
‘Nice’ Is a Four-Letter Word at Companies Practicing Radical Candor - chrishough
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nice-is-a-four-letter-word-at-companies-practicing-radical-candor-1451498192
======
imh
Do we really have such poor social skills that candor and niceness are at
odds? Really? I get that it can be a difficult goal to achieve both, but
goddammit we're all adults here. We should all have developed those skills!
Just because you're going to be frank doesn't mean you have to be an asshole
about it. This whole idea seems to justify people taking the easy way and
putting nice and candid at opposite ends of a spectrum.

~~~
Dirlewanger
While I agree with everything you said, have you (speaking with candor) not
been paying attention the past decade or so? A lawsuit-trigger-happy populace
coupled with millienials entering the workplace has caused such collective
scarring that institutions like academia and workplaces are reacting. We're
now equating emotional distress with material injury, and it's having vile
reverberations that won't be fully felt for decades. It's censorship wrapped
in hip new packaging. It's nightmarish to witness.

This is what happens when children are raised in frictionless environments.
The real world doesn't care about your feelings.

(Can't wait for the downvotes)

~~~
jrock08
There is a huge difference between racism, and telling someone that their idea
isn't fully thought out. The social justice movement doesn't care about the
latter in the slightest. Discouraging racism and sexism in a workplace isn't
censorship any more than discouraging swearing is.

~~~
dawnbreez
The problem people have with Social Justice is that they are perceived as
"going overboard"; they attach the same importance to staring at someone's
chest that they would attach to grabbing said chest, which is equated to
straight-up rape.

This is, of course, a vocal minority speaking--a group of people who attach
their entire self-worth to the idea that they're fighting evil. They can't
bear to think that the fight is over, because then their life becomes devoid
of meaning, so they insist that the fight must be taken even further.

The issue is further complicated by what I call the Villain Effect. Because
the other side is opposed to you, they are evil; therefore, any compromise is
immoral. This happens _on both sides_ , leading to a destructive stalemate in
which everyone fights for an increasingly extreme version of their original
vision, with no end in sight.

------
Avshalom
This is that thing where managers buy a book and pay some consultants to
(further) justify being dicks to their subordinates isn't it?

~~~
Dirlewanger
Not surprised people step up to bat with the strawmen.

Speaking with candor != being a dick. People can supply direct and honest
feedback _without_ making it personal. Someone can criticize someone else's
code until the cows come home, while also being excellent friends with them
outside the workplace.

~~~
apkostka
Of course, there's the flip side to this; you can offer constructive criticism
to someone without being a dick and they can still take it personally. Some
people just can't take any criticism.

~~~
twic
Bingo. People need to be able to both offer and receive criticism without
involving their ego. Both of these are hard, but i think the latter is
considerably harder.

------
riggins
Ray Dalio published his "principles".

It's a fascinating read

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

The other interesting aspect is that Dalio is an adherent of Transcendental
Meditation and IIRC the principles really sprang his study of TM and Buddhism.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/meditation-
creativi...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/meditation-creativity-
per_n_4769475.html)

 _Meditation has also transformed the corporate culture at Bridgewater. Dalio
pays for half of the fees for any employee who 's interested in learning TM,
and the office features meditation rooms and group sessions. The company is
also known for its "brutally honest" meetings, and Dalio says meditation helps
his employees to adopt an attitude of calm equanimity that helps them to
engage in a productive dialogue without reacting emotionally._

------
golemotron
The clash between this and the culture of "trigger warnings" and "safe-spaces"
that people are picking up in universities will be a thing to watch.

~~~
dclowd9901
Aren't trigger warnings a bit daft? How on earth are you supposed to
reasonably account for a universe of possible scenarios that might "trigger"
someone.

By the way I say this fully aware that I am privileged to not suffer from,
well, whatever triggers actually do to people... ("Feel bad" is all I can
figure)

~~~
DanBC
In theory trigger warnings are used rarely, to protect people currently
suffering from PTSD. The aim is not to let those people avoid unpleasant
situations, but to give them time to prepare and to get support for afterward.

In practice they're used far too often and at unsuitable times, and are used
to avoid all discussion of difficult topics, so yes, they've now become a bit
daft.

