Communication is key. After running teams, coaching and also being a parent I realise that with good communication issues can be resolved quickly with the minimum amount of pain all round. A few years ago I decided to introduce Kim Scott’s ‘Radical Candour’ concept to an organisation. At the time I believed it offered a great framework to ‘care personally whilst challenging directly’. I’d often found that being direct with reports was a good way to move quickly and remove blockers from within product teams. However, after following this mantra for several years I’ve arrived at slightly different conclusions.
Despite the well-meaning intentions I believe there are substantial risks involved in taking everything Radical Candour preaches to heart.
The Risk of Misinterpretation
One of the most significant challenges with Radical Candour lies in its potential for misinterpretation. The framework hinges on the delicate balance of caring personally while challenging directly. However, this balance is not always easy to maintain, particularly in diverse work environments where cultural nuances and personal sensitivities vary widely.
For instance, in 2020, the tech giant Google faced criticism for its handling of employee feedback. The company prided itself on a culture of open dialogue, akin to Radical Candour. However, employees reported feeling demoralised by what they perceived as harsh and unconstructive criticism, leading to a significant dip in morale. This scenario underscores how even well-intentioned feedback can be perceived negatively, particularly if the “care personally” aspect is not adequately communicated or if the recipients are not accustomed to direct challenges. How can teams really believe that pastoral care is something big corporations prioritise? I’m not buying it!
The Fine Line Between Candour and Conflict
Another issue with Radical Candour is that it can inadvertently foster conflict rather than collaboration. While the approach aims to eliminate passive-aggressive behaviour and promote transparency, it can sometimes lead to direct confrontations that create tension rather than resolve it.
In 2021, a high-profile case at the online retail giant Amazon highlighted this issue. Amazon’s corporate culture, which values blunt and direct feedback, faced scrutiny when employees began to speak out about the stressful and combative work environment. Reports surfaced of meetings where colleagues would openly criticise each other in ways that felt more like personal attacks than constructive criticism. This environment of radical honesty led to high levels of stress and employee turnover, suggesting that without careful moderation, Radical Candour can tip into hostility rather than fostering genuine collaboration.
The Potential for Uneven Application
Radical Candour also runs the risk of being unevenly applied across an organisation. For the framework to be effective, it requires consistent implementation and buy-in from all levels of the hierarchy. However, in practice, this consistency is hard to achieve. This for me is the most flawed aspect of the mantra and something that mirrors being a parent. Any lack of consistency with boundaries, policy or HR means that the very essence of the concept will never be properly understood by employees.
Take the case of Uber in 2017, under the leadership of then-CEO Travis Kalanick. The company adopted a culture of direct feedback and high-pressure performance. However, the aggressive environment disproportionately affected junior employees and those from underrepresented backgrounds, who felt they were targeted more harshly than their senior counterparts. This uneven application of feedback not only perpetuated a toxic work culture but also highlighted the disparity in how feedback was delivered and received, undermining the principles of fairness and mutual respect that Radical Candour aims to promote.
The Emotional Labour of Caring Personally
Finally, Radical Candour places a significant emotional burden on managers, who are expected to genuinely care for their employees’ well-being while simultaneously providing direct and potentially uncomfortable feedback. This dual requirement can be taxing and, if not managed carefully, may lead to burnout. Without great emotional EQ and empathy this can prove extremely taxing for managers who will not be able to apply the subtle nuances for each and every case they need to address in their teams.
In 2019, the case of the workplace at the global consultancy firm McKinsey & Company came to light. Managers at McKinsey were found struggling to maintain the balance between offering empathetic support and delivering critical feedback. The constant emotional labour led to high burnout rates among middle managers, who felt overwhelmed by the dual demands of their roles.
Thoughts
Where do we go from here? I would not try to introduce Radical Candour to an organisation as gospel. Whilst it offers a compelling blueprint for enhancing workplace communication, it is not without its drawbacks. The risk of misinterpretation, the potential for fostering conflict, the uneven application of feedback, and the emotional labour required from managers all pose significant challenges.
Approach adoption with caution and instead try to foster a general sense of ease and achievement in your organisation. Be real. Remember that with all the systems, mantras, procedures and processes that employees have to deal with, Radical Candour can often be seen as another bullshit policy just as much as B-Corp membership is a cynical ploy to convince the world you’re a great company! But that’s for another post! As always, be passionate, lead by example and be kind.