeptical that bosses are going to
be able to hit the proper mean of communication that works for each employee.
Additionally, I am skeptical that bosses "caring personally for their
employees" is actually fully possible or desirable all of the time, since
there's always a frequently severe and irreparable conflict of interest
between the institution and the individual. I don't want to give or receive
friendship from my bosses (as we are only temporary means to an end for each
other), I want courteous distance and realistic, bite sized action items to
improve on.

For the author, her boss gave her highly appreciated and blunt criticism, and
offered a solution. For another employee, the boss has just ruined their day,
week, and possibly self image, while (incorrectly) assuming that the boss and
the boss's boss thinks they are stupid. For yet another employee, the message
of the boss is noted and acted upon, but the pushy probing regarding
nervousness is weirdly personal and not at all appreciated.

I am usually pretty blunt, but I don't understand the fascination in
managerial culture with intentionally toeing the line between asshole and
"candor"\-- and it pops up in more dimensions than just feedback. For whatever
reason, there is glorification of putting down other people in a professional
context.

~~~
joshyeager
In that example, Sandberg tried a tactful approach twice before being blunt.
If she had stopped giving the guidance because Scott didn't understand the
tactful suggestions, Scott would not have learned from that scenario and may
have been less successful in the long run.

I don't see anything in this story that paints Sandberg as an asshole. And the
only thing "radical" about her candor is that most managers (myself included
sometimes) shy away from pushing if our directs don't understand what we're
saying the first time.

This article gave me some useful encouragement to push myself to give feedback
to people who need it even if it's uncomfortable for me.

~~~
BorgHunter
What's wrong with, "As a listener, it's very distracting; moreso than you
might think. You _need_ to kick that habit to be an effective public
speaker."? It's entirely possible to be candid without putting another person
(your direct report, even!) down.

~~~
33W
And this would have been a third attempt in the same vein. Kim may have then
replied "Why does it matter if I am a good public speaker, the numbers were
great!", in which case, you have to remove the last case of sugar coating and
tell it how it is.

~~~
BorgHunter
But that _isn 't_ how it is. Someone who says "um" a lot while speaking _doesn
't_ sound stupid. They're grating, to many in the audience, but that doesn't
reflect on the speaker's ability (except, obviously, their public speaking
ability). That means the audience will be focusing on the speaker's verbal
tics instead of the message that was intended, which is the root problem. The
word "stupid" was intended to startle the employee into action by how rude it
was.

I mean, obviously, in this particular instance with this particular person, it
was effective, and for all I know, the manager is a really sharp observer of
her reports and knew this was the right approach in this situation. I don't
think it's a good _general_ approach, and I'm afraid people are going to take
away the wrong thing from this article. It's not good managerial advice to
say, "Tell your employees they sound stupid if they are bad public speakers!"
It's better managerial advice to say, "Know your employees, and how each
individual might be best motivated, and don't accept complacency." You have to
be really careful when taking cues from drill sergeants, because for a lot of
people, that approach will backfire horribly, and the message will be
overshadowed by the delivery style.

~~~
mentat
I'm a bit confused at the certainty of your argument. There are many people
who believe that someone saying "um" sounds stupid. Your absolute assertion to
the opposite seems rather like "I don't think someone saying 'um' sounds
stupid so this isn't a valid criticism".

Are people going to hear critiques if they don't want to? The message getting
through is what matters, that's a person by person problem. Saying something
make someone sound stupid is certainly not "taking cues from drill sergeants".

------
Jemaclus
The flip side of this is being able to accept constructive criticism. While
Scott learned a lot about how to be a manager herself, the true takeaway here
is probably more that Scott was able to recognize and accept Sheryl's valid
criticism. Just because someone tells me the truth -- candidly or not! --
doesn't mean I'm going to listen. There has to be a level of respect and trust
in that relationship. I have to _believe_ them when they say that.

I'm terrible at accepting feedback like this from my friends, but when I met
my old boss for lunch last week, he gave me almost the same advice they did.
And somehow it stuck. I'm self-aware enough to realize that I put a lot of
stock and respect into what he thinks of me and I trust his opinion, more than
I trust my friends who aren't necessarily tech people or managers.

And maybe that's another fault within myself. My friends clearly gave me solid
advice, but it took someone else to give it to me again before it stuck. How
can I learn from this and possibly take that advice sooner?

I appreciate Scott's story, and I absolutely agree with her conclusions across
the board, but I think it's only a small piece of the overall puzzle.

------
eagsalazar2
I know a few people who pride themselves on their unblinking candor. Most of
them, in reality, just get a kick out of constantly shitting on people and
they use "candor" as cover for their behavior.

Here is a good rule of thumb: Is telling someone something hard going to
directly benefit them, you, or someone else their behavior is affecting? The
go for it and give them _constructive_ and _actionable_ feedback. Just telling
them they blew it, they are pissing you off, etc is just shitting on them.

OTOH, not giving people hard feedback because it is awkward is a betrayal of
the relationship you have with them because you aren't helping them be better
or at least understand the situation they are in when you could have just to
save yourself from your own squeamishness.

