Download Radical Candor: The Art of Giving Effective Feedback and more Summaries Leadership and Team Management in PDF only on Docsity!
r$ RADICAL CANDOR
Trying to get the^ tearn^ in^ Tokyo to^ challenge^ authority^ the^ way^ Noam
Bardin dicl in^ Jelusalem wouldn't^ have^ worked.^ The^ kind^ of^ argument that
would be taken as a sign of respect^ in^ Tel^ Aviv would^ have been^ offensive^ in Tokyo. Even the term "Radical Candor"^ would've^ felt too^ aggressive.^ I^ found my own Southern upbringing helpful in understanding^ theJapanese^ perspec- tive: both cultures placed^ a^ great^ emphasis^ on manners^ and^ on^ not^ contra- dicting peopie in public. So I encouraged that^ team^ in Tokyo^ to^ be^ "politely persistent." Being polite was their preferred way^ of^ showing they^ cared per- sonally. Being persistent was the way they were most comfortable chalieng- ing Google's product direction.
I was gratified to see the results. The team in^ Tokyo^ became not^ just
persistent but relentiess in their campaign to^ be^ heard.^ Thanks in part to^ their polite persistence, a new product, AdSense for Mobile Applications,^ was^ born. Another of my favorite Radical Candor stories^ is^ that^ of Roy^ Zhou, who worked for Russ and led the Adsense team in China. At first^ he was^ extremely deferential to Russ and me, but once we convinced him^ we really wanted to
be chaiienged, he let it rip. He was a reai pleasure to work with-and^ one^ of
the most Radically Candid managers at Google. A few^ years^ ago, he^ got the
opportunity to become president of Yoyi Digital, a five-hundred-person on-
line advertising platform in Beijing. After a few months, he^ discovered some significant problems with the business. He came ciean about them to^ his^ board
and to all employees. Roy went to extraordinary lengths^ to show his team
that he cared personally and was going to do everything he could to help
them be successful. Not only did he make sure they got significant equity,
he mortgaged his home before a new round of financing so they could be^ paid on time. Now Roy is running one of the most successful businesses in^ China. I've led teams all over the wor1d. The most surprising thing I've learned
is that Brits, despite all their politeness, tend to be even more candid than
New Yorkers. This is thanks to an education system that stresses oral argu-
ment as much as written. But, I've seen firsthand that it's possible to adapt
Radical Candor equally well for Tel Aviv and Tokyo, for Ber.ling and Berlin.
THE "UM"^ STORY
SH0RTLY AFTER I joined^ Google, I gave a presenrarion ro Google's CEO
and founders on the performance of AdSense. Despite the fact that AdSense was doing great, and even though my boss was sitting next ro me in (^) a show of support, I felt nervous. Luckily, we had a good srory to tell: the business was growing at an unprecedented rate. As I looked around the room, I (^) caught the eye of CEO Eric Schmidt, whose head had snapped our of his compurer when I'd declared how many new customers had signed up in the pasr month.
I'd distracted him from his email-a triumphl "How^ many did you say?" he
asked. I repeated the number, and he almost fell out of his chair.
¡f
ë,€" *,
r":l¡
', : ',:'^.^.^ ;li^ -:' :
, ,';^ "^ .:,^. ;|^ :.^ ,:^ ;'^.^ ;^ .i
Creating a culture of open communicatíon
lt (^) RADICAL CANI)0II
I r'rrrl,lr I lr.¡rr, (^) ,r.,l.r',1 l,,r ,r lrt.ltt.r'r'c¿rction. After I finished, (^) I felt that
nrix,rl .rr¡'1r,,¡ r,r ,ur(l rr.lrt.l tlrirt 1ìrllows a successfuipresentation. Myboss
\/:rs \,.rrilri, l()r' nrr. lry tlrc cloor and I half expected a high five. Instead, she
,rsl<r',1 il l ,l (^) rvrrlk brrr:k to her offrce with her. I got a sinking (^) feeling in my srtrn rirt'lr. (^) Soütcthing hadn't gone we1l. But what? "You (^) are going to have an amazing career here at Google," Sheryl be- !ì¿ì11. Sh.e^ knew how to^ get^ my^ arrention-l^ had^ rhree^ failecl start-ups^ under
my belt and badly needed a win. 'And your ability ro be intellectually hon-
est about both sides of an argument, not jusr your own, bought you a iot of
credibility in there." She mentioned three or four specific things I'd said to
illustrate her point. I'd been worried that I wasn't arguing my points vehe-
mently enough, so this was welcome news to me. "I^ learned (^) a lot today from the way you handled those questions." This (^) didnt feel like mere flattery-l could tell from the way she stopped and looked me in (^) the eye rhar she meanr it. She wanted me to register that something I'd been worried about being a weakness was actually a strength. This was interesting, but I wanted (^) to file it away to think about later. That nagging feeling persisted in my stomach. There was an axe waiting to
fail here. What I really wanted to know was, whar had I done wrong? "But
something didn't go well, right?"
