I agree with you there is a huge difference between candor and asshole. Sounds like I could have been more clear about that in my talk, so this is helpful.

In my experience the difference between radical candor and obnoxious aggression lies in how much the boss cares about and knows employees at a human level. I also agree with you that the relationship between a boss and employee is not a friendship. But it IS a relationship. That was how Sheryl knew she had to say to me "you sounded stupid," and how she knew I would welcome her question about whether I felt nervous. Other people on Sheryl's team were less stubborn than I am, and she could get through to them in a gentler way. BUT she DID have to get through to all of us.

It's never fun to hear when you've screwed up. I think too much management advice puts too much pressure on bosses to tell people things that will inevitably sting in a way that somehow won't sting. That's just not possible...That's why being a boss is so hard.

What is candor? Speaking one's mind? Revealing one's deepest thoughts? Mentioning things that you know some people won't want to hear?

When we think of candor we imagine a straight-talking cowboy type, or a brash New Yorker, or a direct and confident woman, etc. These images make us feel that if only we could tell it like it is all the BS would go away.

What candor really means is being unguarded. Think candid camera. We are candid when we make no pretense and avoid posturing, when we keep it real. This means we don't tailor our perspective and behavior to get a specific result or to seem impressive, we just do our own thing, like the victims of candid camera videos.

Real candor requires trust. Where organizations have major trust lapses is where candor seems the most lacking.

If a project is behind schedule, the organization should simply respond appropriately, which means either changing scope or changing the timeline. When there is finger pointing and pressure to lowball estimates, there is a trust breakdown from the outset.

If there is sufficient trust, there is no issue with candor because you just say what you want and everyone knows you are trying to make things better. When trust breaks down, your words might seem critical or like personal attacks.

So having radical candor is great, but it means having radical trust. It must be safe to be on either end of the candor event :) That includes cases when a team member is not able to perform or when a team member wants a promotion that he/she isn't quite ready for. It must be OK to be honest in either direction, which means the firm should respect it if the employee wishes to leave, and the employee should respect it if the firm isn't happy with performance and there doesn't appear to be a path to improvement.

All in all, having a systems mindset and a growth mindset goes a long way toward having a high trust culture. But startups are at a disadvantage from the start since everyone is expecting a massive growth trajectory and in many cases founders are quick to blame mistakes on specific individuals to explain a bad quarter. Having a culture of trust requires the team taking it on the chin and the board supporting and encouraging a systems approach.

So if your founder is the only one in board meetings, chances are that is because blame is being cast and deception is occurring on in both directions.

"Sandberg pushed forward, asking whether Scott’s ums were the result of nervousness. She even suggested that Google could hire a speaking coach to help. Still, Scott brushed off the concern; it didn’t seem like an important issue. “Finally, Sheryl said, ‘You know, Kim, I can tell I'm not really getting through to you. I'm going to have to be clearer here. When you say um every third word, it makes you sound stupid.’”

"“The vertical axis is what I call the ‘give a damn’ axis,” Scott says. “Part of the reason Sheryl was able to say to me so bluntly, ‘You sounded stupid,’ was that I knew that she cared personally about me."

This doesn't sit well with me because I am skeptical that bosses are going to be able to hit the proper mean of communication that works for each employee. Additionally, I am skeptical that bosses "caring personally for their employees" is actually fully possible or desirable all of the time, since there's always a frequently severe and irreparable conflict of interest between the institution and the individual. I don't want to give or receive friendship from my bosses (as we are only temporary means to an end for each other), I want courteous distance and realistic, bite sized action items to improve on.

For the author, her boss gave her highly appreciated and blunt criticism, and offered a solution. For another employee, the boss has just ruined their day, week, and possibly self image, while (incorrectly) assuming that the boss and the boss's boss thinks they are stupid. For yet another employee, the message of the boss is noted and acted upon, but the pushy probing regarding nervousness is weirdly personal and not at all appreciated.

I am usually pretty blunt, but I don't understand the fascination in managerial culture with intentionally toeing the line between asshole and "candor"-- and it pops up in more dimensions than just feedback. For whatever reason, there is glorification of putting down other people in a professional context.

The flip side of this is being able to accept constructive criticism. While Scott learned a lot about how to be a manager herself, the true takeaway here is probably more that Scott was able to recognize and accept Sheryl's valid criticism. Just because someone tells me the truth -- candidly or not! -- doesn't mean I'm going to listen. There has to be a level of respect and trust in that relationship. I have to believe them when they say that.

I'm terrible at accepting feedback like this from my friends, but when I met my old boss for lunch last week, he gave me almost the same advice they did. And somehow it stuck. I'm self-aware enough to realize that I put a lot of stock and respect into what he thinks of me and I trust his opinion, more than I trust my friends who aren't necessarily tech people or managers.

And maybe that's another fault within myself. My friends clearly gave me solid advice, but it took someone else to give it to me again before it stuck. How can I learn from this and possibly take that advice sooner?

I appreciate Scott's story, and I absolutely agree with her conclusions across the board, but I think it's only a small piece of the overall puzzle.