~~~
jdbernard
I think that's basically what she means with the graph. Radical candor exists
in the section where you confront them because you care about them.

------
makeitsuckless
I know this approach as simply "being Dutch". And it's a major source of
culture shock for expats working in the Netherlands.

------
ScottBurson
This jumped out at me:

 _“Part of the reason Sheryl was able to say to me so bluntly, ‘You sounded
stupid,’ was that I knew that she cared personally about me. She had done a
thousand things that showed me that.”_

This suggests that before one can practice radical candor, one needs to build
a foundation of caring and trust first. Without it, my experience suggests
that the results will be more hit-or-miss -- some people just get defensive
almost no matter how you frame it.

------
jimmytucson
The hedge fund Bridgewater Associates has a very similar philosophy (some
would say a cult[1]); they call it "radical transparency". It's a major
component of Ray Dalio's "Principles", which is a 123 page manuscript[2] that
prospective candidates and new joiners are advised to read and absorb.

Not that Bridgewater should be the ultimate test case for this way of
operating but it's a notoriously unforgiving place to work. The turnover rate
there is 25% in the first 18 months[3].

It seems you just have to have really thick skin (or be really jaded) to be
able to handle "radical candor" or "radical transparency". Furthermore, it's
evidently really tricky to avoid devolving into pure invective. (I guess, in
terms of Kim's graph, it's hard to stay high enough on the Y axis as you drift
to the right on the X axis.)

[1] [http://nymag.com/news/business/wallstreet/ray-
dalio-2011-4/](http://nymag.com/news/business/wallstreet/ray-dalio-2011-4/)

[2]
[http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...](http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgewater-
Associates-Ray-Dalio-Principles.pdf)

[3] [http://www.ai-
cio.com/channels/story.aspx?id=3735&page=3&p=3](http://www.ai-
cio.com/channels/story.aspx?id=3735&page=3&p=3)

~~~
tomp
> Not that Bridgewater should be the ultimate test case for this way of
> operating but it's a notoriously unforgiving place to work. The turnover
> rate there is 25% in the first 18 months[3].

What's the turnover rate after 18 months? Maybe they're just "bad" at hiring
(or their hiring criteria is such that they need more than a few hours of
interviews to satisfy them), but the people who really fit stay there a long
time.

------
vonnik
TLDR: Give people honest feedback, but make sure you have proven that you care
about them first.

Unfortunately, this post's strong no-bullshit language is contradicted by the
substance and form of the message given (magic quadrant warning). It takes a
long time on the windup and goes light on the proof.

The Sheryl Sandberg anecdote, which is trotted out as an example of effective
candor, is actually a perfect example of a trivial correction made in the face
of overwhelming performance. Not a hard thing in the realm of hard things.

All candor is radical, and partial candor is a lie ... of omission. So the
radical is just branding, and so is the culture of "guidance". Making up
language is how academics and corporate gurus differentiate themselves, often
needlessly.

Finally, there are deeper flaws in the idea of candor promotion:

* There is no one truth. We don't always arrive at a consensus or an objective truth by airing our differences. So let's be clear before embarking on that path, that we may just manage to create a very candid fog of strong opinions, as different subjective truths battle it out.

* In a culture that values candor, all liars are candid. That is, promoting candor does not solve the underlying dynamic, which is that one side will likely win and one will lose, and not every side is fighting for the right reasons.

* In a culture that values candor, bosses get to be candid first. That is, there is a real risk of feedback flowing from HQ to the trenches and not vice versa. Beware of candor as privilege.

Anyone who needs this type of advice should just go straight to "The Hard
Thing About Hard Things" by Ben Horowitz. It's all there, without the
rebranding.

------
jaredcwhite
On the example mentioned in the article about the "um" issue, getting feedback
like that from someone (a boss, or whoever) is one thing _when you have
actually requested it_ or when it's part of some kind of formal meeting where
mentorship or guidance is expected. But during some random/off-the-cuff chat
"on a walk" or in a hallway or whatever? That's ridiculous. I wouldn't want to
work at a company where every time I give a presentation or put some kind of
effort out there, some boss is going to pounce on me and start telling me what
_they_ think I did or did not do right or if I seem stupid or whatever. Way to
go turning your employees into cowering bundles of nerves.

Ugh. Every time I think maybe, just maybe, the cult of being a Jobs-ian
__*-hole is loosing its appeal in tech circles, this kind of stuff rears its
ugly head. Meh.

~~~
kzhahou
I'm surprised by this reaction. Here's a more sympathetic reading: Sheryl
thought Kim showed great potential and was doing great work. HOWEVER, it was
clear to Sheryl that the presentation was super awkward from an audience POV.
The problem would probably never be obvious to the speaker, because we usually
are unaware of our Ums while giving a presentation. So Sheryl only wants to
help the speaker. Is it a little embarrassing? Maybe, but it shouldn't be.

Now the author is a better speaker, and better professionally for it. Isn't
that a great outcome?