Sheryl laughed. "You^ always want ro focus on what you could have
done better. Which i understand. I (^) do, too. We learn more from failure than
success. But I want you to focus for a minute on what went wel1, because
overall it really diã go well. This (^) was a success."
I listened as best I could. Finally, she said. "You said 'um'^ a iot. Were
you aware of it?" "Yeah," (^) I replied. "l (^) know (^) I say thar roo much." Surely she couldn't be
taking this little walkwith me just to talk about the "um" rhing. Who cared
if I said "um"^ when I had (^) a tiger by the tail?
"Was it because you were nervous? Would you like me to recommend
a speech coach for you? (^) Google will pay fo¡ it." "l (^) didn't feel nervous," I (^) said, making a brushing-offgesture with my hand as though I (^) were shooing a bug away, 'Just^ a verbal tic, I guess."
"There's no reason to let a small thing like a verbal tic trip you up."
"l know." I made another shoo-fly gesture with my hand.
Sheryl laughed. "When you do that thing with your hand, I feel like
you're ignoring what I'm telling you. I can see I am going to have to be reall¡
GET, GIVE, AND ENCOURAGE GUIDANCE f'J
rca11y direct to get through to you. You are one of the smartest people I know, but saying'um' so much makes you sound stupid." Now thar got my attention. Sheryl repeated her offer to help. "The^ good news is a speaking coach
can reaily help with the 'um'^ thing. I know somebody who would be great.
You can definitely fix this."
"OPERATIONALiZING" GOOD GUIDANCE
THIN K F0 R A momentabouthowSherylhandledthatsituation. Eventhough the overall talk had gone well, she didn't iet the positive result get in the way
of pointing out something I needed to fix. She did so immediately, so that
the problem didn't hurt my reputation at Google. She made sure to point out the positive things I'd accomplished in the presentation, and what's more, she did so thoroughly and sincerely-there was no attempt at "sandwiching"^ the criticism between bogus positives. Her first approach was gentle but direct. When it became clear that I wasn't hearing her, she became more direct, but
even then she was careful not to "personahze,"^ not to make it about some es-
sential rait. She said I "sounded" stupid rather than I wøs stupid. And I wasn't in
this alone: she offered tangible heip. I didn't feel like an idiot with defects, but
a valuable team member she was ready to invest in. But it stili stung a little bit.
This conversation was extremely effective on two counts. First, it made
me want to solve my "um"^ problem immediately; after only three sessions
with a speech coach, I had made noticeable improvement. Second, it made
me appreciate Sheryl and inspired me to give better guidance to my team.
The way she gave praise and criticism got me thinking about how to teach
other people how to adopt this style of management.
All this from a two-minute cncounter.
W0W. H0W MANY times have you tried to give feedback that totally falls
flat? How can you, like Sheryl, give guidance in a way that confronts a specific sitr¡ation and creates ripple^ effects that^ change how^ everyone communicates? I have spent the decade since that encounter coaching the next genera-
tion of Silicon Valley leaders to change their approach to guidance-both
praise and criticism. It's (^) surprisingly simple. Anyone can learn it. There are
two dimensions to good guidance: care personally^ and challenge directly.
RADICAL CANDOR
praise is important, and he gave an example from coaching Little League.
"I really admire that you are a Little League coach," I said, oÍlhandedly, I
had been meaning to tell him this for a whiie, and it just^ popped into my
head in (^) the moment. He said, "Thankyou."^ Usually, that would've been that.
But I realized later that my compliment had not been specific-l hadn't toid
Russ why^ i^ admired that he was a coach. i^ mentioned the irony^ to Russ. He
replied, "Well,^ the real problem is that I don't think you meant it-you hate sports." Now, I realized, it was even worse than I'd thought. It wasn't just that I'd been vague and unhelpful. He knew I cared about him, but he thought my praise was insincere. There we were, giving people advice on giving good praise, and here I
was, totally screwing it up! And it should have been easy, I was talking to
Russ, my cofounder and a person I'd known for years. Giving meaningful
praise is hard. That's why it's so important to gauge your guidance-to find
out how it lands for people. Now that I knew how Russ felt, I tried again.
