Download Radical candor chapter 3 summary and more Summaries Leadership and Team Management in PDF only on Docsity!
1:7. (^) RADICAL CANDOR
are a boss or a person in a position of some authority, it's not just your
lt's your moral obligation. Just say it!
You were also born with a capacity to connect, to care personally.
Somehow the training you got to "be professional" made you repress that.
Well, stop repressing your innate ability to care personally. (^) Give a damnl
you job.
Helpíng people take a step in^ the dírection of their dreams
RETHINKiNG AMB]TION
LET'S RETURN T0 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
directly to you, to have real, human relationships-relationships that change
as people change. When putting the right peopie in the right roies^ on your
team, you'll also have to challenge people even more directly than you did
with guidance-and in a way that wiil impact not just their feelings but also
their income, their career growth, and their ability to get what they want
out of life. Building a team ishard.
RADICAL (^) CANDOR
A leader ar Apple had a good way ro think about different types of am-
bition that people on her team had so thar she could be thoughrful about
what roles to plrt people in. To keep a team cohesive, you need both rock
stars and superstars, she explained. Rock stars are solicl as a rock. Think the
Rock of Gibraltar, not Bruce springsteen. The rock stars love their work.
They (^) have founcl their groove. (^) They don't wanr the next job (^) if it will take
them away from their crafr. Not ali artists want ro own a gaÌlery; in facr,
most don't. If you honor (^) and reward the rock stars, (^) they'll become the people (^) you most rely on. If you (^) promote them inro roles (^) they don'r wanr or aren't suited for, however, (^) you'll lose them-or, even (^) worse, wind up firing them. (^) superstars, on the other (^) hand, need to be challenged (^) and given new opportunities to grow (^) constantly.
in order to disringuish between ¡he two, you must let go of yourjudg-
ments and your own ambitions, forget for a while what you need from
people, and focus on gerting to know each person as a human being. For
many bosses, this means rethinking ambition.
If I say a person is "ambirious,"^ do you have (^) a positive or a negarive (^) re- actionl Do you assume the person is hell-bent on personal gain and slightly sinister, willing to trample (^) others to achieve personal (^) goals? or do (^) you as- sume that the person (^) is responsible and gets things (^) done, a force for posirive change in the larger group? if I say a person (^) is "stable,"^ what is your "blink" (^) reaction? That (^) the person is a snooze (^) whom you'd rather not (^) sit next to at a dinner party? (^) or do you get a sense (^) of reiief and comfort and (^) think thar this is rhe (^) sort of person you'd like to (^) have more of in your life? (^) If I say a person is "contenr,"
what is your reacrion? Do you admire that person? would you like to be
more that way yourselfl (^) or do you assume (^) this is someone (^) who is going nowhere? Now, let go (^) of all these reactions and judgments. Look at (^) the folrowing two columns (^) of words and think about positive (^) examples of people you've
worked with who would fali into each column. Think abour reams you've
workecl on thar have needed some of each and what the right ratio would
be. Then think about times in your iife when you've been in each of the
columns (^) and why. Ideally, the choice (^) wouid have been yours (^) and nor your boss's.
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOT]VATES EACH PERSON ON YOUR TEAM
Change agent Ambitious at work
Want new opportunitìes "Su perstar"
Force (^) for stabitity Ambitious outside of work (^) or simply content in^ life Happy in the current role "Rock (^) Star"
Shortly after I joined^ Google, Larry Page told me about a time when he'd
had a boss who was suspicious of ambition. While on a summer internship,
I-arry had been given an assignment that would have taken him a couple of
clays if he'd been given the freedom to do it his way. He explained the ad-
vantages of his approach to the boss, but the boss would have none of it: he insisted (^) that Larry do it "the^ way they'd always done it." Instead of two days,
Larry was forced to spend all summer working on the project. The wasted
time and effort were pure torture for him. As most of us have, Larry discov- e red that a boss who held him back could make iife miserable. "Three months of my life wasted and gone forever. I never want anyone at Google to have
a boss like rhar. Ever," Larry told me once, and I saw he meant it by the way
he led at Google. Larry went to great lengths to make sure bosses couldn't
squash their employees' ideas and ambitions. I loved that about Google. Now here's a story about a boss on a steep growth trajectory-me- who insisted that everybody share my ambitions, and how my experiences at Apple set me straight.
Unfortunatel¡ for too long I believed that pushing everybody to grow
super-fast was simply "best^ practice" for building a high'performing team.
I was always looking for the best, the brightest, the brashest, and the most
ambitious. For the first twenty years of my career, it never occurred to me
that some people did not want the next, bigger job. When I designed Manag- ing at Apple, an early iteration of the class encouraged managers to focus the lion's share of attention and resources on the most ambitious people on their teams, often to the detriment of people doing equally good work and h"ppy to keep doing it-the backbone of a strong team. And, ironically, the kind of person I had become at that stage in my career.
Scott Forstall,^ who built^ the^ iOS^ team^ and^ worked directly for^ Steve
Jobs, helped me understand^ that this^ approach was^ profoundly^ out^ of^ step
with Apple's ethos-and, moreover, that it didn't create the optimal team.
RADICAL CANDOR
as well as to figure out whom to hire, whom to fire, and when a person.s
poor performance might just (^) be the boss,s (your) fault.
The most important thing you can do for your team corlectiveiy is to
understand what growth trajectory each person wants to be on at a given
time and whether rhat matches the needs and opportunities of the team.
To do that, you are going to have ro get to know each ofyour direct reports
at a personal level. It's also (^) going to require you to have some of the hard- est conversations (^) you'll (^) ever have. sometimes, you'11 (^) even have (^) to fire people,
The axes of this framework are past performance and future growth
trajectories. (^) The assessment of past performance (^) on the (^) horizontal axis (^) of this
framework does go from "bad" to 'þood," butnot the vertical axis. It.s just
as good to be in the bottom-right (^) quadranr (^) as in the (^) upper-right. (^) Rock stars
are just^ as important to a team's performance as superstars. stability is just
as impo'rant (^) as growrh. The right mix (^) of each wiii (^) change over (^) time, but
you'li always need some of each.
when assessing a person's past performance, it's usefui to consider both
their resuks (^) and more (^) intangible things rike "teamwork." The expected re- sults for (^) a given quarre¡ (^) or year are (^) ideaily set by the employee; they should be as (^) objective a'd (^) as measurable (^) as possible. The intangibles (^) are usualiy
impossible to measul'e but not too hard to describe, and so expectations
should (^) be clea¡ here (^) as well. performance (^) is not a permanent (^) rabe1. (^) No per- son is always an "excellenr^ perfo¡mer." (^) They just performed (^) excellently last quarter.
