Radical Candor, Applied: It Takes Trust

A few months ago, I read and immediately bought in to Kim Scott’s Radical Candor. Scott lays out a framework that describes the category into which a relationship falls based on two dimensions: the extent to which one party cares personally about the other and the extent to which the former challenges the latter party directly. While the framework is possibly relevant in personal relationships, Scott’s focus is on professional relationships and leadership.

Briefly, the framework works like this:

• When you care personally and challenge directly, you are exhibiting Radical Candor. This is the sweet spot for leaders to operate.
• When you fail to care personally but still challenge directly, you are exhibiting Obnoxious Aggression. If you can’t be radically candid, Scott argues that this is the next best option because at least those you are leading are getting the feedback they need to grow even if you are being a jerk about its delivery.
• When you care personally but do not challenge directly, you are exhibiting Ruinous Empathy. Basically, you’re being a wimp and trying to be everyone’s friend without providing any “tough love.” (my words, not hers)
• When you don’t care and don’t challenge directly, you are exhibiting Manipulative Insincerity. I think it’s safe to say we’ve all seen this type of “leader” at some point in our careers.

Before even completing the book, I thought, “Great! This makes so much sense to me! I can definitely use this.” I’ve never had any issue with challenging directly. I personally value constructive feedback, and I’ve historically operated under the assumption that others will as well as long as the feedback is “delivered well.” To me, that has meant that it is based on facts and with context to explain why it’s important.

As I’ve come to realize through experience and continued learning and development, that assumption is completely false. Some people don’t want and don’t like feedback regardless of how many facts and how much context on which it’s based.  For a leader, that doesn’t mean that feedback shouldn’t be delivered. That just means that a leader’s arsenal of tools for delivering feedback needs to be extensive enough to account for all of the various perspectives of team members on that feedback. One size fits all doesn’t exist when it comes to feedback delivery. Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well by Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen is a great read on that topic, by the way.

But I digress (a little).

Armed with a new framework and reaching the end of a project, I was ready to put Radical Candor into practice. I set up 1-1s with my team, whom I had treated to a night on the town the night before to celebrate the project’s conclusion (because what shows you care more than unlimited beer and skeeball), and set about reviewing what went well and what opportunities for improvement I had identified in each of them.

As you may have guessed or know because you’ve read my previous article on Leadership Lessons from my time at Slalom, things did not go as I expected. While I thought I was delivering Radical Candor, at least one member of the team got nothing but Obnoxious Aggression. As I learned later, that team member felt that I did not care one bit about the team and the work they did.

Ugh. Fail. Big fail. It turns out that showing you care to a remote team to whom you do not have everyday exposure takes a bit more than showing up periodically to buy dinner. It takes a dedicated, daily effort to establish Trust. Without Trust, Radical Candor is impossible. Because the truth is that I did care personally about each member of the team. I just failed to establish the Trust necessary for me to effectively show that I cared.

So what is Trust, and how is it established? For that, I’ll turn to another framework I learned at Slalom: The Trust Equation. If you’ve managed to avoid exposure to this well-known tool until now like I had before joining Slalom, I’ll lay it out briefly, but I’d encourage you to read more about it at the link above.

The Trust Equation is based on 4 variables:

• Credibility [C]: Trust is increased the more someone believes what you say is true. You know what you’re talking about, and you own up to what you don’t know
• Reliability [R]: Trust is increased the more dependable someone thinks you are in terms of your actions. You do what you say you’ll do
• Intimacy [I]: Trust is increased the more someone feels safe or secure when entrusting you with something, like information or secrets. You don’t violate confidentiality
• Self-Orientation [S]: Trust is decreased the more someone feels that your primary interest is in yourself rather than him/her/them. You are self-interested.

Therefore, the Trust Equation looks like this:

Trust = (C + R + I) / S

Looking back at where things went wrong with the project team, my approach to managing a remote team had left the impression that I was entirely self-oriented, that I didn’t care about the individuals, and that my feedback was therefore entrenched in Obnoxious Aggression.

OK, so fast forward about 8 months: I’m in an extended job search, looking to make a transition out of consulting to a software-based product or service company, and have had what seemed like a very promising conversation with an HR leader about a very interesting role at a company in which I was very interested. Things are looking good. The next step is to meet the hiring execs, and I’m told on a Friday that details on those next steps would be sent the following Monday.

Then, nothing for two weeks. Over that time, I made a couple attempts at follow-up that failed to generate any response. I was sorely disappointed at what looked like a ghosting, but hey, that happens. Time to move on, right?

Then, to my surprise, contact was re-established only to be quickly dropped again without the again-promised follow-up. OK, this time, it really was time to move on. Why would I want to work for a company that treats senior-level candidates this way anyway? If they were this unreliable with people they are trying to attract, how must they be with employees? In my mind, Trust was completely non-existent.

The thing about broken Trust, though, is that it can be re-established if both parties are willing to put in the work. And you know what? That’s exactly what happened. After getting yet another message saying that they “really enjoyed our conversation” and “wanted to explore other opportunities” even though the one we’d been discussing had been filled, I dug back into my toolbox for another crack at Radical Candor.

Now knowing how important Trust is to making Radical Candor work, I began with a sincere explanation of how much I too had enjoyed the discussion and how excited I had been about the role and the company. I was as precise as I could be with my wording to demonstrate how much I cared, how I was oriented toward them, not myself. I then went on to describe the situation as I had seen it (promises made), the behavior that followed (promises broken), and the impact that behavior had had on me (total skepticism they had “really enjoyed our conversation”). There had been a breakdown both in Credibility and Reliability, leading to a lack of Trust.

This time, things worked out much differently. To the credit of the HR leader with whom I was talking, the failure to follow-up was acknowledged and the feedback taken to heart. We’ve hit the reset button on the relationship, and although the possibility of the other opportunities working out is still an open question, the lines of communication are open and active. Trust has been re-established, and whether I land there or somewhere else doesn’t matter at this point. We’ll both be better leaders in the future thanks to the experience.

I guess that makes me 1 for 2 in trying to apply Radical Candor. With the understanding I now have about the importance of Trust in making Radical Candor work and what it takes to establish and maintain Trust, I feel confident that record is going to improve.