"The other day i gave you a hard time about leaving early for practice,
and I then felt bad about it," I began. "Because^ in fact I really admire that
you are a Little League coach. You do as good a job^ integratingyourwork
and your life as anyone I know. I always wonder if i'm spending enough time
with my kids, and the example you set by coaching helps me do better. Also,
the things you've learned from the Positive Coaching Alliance have been
enormously helpful in our work."
This time, the comment was contextuahzed, far more personal, and
specific. And, this time, Russ said, "Now^ that was Radically Candid praise!"
Radicatly Candid criticism
To keep winning, críticíze the wíns Andre Iguodala, the swingman for the Golden State'Warriors, explained
why being willing to challenge the people you work with is so important to
success. The secret to winning, he said, is to point out to great players what
they could have done better, even when they have just won a game. Espe-
cially when they have just won a game. The problem with living at the top
of a hill is that you always have to walk uphill just to get back home. Of course, Andre's teammates weren't always h"ppy to hear his Radically Candid criticism. They sometimes accused him of Obnoxious Aggression. But, as we will see in the next section, Obnoxious Aggression looks and feels very dif- ferent.
GET, GIVE, AND^ ENCOURAGE^ GUIDANCE
OBNOXIOUS AGGRESSION
wH EN YOU CRITICIZE someone without taking^ even^ two^ seconds^ to^ show
you care, your guidance feels obnoxiously aggressive to^ the^ recipient. I^ re-
gret to say that if you can't be Radically Candid, being^ obnoxiously^ aggres- sive is the second best thing you can do. At least^ then^ people^ know^ what you
think and where they stand, so your team can achieve results.^ This^ explains
the advantage that asshoies seem to have in the world.
Let me^ be^ clear.^ I^ refuse^ to^ work
with people^ who^ can't^ be^ bothered^ to
shorv basic^ human^ decency.^ I^ want you to keep^ your^ humanity^ intact.^ If
more people^ can^ be^ Radically^ Can-
clid, there will^ be^ less^ reason^ to toler- ate Obnoxious Aggression.
But here's^ a paradox^ of being^ a
good boss. Most^ people prefer the
challenging "jerk"^ to^ the^ boss^ whose
"niceness" (^) gets in the way of candor. I once read an article that^ claimed^ most
people would rather^ work^ for^ a^ "competent^ asshole"^ than^ a^ 'irice^ incompe-
tent." This article was^ a^ useful^ expression^ of^ the^ Catch-22 that^ worried^ me
about being a boss. Of course I^ didn't want^ to^ be^ incompetent.^ Nor^ did^ I^ want to be an asshole. Fortunately, the "asshole^ or^ incompetent"^ thing^ is^ a^ false^ dichotomy: you
don't have to choose between those^ two^ exÚemes.^ Time^ and^ again, I^ have
seen that it was kinder in^ the long^ run^ to be^ direct,^ even^ if^ articulating^ my
criticism caused some momentary^ upset,^ ("It's not^ mean, it's^ clear!") Further-
more, it's the fear of being labeled^ a^ jerk^ that^ pushes^ many^ peopie^ toward
Manipulative Insincerity or Ruinous^ Empathy-both^ of^ which ale actually
worse for their colleagues than Obnoxious Aggression,^ as we'11^ see^ in^ later
sections. Still, Obnoxious Aggression is^ debilitating, particularly^ at^ the extreme.
When bosses belittle employees, embarrass^ them publicly, or^ freeze^ them
out, their behavior falls into this quadrant. This^ Obnoxious Aggression^ some- times gets great results short-term but^ leaves a^ trail^ of^ dead^ bodies^ in^ its
wake in the long run. Think about the Anna^ Wintour-inspired^ character
tti
0bnoxious Agg ression
I{ADICAL CANDOR
played by Meryl (^) Streep inThe Devtlwears prada.^ or Bobby (^) Knight, the Indi-
ana basketball coach who had a winning record but was reported ro have
thrown chairs and choked a player and was ultimately fired. when bosses
criticize others (^) to humiliate them rather than to help them (^) improve, or per- mit personalized (^) attacks among team members, or discourage (^) praise as "babysitting (^) people's egos," their behavior (^) feels obnoxiously (^) aggressive to the people around him.
The worst kind of obnoxious Aggression happens when one person
really (^) understands anorher's vulnerabilities (^) and then targets (^) them, either for sport or to (^) assert dominance. I (^) once had a boss who really (^) knew how to push my buttons-he (^) possessed what I (^) thought of as "cruel (^) empathy.,, Almost nothing (^) will erode trusr more (^) quickly than using (^) one's insights into (^) whar
makes another person tick to hurt them.