The past is much easier ro understand than the furure. The future is
best described by each person's currenr "growth trajectory." Befo¡e consid-
ering how to manage (^) each type (^) of employee (^) to ensure your (^) team is cohe-
sive, it's worth taking a little more time to understand exactly u,hat I mean by
'þrowth trajector¡" and why it matters so much.
UNDERSTAND]NG WHAT MATTERS AND WHY
T0 B E SU CCESS FU L ar growth management, you need ro find our what mo-
tivates (^) each person on youÍ team. you (^) also need to learn what (^) each person.s long-term (^) ambitions are, and (^) understand how their current (^) circumstances fit (^) into their morivarions (^) and (^) their life goars. (^) only when you (^) get to know
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES EACH PERSON ON YOUR TEAM
yor-rr direct reports well enough to know why they care about their work,
rvl.rat they hope to get out of their careers, and where they are in the present
rììoment in time can you put the right people in the right roles and assign
tlrc right projects to the right people. (For a specific technique, see "Career
( (^) lonversations," Chapter Seven.)
"Steep growth" is generally characterized by rapid change-learning
rrirw skills or deepening existing ones quickiy. It's not about becoming a man-
rrger-plenty of individual contributors remain on a steep growth trajectory
their entire careers, and plenty of managers are on a gradual growth trajec-
tory. Nor shouid steep growth be thought of as narrowly as "promotion."
It's about having an increased impact over time.
Gradual growth is characteri zedby stability. People on a gradual growth
trajectory, who perform well, have generally mastered their work and are
n-iaking incremental rather than sudden, dramatic improvements. Some
loles may be better suited to a rock star because they require steadiness,
accumulated knowledge, and an attention to detail that someone in a super-
star phase might not have the focus or patience for.
People in a superstar phase are bad at rock star roles, and people in a
rock star phase will hate a superstar role. The team of diamond cutters I rnanaged in Russia-the guys I (^) wrote about in chapter one who taught rne to "care^ personally"-were master craftsmen, as skilled as anyone in
the world. They were rock stars; they had no desire for my boss's job. My
boss, Maurice Tempelsman, on the other hand, told a story about him-
self when he was a younger, extremely ambitious, restless man. As he was building his company, he decided (^) to ry his hand at diamond cutting. One day he got on the phone, (^) started negotiating a big deal, got disracted, and
ground a million-dollar diamond away to dust. True story. That's why you
don't want a person^ on a steep-growth trajectory in a gradual growth- trajectory job.
Most people shift between a steep growth trajectory and a gradual
growth trajectory in different phases of their lives and careers, so it's impor-
tant not to put a permanent iabel on people. For exampie, there were two
aspiring Olympic athietes on my team at Google. Both women did great
work, but right out of coilege, when they were at their athletic prime, they
poured as much energy into training as into work. They were on a gradual
growth tajectory at work, a steep growth trajectory in sports. Five years
l: iÌ
IiAI)ICAL CANDOR
later, both pivort'tl, ¡rorrlin.g;rll rlrat clrive and energy into their careers rather than into sl)( )r't s.' l'l rt'i l t rr l.<'t:1. (^) trajector.ies rocketed. ol'crrr'sr', r'rsr (^) .f us aren't aspiring (^) olympic athletes. I certainly am ll()t.'l'lì('r'('llt'l.rs of'reasons (^) why people shift (^) between a gradual and (^) a st('('l) (^) 1lr'()wth trajectory, (^) and circumstances (^) that spur one person to do one
t lr irrg sPur anorher person to do the opposire. Take having a chird. Some-
tinlcs the financial burden of parenthood spurs ambition; sometimes the
clesire to get home in time to play with young children spurs a desire for
more predictability. (^) Sometimes an ill relative requires a person ro ger (^) on a
more gradual growth trajectory but, when the illness passes, ambition
kicks back in. Generall¡ an ambition or a commitment outside of work
enhances a person's value to the team-that means you get, say, a grear art-
ist as your graphic (^) designer, as long as (^) you don't insist that the artist get (^) on the fast track (^) at work.
THE PROBLEM W]TH "PASSTON"
I T's A B A s I c axiom that people do better work when they find rhat work
meaningful. I don't disagree with this basic premise. However, bosses who
take this to (^) mean that it is their job (^) to provide purpose tend to (^) overstep. In-
sisting that people have passion for theirjob can place unnecessary pressure
on both boss and employee. I struggled with this at Google, where we were
hiring people right out of college to do dull cusromer-support work. I tried
convincing them rhat we were "funding^ creativity a nickel at a time." One
young (^) woman who'd studied philosophy (^) in coilege, called BS immediately.
"Look, the job is a little boring," she said. "Let's just admir that. it's OK.
Plutarch (^) laid bricks. spinoza (^) ground ienses. Tedium is part of rife." (^) I loved
her approach to finding meaning, but it was unique ro her. A slogan like
"spinoza ground lenses" would (^) not have been inspiring for rhe (^) broader team. In (^) a burst of Radical (^) candor, Financial Times writer (^) Lucy Kelraway explained why she chose (^) to work for the companies she (^) did: "I (^) wenr for
JPMorgan and^ later^ for^ the FTbecause they^ were^ the^ only^ companies offering
me a job. It seemed a great reason to pick them then. It is still a grear reason
today."*
- (^) http:/1x'u'u'.ft.corn/cms/s/0,/0ccb0658 (^) 596a-11e6 9f70-badea1b336d+.htmllsiteeclition=intl#axzz4Gx OrKlBg.
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES EACH PERSON^ ON^ YOUR^ TEAM
There's nothing wrong with working hard^ to^ earn^ a^ paycheck^ that^ sup-
¡rolts the^ iife you want^ to^ lead.^ That^ has^ plenty^ of^ meaning.^ A^ wise man^ once
rolcl me, "Only^ about five percent of people have^ a^ real vocation^ in^ life,^ and
tlrcy confuse the hell out of the rest of us." Trying^ to^ describe^ a^ job^ in iofty,
srrve-the-world terms is often going to make you look^ like^ the^ ridiculous
I looli CEO Gavin Belson from the show Silicon Valley.Which brings^ us^ back ro the main point of this chapter: your job^ is not^ to provide purpose^ but^ in-
stead to get to know each ofyour direct reports well^ enough to understand
lrow each one derives meaning from their work.