That's a shame, because it means that people who need them don't get them (and
are mocked for asking for them); people who don't need them ask for them all
the time on anything; and a bunch of vile hateful idiots spew their ignorant
bile any time trigger warnings are mentioned.

~~~
anigbrowl
I _do_ suffer from PTSD and I find trigger warnings deeply unhelpful. If
anything, they raise my blood pressure and short circuit the process of
reading context for potential stressors, which is IMHO very necessary for
managing and eventually recovering from stress.

I see three problems with trigger warnings. One is that some people have
developed a habit of writing 'trigger warning for blah' at the beginning of
something and then just going on to vent or throw the literary equivalent of a
pity party, which readers are implicitly forbidden to criticize in any way.
Another is that the worthy purpose of warning others about the potential for
offence can easily degenerate into social engineering in the hands of an
unscrupulous person. One form of this is to demand special treatment, while
another form is to deliberately trigger anxiety in others while evading
responsibility for it by pointing to existence of the trigger warning.

The biggest problem by far though is that _anything_ could be triggering to
_someone_ \- like a perverse version of rule 34, if it exists there is a
traumatic version of it. This is the entire basis of the horror movie genre:
you take something that looks innocuous and make it into something scary by
juxtaposing it with something awful, in order to create suspenseful dread the
next time you see the innocuous thing. This is why creature features aren't
really horror movies; while it's horrific to depict someone eaten by a shark
or a giant bear or whatever, you already know those things are dangerous and
if they show up you are in trouble. So while you might feel scared watching
_Jaws_ , you knew from the outset that you were (vicariously) going into a
hazardous situation, and conversely that you can avoid scary encounters with
hungry sharks by not swimming in the ocean or visiting aquariums. But if I
show you a movie where, I dunno, playing certain chords on an old piano can
summon an evil spirit* and the movie is convincingly scary, then you'll get a
little shudder every time you see a piano lurking in the corner of the room.

* this seems like a pretty stupid premise, but in medieval times certain dissonant note combinations were avoided in western church music because the harmonic instability was considered too evil-sounding. A modern parallel is to sing a well-known children's song in a minor key, which invariably sounds creepy.

------
Apanatshka
Heh, Randstad advocating candor, who could have guessed. It's a Dutch company,
and straight-to-the-point, no-BS candor is one of those Dutch culture things.
Of course you need to strike a careful balance, as Kim Scott aptly defines
according to the article: candor = "giving criticism while showing genuine
concern".

------
ivankirigin
Kim Scott's blog has a lot more on the topic, and she has a book coming out:
[http://www.kimmalonescott.com/](http://www.kimmalonescott.com/)

------
seizethecheese
Great, now "candor" will become a loaded word like "disruptive innovation" or
"agile."

~~~
twic
I give it five years until there's a candor plugin for Jira.

------
slmyers
Is being able to deliver blunt and direct criticism without being rude a
unique or rare skill?

~~~
protomyth
I don't think the skill is that rare, but I think the application of the skill
is rare. There tends to be external factors which might lead a person to be
angry which seeps into the criticism as rudeness. I think a lot of people can
deliver blunt and direct criticism to a stranger in a cool, calm manner. It's
dealing with the familiar people that makes it difficult.

I've watched my Dad do it and it also tends to shock the recipient when they
expect some anger, etc.

------
hitekker
There are two comments in the article, copy-pasted below which roughly
summarize why this is a terrible idea.

\----

Gene Consbruck:

You had better not front-stab your boss.

Mike Tian:

"niceness", "politeness", or "etiquette" were invented to allow strangers to
co-exist with less friction. They are a code of conduct to prevent violence
when people lived in clans and tribes. It was a good invention.

Within a trusted circle, you can strip away some of these things and be
"brutally honest", and not rupture your relationship.

But in a larger organization, where people are not necessarily your most
trusted confidants, such a strategy is likely to massively backfire.

You cannot have "brutal honesty" (e.g. strip away all the social lubricants of
politeness) without a deep and abiding trust. Doing so will result in warfare,
either open or subtle.

~~~
twic
> You had better not front-stab your boss.

Something my current employer does, which with hindsight is incredibly
obvious, is to separate the roles of leader and manager. Leaders guide the
day-to-day work, managers guide the careers of employees. I'm the leader of a
development team, and while i do spend a lot of time guiding my team as to
what to do and how to do it, i don't carry the can for their happiness,
professional development, etc. Rather, that's in the hands of various other
people in the company [1], who have monthly one-to-ones, collect feedback,
give performance reviews, etc.

As a result, one of the people on my team could absolutely front-stab me
without fear of the consequences. They could simply say to their manager that
i was a shitty team lead. It would then be up to the manager to act on that
information, by giving me or my manager that feedback. That's not
hypothetical; it's happened (i actually am a shitty team lead).

[1] That's not to say i don't contribute towards that; if the manager of one
of the people on my team comes and tells me that that person is keen to learn
more about some topic, i'll try to carve out work related to that topic and
let that person work on it. But i'm not the prime mover.

------
kochb
> Kim Scott, an executive coach and former Google Inc. executive in online
> sales and operations, is writing a book about radical candor, which she
> defines as giving criticism while showing genuine concern.

A key point in the article, radical candor feedback may be blunt but should
also be well intentioned, not merely derogatory.

------
itgoon
It seems to me that for some the problem isn't just that other people are
blunt/assholes/etc.

It's that many people lack the skills necessary to deal with assholes.

I don't think trying to create conflict-free workplaces (as opposed to
personal environments) is a good answer.

------
danieltillett
One thing I have wondered is how much cost there is in maintaining a conflict
free environment where nobody is ever told the truth? It must be pretty large.

------
carlivar
Article is behind a paywall.

~~~
everly
Click the 'web' link below the title to be taken to the Google results for the
article's title, which you can click on for unfettered access.

~~~
Apanatshka
Doesn't work for me. Does this trick require JavaScript execution or cookies?

------
xyzzy4
I don't think this is a good idea. The point of a company is to execute the
business plan and create revenue and profit by doing so. Requiring brutal
honesty of employees doesnt help this. As an employee, you're supposed to play
into your role as a cog in the machine. Your honest opinions don't matter very
much.