It happens (^) all too often that bosses view employees (^) as resser beings
who can be degraded without conscience; that employees view their bosses
as tyrants (^) to be toppied; and (^) that peers view one another (^) as enemy combat-
ants. when this is the toxic culture ofguidance, criticism is a weapon rarher
than a tooi for improvement; it makes the giver feel powerful and the re-
ceiver feel awful. Even praise can feel more like a backhanded compliment
than (^) a celebration of work (^) well done. 'weli, (^) you (^) gor it right rhis time."
0bnoxiously aggressive criticism
Front-stabbing Let's take the example of criticism offered by (^) a former colleague (^) whom
I'11 refer to as "Ned."^ Ned organized a party for his global team and asked
people (^) to come in their national (^) costumes. The culture of the (^) company was (^) whimsical, and everybody (^) came dressed in goofy outfits. Ned, who (^) was
new to the compan¡ came in an expensive tux. I guess he felt silly being so
absurdly overdressed for his own party, and to cope with his own insecuri-
ties he went into belittling mode. He strode up to a friend of mine, one of
his (^) new direct reports, who (^) had dressed as a leprechaun (^) for the party. (^) In front of a large crowd, Ned (^) bellowed at my friend, "I^ said to dress in your (^) narional
cos¡ume, not to dress like a fooll"
It's tempting to dismiss Ned as a jerk, but this is exactry the kind of at-
tribution error rhar Radical candor teaches us to avoid. Blaming people's
internal essence rather than their external behavior leaves no room for
GET, GIVE, AND ENCOURAGE GUIDANCE
change. And why had Ned never changed? Because nobody ever bothered
to challenge his behavior, and so he never had to learn. His obnoxiousness j (^) trst escalated.
I'm not proud to admit that i was a siient party to this. I was standing
light there when Ned told my friend that he looked like a fool, and I didn't
siry anything. Nor did I say anything later to Ned in private. Why? Because
t had already dismissed Ned as an asshole, and therefore deemed him not
worth talking to. So I was making the fundamental attribution error, and
rny behavior was "manipulatively^ insincere." I'm still ashamed of that. If ever iìllyone needed a dose of Radical Candor, it was Ned. Remember, Obnoxious Aggression is abehavior, not a personality trait. Nobody is a bona fide asshole al1 the time. Not even Ned. And all. of us are obnoxiously aggressive some of the time. This includes me, unfortunately. I wiil assert that I am not usualiy a jerk,^ but here's a time when I behaved like one:
A couple of months afterjoining Google, i had a disagreement with Larry
Page about his approach to a policy. In a fit of frustration, I sent an email to
about thirty people, including Larry, which said, "Larry^ claims he wants to
organíze the r¡.orld's information, but his policy is creating 'clutter^ sites,'
muddiing the world's information." I went on to imply that he was recom-
mending the policy because he was focused on increasing Google's revenue
rather than doing the right thing for users.
If Larry had worked for me instead of the other way around, I woulcl
never have sent such an arrogant, accusatory email. I would have asked him
privately why he was proposing a policy that seemed to be in violation of
Google's mission. If I agreed with his rationale, that would have been that.
If I disagreed, I would have explained-again, privately-that he seemed inconsistent and ried to understand his rationale. I didn't do any of that
with Lary, though. If I had, of course, i would have learned that he was not
just fifteen, but more like 115 steps ahead of me. I simply didn't understand
how things worked yet. Why did I behave this way? Partly because i believe there's a special
place in hell for those who "kick^ down and kiss up." At least I wasn't mak-
rng that mistake. And yet my mistake was simply the other side of the
same coin. I^ wasn't really^ thinking of Lamy as a human being. I^ saw^ him^ as^ a
kind of demigod whom I could attack with impunity. Fundamental human
1l (^) t(Ar)r(
^t c^ND0R
Ile had obviously garhclt'rl rlris ir r lìr'rrr;rt ion by asking all the managers who
worked for him to scntl ir irrr rr jrrstif^ ìc¡tion for the bonus. But he cared so little
about (^) the peoplc h. wrrs (^) ¡r'rrisirg that (^) he didn't even bother to read the jus-
tificatior.rs. I Ic jrrst^ t.Pit'tl irncl pastecl them into a nerv email and fired it off.
It's .ot (ìasy^ to p.y pcople a compliment (^) backed up by a big bonus (^) and make thcrn lccl wolsc rarher than better, (^) butJohn Doe's email pulled (^) that off.
