Why radical candor should be radical

Since Kim Scott wrote Radical Candor, many Silicon Valley leaders have embraced her framework and brought it to their companies. But we do so selectively. We ask people to care personally and challenge directly only when it comes to people’s work product–not when it comes to people’s personal values and opinions.

Leaders will encourage employees to have a conversation if a teammate doesn’t hold up their end of the bargain on a project. We want people to tell each other, “Hey, I needed this for the presentation yesterday. What happened?” We want people to express their opinions outright when it comes to the business. If someone thinks the website copy is bad, they should say it, although maybe not in those exact terms.

Most of us don’t have the same conviction when it comes to “personal” values and opinions. (I put “personal” in scare quotes because I don’t actually think people can separate the personal from the professional. I’ll get to that in a minute). Few tech leaders encourage people to start conversations when their values clash. In fact, most of us don’t even want people to share their values because values are inherently political and emotional, and managing politics and emotion in the workplace feels impossible.

It’s actually not impossible, but it is really, really hard. It’s especially hard in the United States. As an immigrant, I see how much freedom of speech is revered. But, at the same time, people here are still very puritanical in terms of how much they will express and what they will tolerate of other people’s expression.

This dissonance creates a double standard for employees in workplaces that use radical candor. “Speak the truth when it comes to your work product, even when it’s uncomfortable for you. Hide your truth when it comes to your opinions and (even your identity) because it’s uncomfortable for me.” In practice, this means employees confront each other about missed deadlines, but they don’t tell their boss they think their tweet about homeless people in San Francisco was fucked up and here’s why.

We (leaders) want so badly for there to be a clear delineation between work and life, between political values and personal values, and between emotional state and creative potential because that would make things easier. But these are actually artificial divides. People’s ability to uphold them is a feat of repression, not professionalism.

I think it’s wrong to ask people–and especially people whose culture are not reflected in our workplaces–to keep their values, identity, and opinions to themselves. Many of us wrongly believe that if people hide their true selves at work, it will mitigate conflict and, as a result, build trust, sustainability, and engagement. Actually, it causes the opposite. It breeds distrust, burnout, and apathy.

Why? One, because when we hire people to work for us, we ask for the very best eight or even ten hours of their day, five days a week. That’s time that they could spend on their partners, their kids, their friends, and their passion projects. Instead, they give it to us, so they can work on our passion projects. Ideally, our goals would become their goals, and our passions, their passions. But that is actually not a reasonable request of people. If it were, founders would work at other people’s companies, instead of our own. So we shouldn’t take people’s time for granted, even if we pay for it.

The other reason this repression is bad for tech companies? Because the work tech companies do is inherently political. It has changed elections outcomes, legislation, wealth distribution, and who is most vulnerable to harassment and violence. Whether you think these changes are positive or negative, you can’t deny that there is change. Being radically candid about our personal values at work has huge potential because it allows us to face up to these changes in an honest way. When we allow people to give honest opinions and ideas, we solve problems better.

This is challenging for everyone. I face this challenge at my own startup, Mos. How I try to solve it is by trying to lead by example. If I think someone is wrong about something, I tell them. We don’t all express our values and views, and then I say, “Good job!” and we go home. I say, “I disagree.” I say, “Have you considered this?”

No one is obligated to change their mind. I would never punish someone for not changing their mind. But I don’t want anyone ever to leave my office carrying the weight of things left unsaid, of pain unexpressed, and identity repressed. Because these people are giving the gift of their time to my dream, and they should at least get to be themselves in that time.

PS: If you haven’t yet, go read Radical Candor by Kim Scott–definitely one of my favorite books for managers.

📝 Read this story later in Journal.

👩‍💻 Wake up every Sunday morning to the week’s most noteworthy stories in Tech waiting in your inbox. Read the Noteworthy in Tech newsletter.