------
jacquesm
I have a family member that is incredibly smart but thinks 'on the hoof', in
the middle of a sentence he'll just freeze and go 'umm'. I'm always tempted to
finish the sentences but I've learned to bite that back and wait, usually the
wait is more than worth it. Some people can form their thoughts and then spit
them out fully formed in one coherent stream, others are confronted with their
own words as input when they speak them and will adjust their thinking in real
time. Both can lead to new insights and I wouldn't immediately say that
someone sounds 'stupid' for pausing in the middle of a sentence and doing some
inner processing, especially not if the outcome is good stuff.

------
Wonnk13
This sounds similar to Bridgewater's culture of radical transparency. The
first I had a debrief with my boss I cried all afternoon, but now it's growing
on me a bit. Or I just have Stockholm syndrome.

~~~
kimscott
There is a huge difference between Bridgewater's approach, which I think is
called radical honesty, and radical candor, at lesas as I see it (but tell me
why I'm wrong and I'll learn something:)

Here is why Bridgewater's approach is obnoxious aggression in my book. There,
employees are encouraged to be brutal in their criticism, a policy called
“radical honesty.” In one meeting, the criticism got so harsh that somebody
started to cry. The conversation was taped, and an executive decided it would
be a good idea to send the taped conversation, tears and all, out to the whole
company to listen to. He thought people could learn a lot from the incident.
My friend who worked there learned he wanted to get a job at a company with a
different kind of culture.

The intentions here were probably not as bad as the results. The leaders at
the company wanted everyone to say what they really thought. The idea of
radical honesty is really appealing to me. But, I saw two big problems with
this approach to encouraging criticism. The obvious one was encouraging public
rather than private criticism. Public debate and disagreement, yes. Public
criticism, no. This mistake was compounded--criticism wasn’t just public, it
was publicized in a way that humiliated an employee. The less obvious mistake
was that the policy of “radical honesty” inadvertently sowed the seeds of
arrogance, not humility. Why? If honesty is good, surely radical honesty is
better. Interestingly, it was the words of a Jesuit missionary in the Congo
who best explained the problem with honesty to me. “It’s very important to
tell the truth,” he said, and then looked heavenward. “But who knows what the
Truth is???” When somebody says, “I’m going to be honest with you,” it implies
they know the truth and you don’t. There’s not a lot of humility in that.

This is why I use the term “candor.” “Honesty” can lead to arrogance.

------
evanlivingston
Can we not use the word radical for things that are not radical?

~~~
djhn
What would you call this, and what do you consider radical?

I think it describes the nature of it things like "radical honesty". Honesty
is just the same old virtue and approach we all know, just interpreted
slightly differently and taken to an extreme.

------
chroem-
I find this pretty disgusting. So the expectation for everyone else is to
behave as though you're in a safe space and speak no ill of another person,
but if you have enough money you can just throw all common courtesy out the
window?

~~~
jerf
You might want to re-open the tab and do a browser-find for "Encourage Your
Whole Team to be Radically Candid" and read the part of the article you
skipped.

You may still not agree, but you speak as if the article is about management
only, which is objectively untrue.

~~~
smacktoward
I would submit that anyone who thinks employees are ever going to feel 100%
free to bluntly criticize the person who approves or signs their paycheck to
their face is an idiot.

(Does that qualify as radical candor?)

~~~
kimscott
You are right, that is HARD. That's why bosses have to work so hard to get
their employees to criticize them...To GET criticism. Will have a bunch of
suggestions in the book I'm writing for this. Open to others that you have.
That's also why I recommend a bunch of things that put bosses on a more equal
footing with employees.

~~~
jerf
You're getting priceless feedback on the first-order misunderstandings people
have about this idea here. :)

Do you have a mailing list or anything for when the book is done? (If you look
at my HN profile I've got an email address you can stick on it, if you set one
up later.)

I do find myself wondering if perhaps the book will face an issue from missing
tone & body language that naturally happens in a talk. If I were to go kinda
far out on the crazy idea scale, I would consider borrowing something from the
indie video game world; you can do a lot of setting the tone of a long series
of text snippets by recording high quality voice samples. Once we have the
sense from high-quality voice acting, we can fill in the gaps from there. It
might be interesting to experiment with pairing the book with a presentation
given on the first chapter in video form, which would then set the tone for
the rest of the book. (I think people, rather understandably, have a lot of
preexisting emotion they are bringing to this topic, and it may be worth
taking extra steps to try to defuse it, so you have a chance of communicating
your points.)

Crazy thought, anyhow.

~~~
kimscott
You are right, these comments are really helpful! It's so easy to say
something that gives people the idea quite opposite to what I'm trying to
say...

Yes, adding you to mailing list...

Love the idea of turning the book into a kind of video game; also thinking of
building some tools that will make it easier to implement ideas, and buidling
community around the book...

~~~
jerf
Well, I just meant a recorded video to set tone, but if you get a good idea
off of "video game" far be it from me to discourage that.

~~~
kimscott
:)

