Radical Candor is one of the top five most cited works in the startup ecosystem. Kim Scott maintains that feedback should be frank and candid, while sincerely caring about the well-being of employees. Many leaders have interpreted the book as a justification for brutality in their dealings with their teams.
First of all, let's remember what the purpose of feedback is. Its purpose is to help people grow and excel by sharing feedback on their work. In view of this objective, is the raw approach advocated by Kim Scott the right one? An excellent academic article in the Harvard Business Review explains why this is scientific nonsense:
- Neuroscience has shown that criticism causes a "fight or flight" effect in the brain that paralyses learning. Conversely, positive feedback stimulates it by activating the parasympathetic nervous system.
- Neural networks develop faster and deeper in already dense areas of the brain. It is therefore more effective to focus on developing a person's strengths rather than correcting their weaknesses.
- The assessments we make of others are biased by our own level of expertise and often profoundly wrong. More than 50% of our rating of a person's skill is actually a reflection of our own level. This phenomenon is called "idiosyncratic rater effect" and is resilient (no training can diminish it).
The conclusion of the authors of the HBR article is therefore that negative feedback is often inaccurate and ineffective for the growth of collaborators. They also give several clues to formulate some, which I summarize in the following section in addition to my own analyses.
1. Ask each member of your team how they would prefer to receive their feedback during your first exchange with them.
2. Don't give hot feedback. It is likely to be badly formulated and inaccurate as you lack perspective. Write it down for your next individual interview. It is best to observe several situations to make sure it is systematic.
3. When giving feedback, start by asking your employee what he or she did well and what he or she could do better. He probably knows this better than you do. Much of a manager's work is similar to maieutics. Listen and ask the right questions.
The point of feedback is to explore the nature of excellence for an individual. We're so close to our own performance that it's hard to get perspective on it and see its patterns and components (Harvard Business Review)
4. Invest time in identifying the strengths and skills of your staff. Give concrete examples of situations, suggest actions to reinforce them. Stating generic positive points, without sincere effort, to prepare for criticism ("shit sandwich") has terrible effects. Make a real effort.
5. Limit your "negative" feedback to an objective and structured observation of what could be done better in a business process. Avoid hollow and non actionable judgements such as "you are insecure in your business meetings". Use the McKinsey model.
.png)
In conclusion, if you sincerely want to help your employees grow and excel in their field, help them identify their strengths and find levers to develop them. Negative feedback should be structured and limited to objective observation of the results of certain actions.
The Feedback FallacyHarvard Business Review, Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall.