MAN]PU LATIVE ]NSiNCER]TY
MANIPULATIVELY INSINCERE GUIDANCE happens when you don'r care
enor.rgh (^) about a person to chalienge (^) directly. People give praise and criricism that is manipulatively insincere (^) when they are too focused on being liked or think they can gain some (^) sort of political advantage by being fake-or when they are just^ too tired to care (^) or argue any more. Guidance that is ma- nipulatively (^) insincere rarely reflects (^) what the speaker actually thinks; rather,
it's an attempt to push the other person's emotional buttons in return for
some personal gain. "He'11^ be h"ppy if I tell him I liked his stupid presenra-
tion, and that will make (^) my life easier than explaining (^) why it sucked. In the
long run, though, I really need to find
someone to replace him."
Apple's Chief Design Officer Jony
Ive told a story about a time when he
i (^) i¡ .i i' (^) : (^) pulled his punches (^) when criticizing his :,, ,^ ',-
team's work. When Steve Jobs asked
Jony why^ he^ hadn't been^ more^ clear^ abour what was wrong,Jony (^) replied, "Because
I care about the team." To which Steve
replied, "No,Jony,^ you're just reaily vain. You just^ want people (^) to like you." Recounring rhe (^) srory, (^) Jony said, "l (^) was
terribly cross because I knew he was right."
That's why colin Powell said leadership is sometimes about bei'g will-
ing to piss people off. When you are overly worried (^) about how people will
perceive you, you're less willing to say what needs ro be said. Like Jony, you
may feel it's because you care about the team, but reaily, in those all-too-
human moments you may care too much about how (^) they feel about you- in other words, abour (^) yourself. I've been there, too. We all have.
GET, GIVE, AND ENCOURAGE GUIDANCE
Give a damn about the people you challenge. Worrying about whether
r rI rrot they give a damn abouryou, however, is not "caring^ personally" about
rlrcrn, and it's likely to push you in the wrong direction on the "challenge
tlirectly" axis. That's not going to help your team achieve great results, or
trrke a step in the direction of their dreams. Let go of vanity and care per-
sonally. But if you don't care, don't waste your time and everyone else's by
r lying to fake it.
Unfortunately, conventional wisdom and a lot of management advice
pushes bosses to chailenge less, rather than encouraging them to care more. ( (^) ìenerally, the resulting praise and criticism feels to employees like flattery or backstabbing. Needless to say, this doesn't build rust between boss and rlirect report.
Maniputative[y insincere prajse
The (^) false apology
Let's go back to my obnoxiously aggressive emaii to Larry Page. After
it went out, a couple of people called me up and asked me why the hell I'd
sent it. I realized I'd been unbelievably rude, and I felt ashamed-and a
little scared. What had I been thbtking?
I srill didn't understand why my assessment of Larry's new policy was
wrong, but now I was more concerned with keeping my job.^ So the next time
I saw (^) Larry, I stopped him and said, "l'm^ sorry about that email, Larry. I know
you are right." Now, there would have been nothing wrong with apologiz-
rng for the tone I'd taken, but instead, without explanation, I abruptly re- versed my intellectual position. My insincerity was obvious, and it was
exactly the wrong move. Larry had a finely tuned BS meter, and I'm not a
very good liar.^ He^ said^ nothing, but^ his^ look of^ disdain^ spoke volumes.
As (^) Larry waiked away, a colleague standing nearby smiled in sympa- thetic solidarity and muttered to me, "He likes^ it^ better when you^ dis-
agree with him."
When you behave badly and get called out for^ it,^ an all-too-natural re-
sponse is^ to become^ less^ genuine^ and^ more^ political-to^ n-iove^ from^ Obnox- ious Aggression to a worse place, Manipuiative Insincerity. It would've been better to have said nothing than to move^ in^ the wrong direction on^ the "challenge (^) directly" axis. Better yet to have moved up on the care personally axis-to have taken the trouble to understand Larry's thinking and then come up with a solution that addressed his concerns and mine. In that
'ì ¡
Mani p u tative Insi n cerity
RADICAL CANDOR
context, admitting that I had behaved badly would probably have been bet-
ter received.
RUINOUS EMPATHY
THERE'S A RUSSIAN anecdore about a guy who has to ampurare his dog's
tail but loves him so much that he cuts it offan inch each clay, rather rhan (^) all
at once. His desire to spare the dog pain and suffering only leads to more
pain and suffering. Don't allow yourself to become that kind of bossl
This is an extreme example of what I call Ruinous Empathy. Ruinous
Empathy is responsible for the vast majority of management mistakes I've
seen in my (^) career. Most people want to avoid creating tension or discomfort at work. They (^) are like (^) the well-meaning parent who cannor bear ro (^) discipline
their kids. They are like me with my dog Belvy.
Bosses rarcly intend to ruin an employee's chance of success or to hand-
icap (^) the entire team by letting poor performance slide. And yet that is often the net ¡esult (^) of Ruinous Empathy. Similariy, praise that's ruinously (^) empa-
thetic is not effective because its primary goal is to make the person feei
better rather than to point out really great work and push for more of it.