A story about Christopher Wren, the architect responsible^ for^ rebuild- ing St. Paui's Cathedral after the Great Fire of London, explains^ what^ I^ mean. Wren was walking^ the^ length^ of the^ partially^ rebuilt^ cathedral^ when^ he asked
t hree bricklayers what they were doing. The first bricklayer responded,^ "l'm
working." The^ second said,^ "I'm^ building^ a^ wall."^ The^ third^ paused,^ looked
tup, and then said, "l'm building a cathedral to the Almighty."
Many people^ use^ this story^ to^ celebrate^ the person^ who^ has^ a sense^ of
vision and can^ imagine his^ individual^ efforts^ as^ part of^ a^ grand^ collective
cnterprise. In^ current-day^ Silicon Valley,^ inspirational^ slogans^ run^ more along
the iines of^ "putting^ a^ ding^ in^ the^ universe,"^ as^ Steve^ Jobs put^ it.^ But motiva-
tions are highly personal.^ Although I^ admire^ Jobs, it^ seems^ to^ me that^ the
universe, or^ at least^ our world,^ is^ plenty^ dinged^ up^ already.^ So,^ I^ don't find
l-iis call to put a "ding in^ the^ universe" inspirational, though^ others^ do. Sure, it's
a boss's job^ to put the^ team's^ work in^ context,^ and^ if you^ share^ why^ the^ work
gives yoa meaning, that^ can^ help others^ find their^ own inspiration.^ But^ re-
member, it's^ not all^ about^ you.
For me, the most^ insÍuctive^ part^ of^ Wren's story^ is^ that^ he^ didn't^ come
up with a sense of^ purpose^ himself^ ancl^ pound^ it^ into^ everyone's head. Each
bricklayer cared about something different,^ even^ though all^ three^ were work-
ing on the same thing. Wren's^ role^ was^ to^ listen,^ to^ recognize^ the^ signifi-
cance of what he heard, and^ to^ create^ working^ condltions^ that^ allowed
everybody to find meaning^ in their own^ way.
EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE
Keep your^ top performers^ top^ of^ mind
BEF0RE D ELVING INTO the differences between^ how^ to manage^ rock^ stars or superstars, it's useful to^ focus on^ what^ both need^ from^ you. Your role^ is^ to
I{ADICAL (^) CANDOR
Exce lte nt Perform (^) a nce
Enough said. what mattered most to me at that moment was not growth
at Twitter or my career growth at Google, but the tiny creatures growing
inside of me. And with irs delicious hearthy food at every turn and the ma-
ternal massage therapist one floor up from my office and a rap pool for the
swims my doctor recommended, Google was (^) still the perfect (^) place (^) for a
high-risk pregnancy. I didnt need ro quit, but I did I need ro sray on a more
gradual growth trajectory at work. I was able to conrinue to lead the Ad_
sense, Doubleclick, and youTube teams, but I was not able to push for the
next job. And so I stayed (^) where (^) I was, ca'ied (^) rhe twins to term, (^) and gave
birth to two healthy babies. For the resr of my rife, I'rl be gratefur to Google
lor affording me rhar opporrunity.
i (^) am not saying (^) that other (^) pregnanr (^) women can't (^) be fuily committed cEos-many (^) have (^) proven it's possibre, (^) I'm just (^) saying (^) I courdn't. Ir wasn,r till the (^) twins turned (^) seven thar (^) I felt I had (^) the capacity to (^) get back on a sreep growth (^) trajectory and (^) starr a company. I am (^) aiso not saying that parents (men have (^) chiidren, too) (^) of toddlers (^) can't found (^) a company (^) or be on a super-sreep
growth trajecory. I'm nor even saying I courdn't. I'm jusr saying that I didn,t
want (^) to. I am also (^) nor saying (^) that having chirdren is the most common (^) rea_ son (^) for people to ger (^) on a more gradual growth (^) trajectory. your (^) people (^) might not look (^) at ali like (^) me: they might (^) rook (^) more rike Einsrein (^) in the parent ofûce or T. S. Eliot in the (^) bank.
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES EACH^ PERSON^ ON^ YOUR TEAM
What I am saying is we ¿ll have^ periods^ in^ our^ lives^ when our^ profes-
:;ional growth speeds up or slows down.^ Recreation^ is essential^ for^ creation.
Iusr as^ there^ is^ nothing^ inherently ignoble^ about^ ambition, there^ is^ no^ shame
irr being in the same job^ for many years. We^ a1l^ need^ a^ bit^ ofboth growth^ and
stabiiity in our lives and on our teams. Unfortunately,^ even^ though^ I^ was
lìving that reality, I still didn't fully^ respect^ it.^ Instead^ of^ expanding my
vicwpoint after having^ my^ children,^ i^ began^ looking down^ on myself^ the
way I^ had^ looked down^ on others^ earlier^ in^ my^ career.^ "That which^ does^ not grow, rots," said Catherine the Great. Rather^ than recognizing^ the^ whole
l)crson-rfly whole^ person,^ who^ was^ growing^ and^ changing every^ day,^ along
with my twins-I^ was deeply^ afraid^ I'd^ begun^ to^ rot. In other words, I still believed that pushing everybody to^ grow^ was^ best
lrracrice for^ building^ a^ team. As^ I^ described^ above,^ when I^ left^ Google^ and
went to Apple,^ both^ the company^ in^ general^ and Scott^ Forstall^ in particular helped clarify my^ thinking.^ But I srill^ didn't^ fully^ accept^ it in^ my heart^ of
liearts. Ir was on a day I stayed home from work^ with^ my toddler^ son^ that^ I
f ìnally learned the^ lesson deep^ in^ my gut.^ He had^ a 104-degree^ fever and was
roo listless to^ do^ anything other than watch^ The^ Lorax,^ the^ fiim^ adaptation
of the Dr. Seuss book.^ The^ Lorax's^ advice^ to the Onceler^ in^ the^ "biggering" song finally brought^ the^ iesson^ home:
I'm figuring^ on^ biggering! But that biggering's just triggering^ more^ biggering!
