Pros and cons of radical candor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Candor

Executive Summary generated by some AI

---

At the CITCON Berlin 2023 session, attendees discussed Kim Scott's concept of "Radical Candor," a feedback mechanism plotted on a matrix with axes ranging from "Care Personally" to "Don't give an F*+K" and from "Silence" to "Challenge Directly." While the book has been recognized for its innovative approach, criticisms included its oversimplified two-dimensional framework, excessive focus on relentless growth, and the potential for overwhelming constant feedback. Two key insights were shared: specific negative feedback may be more desirable due to its precision, and feedback methods should consider personal circumstances, as exemplified by a team member with undisclosed health issues. Comparisons were drawn to "Positive Psychology," emphasizing positive growth and the importance of "Caring Personally" in feedback, especially in startup environments. The concept of "Radical Candor" risks becoming a misapplied buzzword, necessitating a 'debuzzwordification' process. The Cynefin framework was introduced, suggesting burnout might stem from the "Complex" and "Chaotic" quadrants, making positive feedback challenging. The consensus was that while Radical Candor offers one method, there's room for other feedback strategies, particularly "Specific Positive Feedback."

---

Book: https://www.thalia.de/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1056068630?ProvID=11000533&gclid=CjwKCAjw-KipBhBtEiwAWjgwrNsCeXQ5az54QXNLor0OekK14FL5HOb70XDKbCtO88YV7YrYufmmCRoCk-oQAvD_BwE

Matrix: https://www.radicalcandor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2x2.png

Kim Scott writing on Medium: https://kimmalonescott.medium.com/

Two Axes Care Personally <-> Don't give an F*+K Silence <-> Challenge Directly

Criticisms of the Book

• Too two-dimensional
• The book focuses too much on growth, growth, growth
• Forces people to give feedback, but can be too relentless

If the feedback is constant and always "radical," it could become overwhelming.

Should we ask permission before we give feedback?

Managers "have" to give feedback, usually reinforced by forced company processes. Like annual reviews, for example.

Compare this to the feedback sandwich. Good stuff, growth area, good stuff.

Strengthen the strengths and weaken the weaknesses.

People seem to NOT seek out radical candor on their strengths.

Need to incentivize the "strengthening your strengths".

Try starting toward the middle of the matrix and working up and to the right.

Two experiences: 1. During an interview, we asked a candidate about their preferred feedback culture. The candidate said, "I only want negative feedback." Perhaps this is because negative feedback tends to be specific, whereas positive feedback can be quite general, e.g. "good job". Ergo, feedback should be specific.

2. Feedback given to a team member that would have been fired had they not been given the feedback. The team member was not receptive initially. After some time, we realized that the team member had health issues. Had we known, we might have approached the feedback differently.

After Radical Candor sessions, the person coming out of the room looked completely drained.

Compare this to "Positive Psychology". A type of psychology that focuses on the positive growth zone for people, instead of the pathological zone of diagnoses.

In the startup stage, we frequently get to know people personally, such that Caring Personally can be easier.

One should probably err on the side high on the "Care Personally" axis, versus the "Challenge Directly" axis.

Trust is important.

There's a ton of pressure within startups because people are being paid in shares.

At big companies, it can be easy to just be a "cog in the machine" or an "employee number" and end of the lower left quadrant.

"Radical Candor" can become an easily misimplemented and a buzzword.

Debuzzwordification (credited to Mehmet) means eliminating the buzzword from our vocabulary and talking instead about the actions you want.

Burnout happens more often in software than in other fields, like Avionics for example. In Avionics, there is a well-established pathway. Clear expectations. There's no challenging that pathway.

Consider the Cynefin framework. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Cynefin_framework_2022.jpg Perhaps "burnout" comes from the "Complex" and "Chaotic" sectors.

Positive feedback is hard in the "Chaotic" quadrant.

There's a lot of potential to find other ways of approaching feedback, other than Radical Candor. Especially "Positive Feedback".

This is a nuanced topic. Expect to have discussions about "Radical Candor" as you try to implement this on the team.

Aha moment in session was "Specific Positive feedback is better than Radical Candor".