These were the painful mistakes I made in the story from the Introduction
with Bob, whom I didn't criticize and then had to fire.
Ruinous Empathy can also prevent a boss from (^) asking for criticism. Typi- cally, when a boss asks an employee for criticism, (^) the employee leels awk- ward at best, afraid at r¡.orst. Instead of pushing through the discomforr to get an (^) employee to challenge them, bosses who are being ruinously (^) empathetic may be so eager to ease the awkwardness thar they simply let the matrer drop.
When bosses are too invested in everyone getting along, they also fail
to encourage the people on their team to (^) critictze one another for fear of
sowing discord. They create the kind of work environment where "being
nice" is prioritized at the expense of critiquing, and therefore, improving
actual performance.
Bosses often make the mistake of thinking that if they hang out in the
Ruinous Empathy quadrant they can build a relationship wirh their direct
reports and then move over to Radical Candor. They're pleasant to work
with, but as time goes by their employees starr to realize thar the only guid-
ance they've received is 'þood^ job" (^) and other vaguely positive comments.
They know they've done some things wrong, but they're nor sure whar,
GET, GIVE, AND ENCOURAGE GUIDANCE
t'xactly. Their direct reports never^ know^ where^ they^ stand,^ and^ they^ aren't
lrcing given an opportunity to learn or grow; they often stall or^ get fired.
Not such a great way to build a^ relationship. On the^ flip^ side,^ when Ruinous linrpathy prevenrs bosses from solicitingcriticism, they^ have^ no^ idea^ anything
is wrong until a person quits. Needless^ to^ say,^ this strategy^ does^ not^ build
tlLlst on either side.
Ruinousty empathetic praise
"Just (^) trying to say something nice"
A friend of mine told a cautionary tale about^ "just trying to^ say^ some-
t hing nice" as a leader. Wandering around^ at^2 A;v..^ the^ night^ before^ a^ launch,
lie bumped into an engineer, 'Anatoly,"^ and^ asked^ him^ about^ a^ pârticular
lcature. Anatoly answered his question,^ and^ told^ him^ about^ several^ impor-
riìnt aspects of^ the feature. A couple^ of^ days^ later,^ when^ celebrating the^ launch, my friend congratulated Anatoly on his excellent^ work^ on the feature^ in front ,rf (^) the whole company. Problem was, Anatoly was only one of^ a^ handful^ of^ strong^ engineers^ on
rhe project. All^ the other^ engineers^ who^ had^ worked^ on^ it now thought that
Anatoly had claimed credit for the feature himself.^ Embarrassed,^ Anatoly
sent out an email^ to^ the whole^ company,^ listing all^ the^ people^ who^ had
worked on^ the^ project^ with^ him.
My friend^ realized^ he had been^ ruinously^ empathetic. He^ was^ just^ try-
ing to make^ Anatoly h"ppy by praising^ him,^ but he'd^ accidentally^ thrown
him under the bus.^ My^ friend's^ suggestion^ to^ managers^ who worked^ at
his company: when^ giving^ praise,^ investigate^ until^ you really understand
who did what and why it^ was^ so^ great.^ Be^ as^ specific^ and^ thorough^ with^ praise
as with criticism. Go^ deep^ into^ the^ details.
MOV]NG TOWARD^ RADICAL^ CANDOR
O FT E N W H^ E^ N^ I^ talk^ to^ people^ about^ developing^ a^ culture ofRadical^ Candor,
they agree with the^ idea^ but^ feel^ nervous^ about^ putting^ it^ into^ practice.^ My
advice is ro start by explaining^ the^ idea and^ then^ asking people to be^ Radi- ca1ly Candid with yorl.^ Start by^ gering^ feedback,^ in^ other words, not^ by dishing it out. Then when you do^ start^ giving^ it,^ start^ with^ praise,^ not^ criticism. When you move on to criticism,^ make^ sure^ you understand where the per- ilous border between Radical Candor^ and^ Obnoxious Aggression^ is.
;:
RADICAL CANDOR
less-experienced people, but I've found the average (^) child sees (^) through it
just as clearly as an executive does.
In other words, the notion (^) of a "right" (^) ratio (^) between praise and criticism
is dangerous, because it can lead you ro say things that are unnatural, insin-
cere, or just plain ridiculous. If you think that you must come up with, say,
two good things for every bad thing you telr somebody, you'll find yourself
saying things like, "wow,^ the font you chose for that presenration really blew
me away. But the conrent bordered on the obvious. ... Still, it really im-
presses me how neat your desk always is." paÍonizing or insincere praise
like that (^) will erode trust (^) and hurt your reiationships just (^) as much (^) as overly harsh criticism.