As my son's fever^ broke,^ I^ realizedthat^ not only^ was^ my^ blind^ obsession
with growth misaiigned^ with^ my^ personal^ humanity,^ it^ wasn't^ even the best way to build a great team.^ When^ I^ looked back^ over^ my^ career,^ i
thought with shame^ about the^ considerable^ number^ of^ people^ I'd^ underval-
ued or dismissed. This moment radically^ altered^ my^ personal approach^ to the rest of my career. In an almost poetic^ twist^ of^ fate,^ it^ was^ Dick^ Costolo,^ the^ CEO who
took Twitrer public,^ who^ gave me^ the^ opportunity^ that ailowed^ me^ to^ write
this book and spend more^ time^ with^ my^ toddlers.^ He^ asked^ me^ to^ help
him design a class, Managing at^ Twitter.I^ was^ happy^ to^ do^ so,^ and^ afte¡^ we'd
worked together on it, he^ asked^ me^ if^ I^ wanted to^ interview for^ a^ big^ operat- ing role on his ream. As^ I^ went^ through^ the^ interview^ process,^ it^ became
clear to both of us that I didn't^ have^ the^ energy^ at^ that^ time in^ my^ life^ for
RADICAL (^) CANDOR
the role. (^) He asked me if (^) I'd be interested in becoming (^) his coach instead: a (^) cushy
one-hour-every-other-week gig. Dick's abiiity to help identify the perfect
role for me at that rime in my rife has made an enormous difference in my
career. It not only a110wed me to be on a gradual growth trajectory at work
when I wanted to write and be with my kids, it also set me up perfectly for
when I was ready to shifr gears again.
What's the best way ro manage rock srars, the people whom you can
coun¡ (^) on to deliver (^) great results year after year? you (^) need to recognize them to keep (^) them happy. For roo many (^) bosses, ..recognition,, means .þromotion.,,
But in mosr cases, this is a big mistake. promotion often puts these people
in roles (^) they are not (^) as welr-suired for or don't want. The (^) key is to recognize their con*ibution in (^) other ways. (^) It may be (^) a bonus or (^) a raise. or, if'they like (^) public speaking, get them (^) ro presenr ar your (^) alr-hands (^) meerings (^) or other big events' (^) If they (^) like reaching, (^) get them (^) to help new people rearn (^) their roles (^) faster. orif they (^) are sh¡ (^) make sure (^) thatyou and others on the team thank (^) them privately (^) for the work (^) they do. (^) consider, carefuriy, tenure awards. if your (^) organízation (^) gives performance (^) ratings (^) andlor (^) bonuses, make (^) sure they (^) are fair to rhe (^) rock stars.
Fair performance ratin gs
ln some companies, (^) rock (^) stars don't get the performance (^) review (^) they deserve (^) because (^) all rhe top ratings (^) are reserved (^) for people (^) who are in (^) line to get (^) promored. A 10t (^) of companies (^) ration (^) the number (^) of top ratings. Avoid-
ing 'þrade^ inflation" is a good idea. However, an unintended consequence
is often that rock stars get rower rarings than they should. In fact, alr. of your
top performers should ger top ratings. when performance ratings have an
impact (^) on compensarion, this (^) is especially (^) important. If one person (^) is doing (^) much better work than others on the team, (^) it seems
obvious they should get a better rating and a higher bonus. But when ¡at-
ings are primarily used to justify future promotions, rather rhan ro recog-
nize (^) past performance, (^) this (^) doesn,t happen.
Recognition In addition (^) to top ratings, (^) a grear (^) way ro recognize people (^) in a rock
star phase is to designate them as "gurus," or "go-to" experts. often this
means putting (^) rhem in charge (^) of teaching newer ream members, if (^) they show
the aptitude for it. Bosses can be reluctant to use a top performer this way,
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES EACH^ PERSON^ ON^ YOUR^ TEAM
rr,rrnting them to^ do the.lob rather^ than to^ teach others.^ However,^ th^ js^ atti- rrrclc prevents an organization from getting^ as^ much levelage out of experts ,rs tl-rey otherwise would.
In World War II,^ the^ U.S.^ Air^ Force^ took their^ very^ best^ pilots^ from^ the
llont lines and sent^ them home^ to train^ new^ pilots.^ Over^ time^ this^ strategy
,lr.arr-ratically improved the^ quality^ and^ effectiveness^ of the^ U.S.^ Air^ Force.
'l'he Germans lost their air superiority because they flew al1 their aces until
rlrcy were shot down; none^ of^ them^ trained^ new^ recruits.By^1944 new^ Ger-
rrran pilots had clocked only^ about^ half^ of^ the three hundred hours^ an^ Allieci
¡rilot would^ have^ flown^ in training.
Too many companies hire^ people^ for^ training^ whom^ they^ would^ never
lrire to do the actual job.^ Or, worse, rather than^ fire^ people^ who^ are^ not
¡rcrforming well^ in^ a^ particular^ role,^ they^ send^ them off^ to^ teach^ others
lìow to do it. This sounds absurd,^ but i've^ seen^ that^ very thing^ happen^ at
some grear companies. This kind^ of blind-leading-the-b1ind^ practice^ gives
training a bad name. Generally, people^ who^ are^ grear^ at^ a^ job^ enjoy^ teach-
ing it to others; giving them rhis role^ can^ not^ only improve the^ perfor-
lì1ance of the whole team but^ also^ give^ the rock^ stafs a^ different sort^ of
le cognition. of course, some people hate teaching and are^ terrible at^ it:^ this^ role sirould be an honor, not a requirement. And^ there^ are^ times when being^ flre go-to expert might drive a person off the^ team^ because^ the^ person^ hates be-
ing interrupted with questions all^ day^ long.^ So^ be^ sensitive^ to that.^ But^ if^ a
person enjoys teaching and answering questions,^ by^ all^ means^ encourage
¿rnd reward^ them for^ doing it.
Of ai1 the companies I know well,^ Apple^ did^ the^ best^ job^ of creating^ a
great environment for^ people^ in^ a^ rock^ star^ phase.^ The^ company's^ orga-
nizarional design^ optimized^ for^ deep^ lunctional^ expertise.^ There were^ no
"general managers." There was no iPhone division. Instead, there were
operating system engineers, camera experts,^ audiophiles,^ and glass^ gurus who came rogerher^ around^ the iPhone.^ There were^ always people^ around who knew^ some^ functional^ aspect of the^ product^ more deeply^ than^ anyone else, and they were revered^ for^ it.
