Recognise the four feedback styles in Kim Scott's Radical Candor and work out which one you usually use.
Feedback works best when it does two things together: it shows you care about the person, and it tells them plainly what isn't working. Kim Scott managed teams at Google and Apple and wrote the book Radical Candor about how often people avoid honest feedback. Her framework puts those two things side by side, and it shows why new managers often stay quiet when they should speak.
Wei Ling was promoted to manager from among her peers. Ravi has been on her team for two years, and when they were peers the two of them had lunch together most days. (Both are invented examples.) Over the past month Ravi's client follow-ups have slipped. Calls he promises for Tuesday happen on Thursday, and twice a client has emailed Wei Ling to ask where things are.
Wei Ling has raised it once, in passing. She laughed and gave him a casual, Singlish-flavoured reminder not to forget the follow-ups. Ravi laughed too, and nothing changed. Wei Ling tells herself she is being kind because she doesn't want to damage the friendship and she assumes he has a lot on. Kim Scott would call this the most common feedback mistake.
Scott's framework has two dimensions, both about how feedback is given. Caring personally means showing you care about someone as a human being and not only as a person who produces work. Challenging directly means telling people clearly when their work isn't good enough, or when something they did had a cost.
Most people see these as a trade-off. They think being direct puts the relationship at risk and caring means softening the message. Scott argues that the best feedback does both at once, and that caring about someone is the reason you tell them the truth.
Put caring personally on one axis and challenging directly on the other, and you get four styles:
Radical candor scores high on both. You tell the person clearly what isn't working because you want them to succeed. Obnoxious aggression is challenge without care. The message is clear, but it ignores the person. Signs include criticism in front of others, harsh words and no interest in the other person's side. It sometimes changes the behaviour, but it costs trust, and that cost builds over time. Manipulative insincerity scores low on both. You don't care enough to be honest, and you don't challenge. It looks like praise to someone's face and criticism behind their back, or vague, political feedback meant to protect yourself. Ruinous empathy is caring without challenging. You like the person and don't want to hurt them, so you either say nothing or say it so softly it doesn't register. Wei Ling's laughing reminder to Ravi is an example.
Scott says ruinous empathy is the mistake she sees most often. It is common because it feels like kindness. The person stays friendly, nobody has an awkward conversation and everything seems fine.
The cost comes later, and it falls mostly on the person you meant to protect. Ravi doesn't know there is a real problem, so he keeps doing the same thing while his clients lose patience. In three months Wei Ling may have to raise it seriously, perhaps in a review. Ravi will feel ambushed then, and he will have a fair point, because nobody told him. Farid and Hui Min, also on Wei Ling's team, can see Ravi's clients getting late callbacks. If nothing happens, they learn that standards on the team are optional.
The framework applies to any manager. New managers promoted from a friendly team tend to drift toward ruinous empathy, and Wei Ling is a textbook case. Three months ago her reports were her lunch companions. Correcting one of them feels like betraying the friendship, and she worries about seeming changed or cold, or that people will think the title has gone to her head. That fear gets friendship backwards. A friend who sees you heading for trouble and says nothing is not being a good friend. The caring choice is to tell Ravi clearly and privately, with real concern for how the problem affects him. This matters more for a manager than for a peer, because a manager's silence costs more.
Module 8, lesson 8.1, Your old peers now report to you, returns to the wider question of leading former peers. If you took the Communicate at work course first, you briefly met Scott's idea in lesson 7.3, Give feedback to your peers and your manager.
A radically candid message has four parts. You name the issue, say why you care about its effect on the person, give one specific instance and ask what is going on. You say it clearly and in private.
For Wei Ling, that means sitting down with Ravi and saying she wants to talk about his client follow-ups. She tells him she thinks it is starting to affect how clients see him, and that she would hate that. Then she gives the case: the Tan & Co call promised for Tuesday happened on Thursday, and the client emailed her to ask about it. Last, she asks him what is going on.
Scott stresses that radical candor is judged by how it lands, not by how it was meant. If Ravi left the conversation feeling attacked, it would not count as radical candor, whatever Wei Ling intended.
Most people have a default quadrant, the style they slide into under pressure. Blunt high performers who become managers tend toward obnoxious aggression when they're stressed. Most new managers who were well liked in their old role tend toward ruinous empathy. A few people in very political organisations learn manipulative insincerity as a survival habit.
Knowing your default helps you catch it. First, name the quadrant you tend to slide into. If you tend to go soft, plan the sentence in advance and say it as written. If you tend to go hard, start by saying why you care before you get to the problem. Then judge the result by how it landed with the other person, not by what you intended.
Look back at the last few times you gave feedback, or chose not to, and be honest about where each one sat.
Think of the last three pieces of feedback you gave or held back, and put each one in one of Scott's four quadrants.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).