In the case of criticism, most people are nervous about hurting some-
one's feelings, so they often say nothing. In the case of praise, some people
are eager (^) to please those around them, so (^) they always say (^) something- sometimes inane things. (^) other people just (^) aren't in the habit of giving praise. If I'm notf.ringyott, it means you,re d.oingfne. That,s not good (^) enough, Andy (^) Grove told me he realized (^) it was time (^) ro get berter at (^) praising people
when somebody put a laminated plaque reading sAy soMErHrNc Nrcer in
his cubicle.
when I am criticizing, I try to be less nervous, and focus on "jusr say-
ing it," If I rhink roo much about how to say it I'm likely to wimp our and
say nothing. And when I am praising, I try to be at least aware of how praise
can go wrong, and put more energy into thinking about how to say it. Karen
Sipprell, a colleague at Apple, asked two quesrions rhar were insrrucrive:
"How long do you spend making sure you have arl the facts right before
you criticize somebody? How long do you spend making sure you have all
the (^) facts right before (^) you praise somebody?" (^) Ideally you'd (^) spend jusr (^) as long getting the facts (^) right for praise as for criticism.
Understand the peritous border between 0bnoxious
Aggression and RadicaI Candor "Your work ís shít"
Radically candid criticism is an importanr parr of the culture at borh
Google and Apple, but it takes very different forms at the two companies.
Google emphasizes caring personally more than chailenging directly, so I'd
describe criticism there as Radical candor with a twist of Ruinous Empa-
GET, GIVE, AND ENCOURAGE GUIDANCE
rlry, Apple does (^) the opposite, so I'cl describe its culture of criticism (^) as Radi-
, rrl Candor with a twist of Obnoxious Aggression,
In the Introduction, I described briefly a documentary in which tech
jorrrnalist Bob Cringely interviews Steve Jobs and asks whar he means
ivhen he tells people "your work is shit."* it's worth reading the transcript
to explore the perilous border between Obnoxious Aggression and (^) Radical ( (^) lar-rdor.
C R I N G E LY: What does it mean when you te[[ someone their work is
shit?
J 0 B 5 : It usually means their work is shit. Sometimes it means,
"I think your (^) work is shit. And I-I'm wrong."
Saying "your work is shit" is generally not OK. It's deep in the "Obnox-
ious Aggression" quadrant. But later in the interview with Cringely, Jobs clar-
ilied his thoughts (^) about what he said.
J 0 B S: The (^) most important thing I think you can do for (^) somebody who's really good and who's reatty being counted on is (^) to point (^) out to them when (^) they're not-when their work isn't good enough. And (^) to do it very ctearly and to articulate why... and to get them (^) back on track.
Notice that Jobs catches himself. He's careful nor to personalize the
criticism-not to say "when^ they're not good enough." Instead, he says "when
their work isn't good enough." It's an important distincrion. Jobs is sruggling
with a common problem that arises when criticizing another person: the fun-
clamental attribution emor, which highlights the role of personal uaits
rather than external causes. It's easier to find fault in that person than to
look for the fault within the context of what that person is doing. It's easier
to say, "You're^ sloppy" than to say, "You've^ been working nights and week-
ends, and it's starting to take a toll on your ability to carch mistakes in your
1ogic." (^) But it's also far less helpful. Saying "your work is shit" is (^) way berter than saying "you^ are shit," but
it's still totally obnoxious. WhatJobs says nexr is key, though: for criticism
' You can see the outtakes ofthe interview for the (^) PBS documentary Triwnph ofthe llerds, inThe Lost [nterriew.
i
RADICAL CANDOR
to be effective, it's crucíal "to^ do it very clearly andto arriculate why ,.. and
to get them back on track." lMy italics.l In other words, "your work is shit,"
even statecl less aggressiveiy, is not enough. The boss needs ro explain why;
th¡t is, be invested in (^) helping the person improve. Toward the end of the
irtclvicw, Jobs offers some explanation of why he chose the words he did.
J 0 B s: You need to do (^) that in a way that does not (^) ca[[ into question
your confidence in their abitities but leaves not too much room for
ínterpretation... and (^) that's a hard thing to (^) do. (^) [My itatics.]