I was sffuck^ by the^ deference^ given to^ people^ who^ had been^ in^ a^ partic-
ular role for years^ at^ Apple.^ At^ Google^ and^ many other^ Silicon^ Valley^ com-
panies, being^ in^ the^ same^ role^ for^ roo^ long^ was^ a^ badge^ of^ shame.^ Some
companies even have^ a^ so-called "up or^ out" policy^ andfre^ these^ people.^ Steve
=-..-
RADICAL CANDOR
Steep Growth (^) Trajectory
Excettent Perf orma n ce
got a job (^) there; then Facebook hired her away from (^) Google, and then Twitter
hired her away from Facebook.
When I flrst met David, he, too, was babysitting my twins. He was spend-
ing the summer in Silicon Valley to be with Catharine, whom he was dating,
and trying to figure out what to do with his life. When I asked him what
he loved to do, he talked about music. i learned from Catharine-he was roo
modest (^) to tell me-that he didn't just (^) love music, he was the top-rated pia-
nist in Canada in his age bracket. I asked him if he wanted to be a profes-
sional musician, and he said no, because (^) the financial sacrifices he'd have to
make were just too great. I wished I could tell him to follow his passion, but
I was sympathetic-l love writing novels but would never try ro supporr my
family tl-rat way.
Meanwhile our sprinkier system was going haywire. I cerrainly had no
expectation that David would fix the irrigation pipes as well as take care of
the children; I myself often could nor (^) find time to take a shower when I was watching them on the r.veekends. But David went to the hardware srore after work one night and figured (^) our ho\M to fix the whole thing the next day (^) while
the twins were napping. I was beginning to ger rhe picrure: David noriced
when things were broken and rolled up his sleeves to fix them, even if they
weren't in his job^ description. i asked him what job he'd had that he enjoyed.
UNDERSTAND WHAT [lOTIVATES EACH^ PERSON^ ON^ YOUR^ TEA¡
I (^) lc'd loved all his jobs. When he worked at a shop in Vancouver, he^ not only
l,ccame the top salesperson but^ he^ improved the^ shop's^ inventory^ system,
,lt.creasing wait time; improved customer satisfaction; and increased^ sales
lor ali the salespeople, not^ just^ himself. Clearly David^ would^ always^ push
lirl excellence in^ his^ work,^ no^ matter^ what^ job^ he^ had. He^ would^ not^ just^ do
nìore than was required; he'd^ do^ things you^ didn't^ even^ think^ were^ possi-
lrlc. He exemplifled the^ advice^ from^ Ecclesiastes:^ "Wha¡soever thy^ hand^ fin-
tlc:th to do, do it with thy might."
I also knew that as^ much^ as^ I^ loved having David around,^ it^ was my^ job
ro help him keep growing. I made^ introductions^ for^ him,^ edited^ his résumé,
,rnd did a practice interview^ with^ him.^ He^ got^ himself^ a^ job^ at^ Facebook and,
t() no one's surprise, set the company record^ for^ the most promotions^ the
I ir stest. Catharine and David went on^ to^ live^ the Silicon Valley dream. They've started a company, ReelGood, that^ makes^ it^ much^ faster and^ easier^ to^ figure
()ut \Mhat movie or TV show to watch.
Here's some advice about^ what^ to^ do when^ you^ are^ lucky^ enough^ to
have people like Catharine and David^ on^ your^ team:
Keep them chatlenged (and^ figure^ out^ who'[[^ reptace
them when they move on)
The best way to keep superstars happy^ is^ to^ challenge^ them^ and^ make sure they are constantly learning. Give^ them new^ opportunities,^ even^ when it is sometimes mofe work than seems feasible^ for^ one^ person to^ do.^ Figure our what the next job^ for them will^ be.^ Build^ an^ intellectual^ partnership wi¡h them. Find them mentors flom^ outside^ your^ team^ ol^ olganization- people who have even more to offer than^ you^ do.^ But make^ sure^ you^ don't get too dependent on them; ask them to^ teach others on the^ team to^ do^ their
job, because they won't stay in their existing role for^ 1ong.^ I often^ thought^ of
these people^ as^ shooting^ stars-my^ team^ and^ i^ were^ lucky to^ have^ them in
our orbit lor a little while, but trying to^ hold^ them^ there was^ futile.
Don't squash them or block them
It's vital^ not to "squash"^ these^ people. Recognize^ that^ you'11^ probably^ be
working for them^ one day, and ceiebrate^ that^ fact.^ When I first^ hired^ Jared
Smith to be^ a^ product^ manager atJuice, I^ quickly^ tealized that I'd^ be^ lucky
{,!
--...-
RADICAL (^) CANDOR
if he one day returned the favor. Sure enough, a decade later (^) he hired me as an executive (^) coach and board member (^) at (^) Qualtrics, the company (^) he cofounded
with his brother. I'm working not just forJared but for his whole family.
of all (^) the companies I've worked (^) for, Google did the (^) best job (^) of putting safeguards (^) in place so that managers (^) couldn't curb the ambitions (^) of their di rect reports. (^) This was directly tied to the company's (^) efforts to iimit the power (^) of managers to quash rather (^) than accelerate the careers of people on
a steep growth trajectory. For example, consider the promotion process
that (^) Shona Brown, SVP of Business (^) operations, designed at Google. Bosses at coogle (^) can't simply promore people on their teams at (^) their own discretion. In engineering, (^) managers can encourage or discourage a person (^) from pursu- ing another job, (^) and they can lobby (^) for the person or nor, bur people nomi- nate (^) themseh)es for promotion, (^) and a commirtee makes (^) the decision. once a "promotion (^) packet" consisting of a list of accomplishments (^) and recommen-
ciations has been assembled, a committee reads it and decides if the promo-
tion (^) should go through. The manager (^) is nor on that committee. The manager
can appeal a decision, but the manager is not rhe decider. This prevents
managers from curbing the ambition of their direct reporrs or from offer-
ing promotions ro reward personal loyalty rather than great work.
Google also makes it pretty easy for people to seek new oppor.tunities
by transferring from one team to another team. No boss can "block" such a
transfer. I once took a person onto my team who (^) had convinced me that (^) he
was great but that his boss had it out lor him-despite the fact that he had
received (^) terrible ratings. Nobody tried to stop (^) this from happening. And thar was a good thing because (^) on our team, this person (^) thrived. Allor¡,ing trans-
fers is importanr because ir prevents bosses from blackballing employees
who want to move on, and allows for the fact that sometimes two people just
don't work that well together.