I know a few people who pride themselves on their unblinking candor. Most of them, in reality, just get a kick out of constantly shitting on people and they use "candor" as cover for their behavior.

Here is a good rule of thumb: Is telling someone something hard going to directly benefit them, you, or someone else their behavior is affecting? The go for it and give them constructive and actionable feedback. Just telling them they blew it, they are pissing you off, etc is just shitting on them.

OTOH, not giving people hard feedback because it is awkward is a betrayal of the relationship you have with them because you aren't helping them be better or at least understand the situation they are in when you could have just to save yourself from your own squeamishness.

I know this approach as simply "being Dutch". And it's a major source of culture shock for expats working in the Netherlands.

This jumped out at me:

“Part of the reason Sheryl was able to say to me so bluntly, ‘You sounded stupid,’ was that I knew that she cared personally about me. She had done a thousand things that showed me that.”

This suggests that before one can practice radical candor, one needs to build a foundation of caring and trust first. Without it, my experience suggests that the results will be more hit-or-miss -- some people just get defensive almost no matter how you frame it.

The hedge fund Bridgewater Associates has a very similar philosophy (some would say a cult[1]); they call it "radical transparency". It's a major component of Ray Dalio's "Principles", which is a 123 page manuscript[2] that prospective candidates and new joiners are advised to read and absorb.

Not that Bridgewater should be the ultimate test case for this way of operating but it's a notoriously unforgiving place to work. The turnover rate there is 25% in the first 18 months[3].

It seems you just have to have really thick skin (or be really jaded) to be able to handle "radical candor" or "radical transparency". Furthermore, it's evidently really tricky to avoid devolving into pure invective. (I guess, in terms of Kim's graph, it's hard to stay high enough on the Y axis as you drift to the right on the X axis.)

[1] http://nymag.com/news/business/wallstreet/ray-dalio-2011-4/

[2] http://www.bwater.com/Uploads/FileManager/Principles/Bridgew...

[3] http://www.ai-cio.com/channels/story.aspx?id=3735&page=3&p=3

TLDR: Give people honest feedback, but make sure you have proven that you care about them first.

Unfortunately, this post's strong no-bullshit language is contradicted by the substance and form of the message given (magic quadrant warning). It takes a long time on the windup and goes light on the proof.

The Sheryl Sandberg anecdote, which is trotted out as an example of effective candor, is actually a perfect example of a trivial correction made in the face of overwhelming performance. Not a hard thing in the realm of hard things.

All candor is radical, and partial candor is a lie ... of omission. So the radical is just branding, and so is the culture of "guidance". Making up language is how academics and corporate gurus differentiate themselves, often needlessly.

Finally, there are deeper flaws in the idea of candor promotion:

* There is no one truth. We don't always arrive at a consensus or an objective truth by airing our differences. So let's be clear before embarking on that path, that we may just manage to create a very candid fog of strong opinions, as different subjective truths battle it out.

* In a culture that values candor, all liars are candid. That is, promoting candor does not solve the underlying dynamic, which is that one side will likely win and one will lose, and not every side is fighting for the right reasons.

* In a culture that values candor, bosses get to be candid first. That is, there is a real risk of feedback flowing from HQ to the trenches and not vice versa. Beware of candor as privilege.

Anyone who needs this type of advice should just go straight to "The Hard Thing About Hard Things" by Ben Horowitz. It's all there, without the rebranding.

On the example mentioned in the article about the "um" issue, getting feedback like that from someone (a boss, or whoever) is one thing when you have actually requested it or when it's part of some kind of formal meeting where mentorship or guidance is expected. But during some random/off-the-cuff chat "on a walk" or in a hallway or whatever? That's ridiculous. I wouldn't want to work at a company where every time I give a presentation or put some kind of effort out there, some boss is going to pounce on me and start telling me what they think I did or did not do right or if I seem stupid or whatever. Way to go turning your employees into cowering bundles of nerves.

Ugh. Every time I think maybe, just maybe, the cult of being a Jobs-ian *-hole is loosing its appeal in tech circles, this kind of stuff rears its ugly head. Meh.

I have a family member that is incredibly smart but thinks 'on the hoof', in the middle of a sentence he'll just freeze and go 'umm'. I'm always tempted to finish the sentences but I've learned to bite that back and wait, usually the wait is more than worth it. Some people can form their thoughts and then spit them out fully formed in one coherent stream, others are confronted with their own words as input when they speak them and will adjust their thinking in real time. Both can lead to new insights and I wouldn't immediately say that someone sounds 'stupid' for pausing in the middle of a sentence and doing some inner processing, especially not if the outcome is good stuff.

This sounds similar to Bridgewater's culture of radical transparency. The first I had a debrief with my boss I cried all afternoon, but now it's growing on me a bit. Or I just have Stockholm syndrome.

Can we not use the word radical for things that are not radical?

I find this pretty disgusting. So the expectation for everyone else is to behave as though you're in a safe space and speak no ill of another person, but if you have enough money you can just throw all common courtesy out the window?