"Your (^) work is shit" certainly doesn't leave any room for interpreration, but I expect for most people it might also call into (^) question confidence in
their ability. Far be it for me to justify this word choice, but rhere are a couple
of reasons why it might not be as bad as it sounds to say such a thing. First,
the nature of the relationship (^) is key. In the Introduction, (^) I told a story about a time I called a guy on my ream a dumbass. I'm not advocating you do (^) the same. I'm just^ saying (^) that because of rhe relationship (^) we had, I knew (^) that he
knew I admired him tremendously and that I only used those words to get
his attention. Second, (^) it might be the case, particularly (^) when you're dealing
wirh highly accomplished people, that you have ro go ro some exrremes ro
break through their tendency to filter out critical messages.
Jobs does^ arriculare^ why^ guidance^ ofren^ involves^ walking a knife's edge.
I have always found (^) ir enormously difficult (^) ro reassure people that (^) I have con- fidence in their (^) abilities while simulraneously (^) making it clear thar (^) I think the work is not good enough. Being exrremely (^) clear about the quality (^) of the
work can somerimes feel like you're just being mean.
How do you criticize without discouraging the person? First, as I de-
scribed in (^) chapter one, focus on your relationship. (^) Also, as i (^) described in
the previous two secrions: ask for criticism before giving ir, and offer more
praise than criticism, Be humbie, helpful, (^) offer guiclance in person (^) and im-
mediatel¡ praise in public, crittcize in private, and don't personalize. Make
it clear that (^) the problem is not due ro some unfixabie personality flaw. share
stories when you've been criticized for something similar. (For more rips,
see Chapter Six, which details giving impromptu guidance.)
A leader I worked wirh at Apple described how he would help new em-
ployees learn ro take criticism in sride. He'd been at Apple for many years
GET, GIVE, AND ENCOURAGE GUIDANCE
.rrcl had a godlike reputation. After their first design review, he'd show new
,'rrrirloyees two binders he kept in his office. One had ten sheets of paper in
rt. '['he^ other had more than a thousand. "This^ is my 'yes'^ file," he (^) explained, ¡rointing to^ the^ slim binder.^ "The^ design^ ideas^ that got^ approved."^ Then, he'd ¡rick up the fat^ binder^ and^ drop^ it^ for effect.^ 'And^ this^ is^ my 'no' file.^ Don't^ let tlrr: criticism discourage you."
Everyone must find their own way to crittcíze people without discour-
.rging them. SteveJobs's guidance (^) style is (^) certainly not for everyone, but it's rvorth understanding where he was coming from.
J 0 B^ S: i^ don't mind being wrong. And^ I'tt admit that I'm wrong a [ot. It doesn't reatty matter (^) to me too much. What matters (^) to me is (^) that we do the right^ thing.
In my experience, peopie who are more concerned with getting to the
light answer than with being right make the best bosses. That's because they
kcep (^) learning and improving, and they push the people who work for them to do the same. A boss's (^) Radicaliy Candid guidance helps the people work- ing (^) for them do the best work of their lives.
Think of a simpte example
"Your fly is down"
As the "your work is shit" example shows, it can be harder than you
might think to decide if you are being Radically Candid or not. One way to
solve a hard problem is to think of a simpler but similar one, reca1l how you
solved it, and then apply that technique to the harder problem. You can use
the same approach with emotional situations. When you're faced with teil-
ing a person something that will be extremely hard to hear, pretend you're
lr"rst saying, "Your^ fly^ is^ down," or^ "You^ have spinach^ in your^ teeth."^ These
lcss-fraught scenarios can help you approach bigger problems more straight- fbrwardly. To see how to apply the Radicai Candor fiamework to giving guidance, irnagine a simple scenario: a colleague, Alex, has walked out of the restroom,
lìy down, shirttail sticking out the front. What do you say?
Let's say you decide to overcome the awkwardness and speak up. You
know Alex will be embarrassed when you point out the zipper, but if you
:ì t,}
RADICAL CANDOR
you are a boss or a person in a position of some authority, it's not just your
job. It's your moral obiigation.Ja st say it!
You were also born with a capacity to connect, to care personally.
Somchow the training you got to "be professional" made you repress rhat.
Wel1, stop repressing (^) your innate ability to care personaliy. Give a damn!
Helping people take a step in the
direction of theír dreams
RETHINKING AMB]TION
LET'S RETURN tO the "care^ personally" dimension of Radical Candor.^ In
order to build a great team, you need to understand how each person's^ job
fits into their life goals. You need to get to know each person^ who reports
clirectiy to you, to have rea1, human relationships-relationships that change
as people change. When putting the right people in the right roles on^ your
team, you'11^ also have^ to^ challenge people^ even^ more directly than you^ did
with guidance-and^ in^ a^ way that^ will^ impact^ not^ just their^ feelings^ but^ also
their income, their career^ growth,^ and^ their ability^ to^ get^ what^ they want
out of 1ife.^ Building^ a^ team^ is^ hard.