Google didn't get everything right, though. There was a crazy-srricr
rule in Product Management that you had to have a computer science de-
gree to join^ the team. Many peoplc wanted to transfer to product because
they had ideas they wanted to pursue, but they were prevented because (^) rhey
didn't have the right degree. One was Biz Stone who, stymied by the ru1e,
left Google to cofound Twitter. Another was Ben silbermann, who, simi-
larly blocked, left Googie to found pinreresr. Kevin sysrom also left Google
to cofound Instagram when he couldn't join (^) the pM^ team because (^) of his college degree.
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES EACH^ PERSON^ ON^ YOUR^ TEAM
Not every superstar wants to^ manage
Lack of interest in^ managing^ is^ not^ the^ same^ thing^ as^ being on^ a^ grad-
r r,rl growth rajectory, just^ as interest^ in^ managing^ is^ not^ the^ same^ thing^ as
l,r'ing on a steep growth trajectory. Management^ and^ growth^ should not
1,,' conflated.
Imagine if Albert Einstein had been^ told,^ just^ as^ he^ was developing^ his
r lrt'ory of relativit¡ that he needed to stop spending^ so^ much^ time^ alone^ with
lris work and instead take on management responsibilities^ for^ a^ team^ of
¡,r'ople. The result^ wouid^ have^ been^ a^ frustrated Einstein,^ a^ demoralized^ and ¡,oorly managed team,^ and^ a^ great^ loss^ to humanity's understanding^ of^ the r rrr iverse.
Yet a version of this happens al1 the^ time. The^ careers^ of many^ great
.rrgineers and salespeopie have foundered when they^ are^ promoted^ to man-
,rgcr. Why does this happen? Because there's no other role to^ promote them
ro that acknowledges the kind of growth trajectory they^ want^ to^ be on.
This points to another problem with the language^ used^ in^ the^ traditional
I'crformance-potential matix.^ Often^ the^ matrix^ is^ not^ just^ analyzing"po-
tcntial" but "leadership^ potential." The unintended consequence^ of^ this
is (^) that whole armies of people systematically cap the careers^ of others^ who
,ìre on a steep growth trajectory but who don't want to^ become^ managers.
'l'his in turn systematically caps the rewards that can be given to people
who are^ more^ interested^ in^ deepening^ their^ expertise^ and^ advancing^ human l<nowledge rather than being a boss. Don't get me wrong-I believe great rnanagement is important. But it's certainly not the only path^ to^ major irrpact.
Google's engineering teams solved^ this problem^ by^ creating an "indi-
viduai conÍibutor" career^ path that^ is more prestigious^ than the^ manager
path and sidesteps management entirely. This has been great for^ the^ growth
of these engineers; it's^ also^ good^ for^ the^ peopie^ whom^ they^ would^ other-
wise have been managing.^ When^ people become^ bosses^ just to^ "get^ ahead"
rather than because they^ want to^ do^ what^ bosses^ do,^ they^ perform,^ at^ best,
:r perfunctory job^ and^ often^ become^ bosses^ from^ hell.
When management is^ the^ only^ path^ to higher^ compensation, the^ qual-
ity of management suffers, and^ the lives of the people^ who^ work for^ these
reluctant managers become miserable.
RADICAL CANDOR
P00R PERFORMANCE/
N EGATIVE GROWTH TRAJ ECTORY
Part (^) ways WHEN S0MEB0DY I5 (^) performing poorly and, having received clear com- munication (^) about the nature of the problem, is showing no signs of improve- ment, you must fire that person. How you do it goes a long way to defining your long-term success as a boss, because it sends a clear signal to everyone
on your team whether or not you truly care about people for more than what
they can do for you on the job. It goes without saying that getting fired is one of the mosr soul-challenging things that can happen to a person. its effects are bad enough for the people themselves, and they ripple out to their families in the form of financial dif- ficulties, loss of medical benefits, marriage troubles, and, worsr (^) of all, the strain of seeing someone you love suffer.
The knowledge that you are about to inflict some measure of suffering
on someone you may care a lot about obviously makes actually doing it very hard. I once talked to a crazy-successful New Yorker (^) who seemed far more
brash than compassionate about firing people. He told me rhar on mornings
when he was going to fire somebody, he always woke up in a cold sweat. I
GraduaI Growth Trajectory
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES EACH^ PERSON^ ON^ YOUR TEAM
lr,rtln't known that anything couid make him sweatl If^ he^ felt^ bad,^ no^ won-
,lt'r' I did, and no wonder you^ do,^ too.^ So^ we^ avoid^ it^ at^ all^ costs-again,^ with
rrt'gative consequences for everyone. So you need to approach firing^ thought-
f r r lly and deliberately.
How do you^ know when^ it's^ time to^ fire^ somebody? Let's say that someone on^ your^ team, "Peggy,"^ is^ terrible^ at her^ job, not
rit'tting any better, or even getting^ worse.^ Is^ it^ time to fire^ her?^ There's^ no
,rbsolute answer to that question,^ but^ here^ are^ three^ questions^ to^ consider:
lrirve you given her Radically Candid guidance,^ do^ you^ understand the^ im- ¡rrrct of Peggy's^ performance^ on^ her^ colleagues, and have^ you sought^ advice lì om others? Have you g:en Radtcally Candid guidance?^ Have^ you demonsrated^ to
I'cggy that you care personally about her^ work^ and^ her^ life,^ and^ have you
lrcen crystal clear when you have^ challenged^ her^ to^ improve? Has your
¡rlaise been substantive and specific about^ what^ she^ has^ done^ right,^ rather
tlian simply a salve to her ego? Have you^ been^ humble^ as^ well^ as^ direct in
your criticism, offering to help her find^ solutions rather^ than attacking^ her rrs a person? And have you done these things^ on^ multiple^ occasions^ over^ the ('ourse of time? If the answer is yes ancl you have not seen improvement, or
have seen only flickers of improvement, it's^ time. Remember-the^ defini-
tion of insanity is continuing to do the same thing^ and^ expecting^ different
lesults. How is this person's poor performance affecting the rest of the^ team?^ Peggy's shortcomings aren't only your problem. As^ a^ manager, it's^ your^ job^ to make sure you understand everyone else's perspective, as^ well,^ and^ how^ her^ poor ¡rerformance affects^ other members^ of^ the team. Generally, by the^ time^ one of your direct report's poor performance has come to^ your attention,^ it's^ been clriving their^ peers^ nuts^ for^ a^ long time.
Have you sought /ut 4 seconà. opitriott, spoken to someone^ whom^ you^ tru.st^ anå
tuith whom you^ can^ talk^ the^ problem through?^ Sometimes^ you may^ think^ you've
been clear when you haven't been. Getting an outside perspective^ can^ help
you make sure you're being fair. Also, if you cion't have experience^ firing
somebody, talk to^ somebody^ who^ does.^ In^ today's^ world,^ most^ companies
have stict guidelines^ that^ must be^ followed when^ someone^ is^ being^ fired, and there are^ lots^ of^ legal^ "gotcha"s^ that^ can consume tons of^ time down^ the load if you're not^ careful.
{ !t! RADICAL CANDOR
Common Iies managers^ tettthemselves to^ avoid^ firing somebody who needs to be fired Managers almost^ always^ wait^ too long to fire^ people. Being^ too caulious
may be preferable to being too^ hasty,^ but I'd^ say^ that most^ managers^ wait
far too^ long to^ do^ it^ because^ they^ have^ fooled^ themselves^ into^ believing^ that
it's unnecessary. Below are^ four common "lies"^ managers^ tell^ themselves^ to
avoid firing somebody:
- It wíll get better. But of course^ it^ won't get^ better^ at[^ by^ itsel.f.^ So stop and ask yoursetf: how,^ exactLy,^ wil.Lit^ get better?^ What^ are you going (^) to do differentty? What wiLt the person in question do
different[y? How^ might^ circumstances^ change?^ Even^ ifthings^ have
gotten (^) a tittte better, have they improved enough? If you don't
have a pretty^ precise answer^ to those questions,^ it^ probab[y^ won't
get better. 2, Somebodyis betterthan nobody.^ Another^ common^ reason^ why bosses are retuctant to fire^ a poor performer^ is^ that they don't want a "hote"^ on the team. If you^ fire "Jeffrey,"^ who^ wi[[^ do^ the^ work^ he was doing? How long wit[ it^ take you^ to find^ a^ replacement?^ The^ fact is that poor performers^ often create^ as^ much^ extra^ work^ for^ others as they accomptish themselves, because they^ leave^ parts^ oftheirjob undone or do other parts stoppi[y or^ behave^ unprofessionatty^ in^ ways that others must compensate for.^ Steve Jobs put^ it^ succinctty,^ if harshty, when he said, "It's betterto have a hote^ than^ an^ asshote."
- A transfer is the answer. Because firing^ peopte^ is^ so^ very^ hard,^ it's
often tempting to instead pass^ them^ offto^ an^ unsuspecting
co[[eague at your^ company, even ifthey^ don't have^ skitts your
cotteague needs or are a poor^ cuttura[ fit.^ It^ feels^ "nicer"^ than
firing them. This is obviously not so nice for^ the^ unsuspecting colteague and is generatty^ a mistake for^ the^ person^ you're^ trying to be "nice" to as wett.
- It's bad (^) for morale. It's a lso tem pti^ ng to tet[ yoursetf^ that you're not firing somebody because doing so would discourage the team. But keeping someone on who can't do thejob is far worse for mora[e-yours, the person who's doing a crummy job,^ and everyone
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES^ EACIl^ PERSON^ ON YOUI(^ ìI^ ^I,
else who's doing a greatjob.^ Again,^ this^ comes^ down^ to^ having buitt a good^ relationship with the^ person you're^ firing,^ and^ the
rest ofthe team. It comes back^ to^ having demonstrated^ that^ you
care persona[ty.
Be Radical,ty Candid with the^ person^ you're^ firing The way you fire peopie really matters,^ and^ to^ do^ this^ hard^ job well,^ it's important not to distance yourself from^ the person^ you're^ about^ to^ fire.^ If
you rry to avoid feeling the pain that is^ inherent in^ the^ situation,^ especially
lirr the person you're firing, you'il make^ a^ hash of^ it^ To^ be^ in^ the^ right^ frame o{-mind, remember the foilowing:
- Recatt a job you were terrible ot^ and^ think^ how^ glad you^ feel that
you're no longer ín if. One summer^ in^ high^ school^ I^ got^ a^ job^ as^ a
bank te[[er. I don't do math wett in^ my^ head, and^ so^ I often^ counted out the wrong change. Since customers generatty caught^ errors^ in the bank's favor but weren't always honest when^ they^ came^ out ahead, I gave away a tot ofthe bank's money.^ My boss^ did^ notfire
me. Instead, she said, "You^ can do this!^ Ifyoujust^ try,^ ifyoujust
focus, you^ can batance every^ dayt"^ Now^ what^ had^ just^ been^ a^ math problem fett tike a character f[aw. But^ the^ harder^ I^ tried, the worse I became. Stitt my boss continued to^ cheer^ me^ on'^ I^ was miserable. I shoutd have quit^ and gotten^ a^ job^ mowing^ grass.^ If^ my boss had simpty^ fired^ me by^ saying,^ "You^ are^ ctearly not^ interested in this work. Why don't you^ find a different job this^ summer?" she'd have^ done^ me a^ big^ favor-and^ saved^ the^ bank^ a^ lot^ of^ money. Instead, I suffered and muddled through untiI^ the^ summer's end.
Butwhatifit had been a permanentjob^ and^ I^ had stayed^ on
indefinitety? When you^ fire^ someone,^ you^ create^ the possibitity for^ the person to exceI and find happiness performing meaningfuI work elsewhere. Part of^ getting^ a^ good^ job is leaving^ a^ bad one, or one that's bad^ for you.^ As my^ grandmother^ once said^ to^ me,^ "There's^ a lid for every pot." Just^ because^ the^ person^ is not^ good at the^ job they do for^ you^ doesn't^ mean^ there'isn't anotherjob^ out there^ they could be great at.^ I^ know^ that this^ can^ sound^ very Pollyanna-ish, so before our meeting,^ I try^ to imagine specificalty what that^ job
¡l
RADICAL (^) CANDOR -
was enormous. (^) of course, Mareva (^) had known in her (^) gut what the problem
was, but she hadn't wanted to offer excuses or blame me for her poor per-
formance. Happil¡ there was a big, meaty management challenge involving
several (^) hundred people on another team that needed (^) solving. I put Mareva
on it and, sure enough, she was back to being one of the top performers-
not just (^) on my team but (^) at the company. Another example. "Clay" led a team in a (^) parricular country, cail it
'Atlantis," where he was an enormously effective leader and had also grown
revenue faster than anyone else. He wanted a growth opportunity, and I
positioned him to rake over another, bigger team in Atlantis. However, clay
really wanted to move on to a regional role, and he approached me about it
when one opened (^) up on my team. i had significant doubts about (^) the fit
because this job^ required great political finesse, a skill clay had not demon-
strated-to his credit as lar as I was concerned-but which was necessary to
perform (^) successfully in (^) this particular role. (^) I shared my concerns (^) frankly
with him, but he persisted until I gave in. Almost as soon as he had assumed
his new role, however, (^) he grabbed a political (^) hot potato and got burned.
It's not aiways clear when you are giving people an opportunity ro
grow and when you are sending them into the lion's den, but in this case I
made a bad call. I put clay in the rvrong role. unfortunatery, I ieft the com-
pany and clay was evenrualiy fired, I didn't have the opportunity to look
myself in the mirror, and clay took the fall for my mistake, which I've a1-
ways lelt terrible (^) about. (Fortunatel¡ (^) he's gone on to become (^) an enor- mously successful (^) entrepreneur in Atlantis.)
New to ro[e; too much too fast
obviously when you hire someone who has never done a job before
and they have to learn it from scratch, they sometimes take longer than ex-
pected ro progress. (^) If the person gives (^) you reason to believe (^) they can be
great in the role, if they show signs of "spiking,"^ ir's worth invesring more.
But sometimes it (^) isn't that obvious. ln rhese (^) cases. ir can help to ask yourselfthese (^) questions: are (^) expectations clear enough? Is (^) the training good (^) enough? If the problem is that youhave nor explained the role or the expecrations clearly enough, you should invest more
time to do so if you think the person can become a kick-ass employee.
Another (^) mistake that bosses sometimes make is to dump too much on a person all (^) at once, setting them (^) up to fail. Sometimes managers simply have
UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTiVATES EACH PERSON ON YOUR TEAM
, r rr |easonable expectations about what one human being can do. other times,
n riulagers (^) map their own capacity (^) onto the people who work for them. They
l,r'get that a person wirh ten years less experience than they have simply
r (^) locsn't know certain things.
Personatprob[ems
Sometimes people who have been on a tear in their careers suddenly
',lop performing well because they are having a personal issue. If the prob-
It'rn is a temporary one, ir's best simpiy to give such people the time they
rrcccl to get back on track. I had a family crisis while (^) I was working for Sheryl Sandberg. I (^) will a1- rvays be grateful for her response: "Ger on a plane, go home, take (^) all the time you (^) neecl, and don't worry about (^) anything at Google. Don't count this (^) as your i,rrcation time-just (^) take the time. We have you covered." Her (^) words left
rrre feeling luckier than ever to be part of her team-and doubly motivared
when I returned.
Poor fit
Sometimes a person seems to be in the perfect role, given their experi-
cnce and expertise, (^) but just (^) can't get traction at a particular (^) company or on
iì team because there is a misalignment between the culture of the group
rrnd the individuai's (^) personality. When a highly successful person takes a job
with a new company and the "fit"^ isn't right, it can be painful for everyone.
lf neither the culture nor the individual can change, it's best to parr ways.
You generally can't fix a cultural-fit issue.
For example, (^) I knew a person whose "launch^ and (^) iterate" approach made him enormously (^) successful at Google. Googie's culture (^) was all abour experi-
rnentation. When he got to Apple, which had a culture of perfecring and
polishing ideas before launching them, he tried the same thing, and it kiiled
his (^) credibility. There was norhing wrong (^) with the person or with Apple-it
was just a bad fit.
NO PERMANENT MARKERS
Peopte (^) change, and you have to change (^) with them
IT'S HARD N0T to lock in your perceptions of people.'Jane is a rock srar.
Once (^) a rock star, always a rock star." "Sean is (^) my Rock of Gibraltar. I'd be
RADICAL CANDOR
lost without him in his roie." My biggest concern with the terms "rock star"
and "superstar"^ is that you'li use them as permanent labels for people. Please do not! It's tempting to see certain people (^) as fit (^) only for (^) a certain role or having a certain set of skills/weaknesses that will never (^) change. The (^) truth
is, people really do change. Somebody who's been on a gradual growth tra-
jectory (^) may suddenly become restless and yearn for a new (^) challenge at work. Or, a person who's been on a steep growth trajectory for years may be craving a period of stability. This is another reason (^) why you haye to manage. Being a great boss involves constantly adjusting to the new reality of the day or week
or year as it unfolds. But you can't adjust if you haven't been paying atten-
tion or if you don't know the person well enough to notice that something
significant has (^) shifted. It's (^) not only important to remember that nobody is always on a steep or
growth trajectory; people's performance changes over time, too. Be careful
not to label people as "high^ performers." Everybody has an off quarter oc-
casionally. To combat permanent labeis, Qualtrics cofounder (and my col-
league from Juice and Google) Jared Smith came up with the performance
ratings "offquarter,"^ "solid^ quarter," and "exceptional quarter."
Such adjustments are particulariy hard when it comes time to move people who have been making your life easier into new roles that will make
your life harder-at least in the short term. You have relied on 'Jean" to get a
particular job^ done well for years. NowJean wants a new job.^ Or, "Pat"^ has been picking up new challenges for years, and now Pat is ready to quit chang-
ing roles so often; you have to hand those off to somebody without the
same track record of success that Pat has. It's stressful for youl
Over the course of our careers, most of us go through waves. Some-
times we are in learning mode or transition mode. Sometimes our priorities change: a spouse takes a new job^ and we neecl to be home more, or we want to devote time to a passion outside work. It is important for the team mem- ber and the boss to be clear about what is driving the degree of trajectory at
each juncture,^ so that both the team member and the company can benefit.
So use this simple framework, but don't abuse it. Make sure that you
are seeing each person on your team with fresh eyes every day. People evolve,
and so your reiationships must evolve with them. Care personally; don't put
people in boxes and leave them there.
Telling people what to do doesn't work
TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO DIDN'T
WORK AT GOOGLE
AT FIRST B LU SH, it seems like achievingresults is more a matter of challeng- ing directly than caring personaily. But the (^) ultimate goal of Radical Candor is to achieve collaboratively what you could never achieve individually, and to
do that, you need to care about the people you're working with.
Steve Squyres, who led the Mars Exploration Rover Mission, described
perfectly the thriil of collaboration: "Over four thousand people have worked on
this mission. There's no one person who can really get their arms around
the whole thing and (^) say, 'I understand everything about this vehicle.' It burst
the bounds of our brains." I was sitting next to Larry Page when I watched
