I hear Ms. Scott's model and messaging and I respect her diligent work towards this philisophy; however, human beings don't fit into a quadrant or compass. If I say, "Kim, every time you say uh, you sound stupid!" however, the recipient doesn't digest the feedback and instead becomes defensive or internalizes the feedback negatively, have you done more damage than good? Sure, assertive, direct, and precise feedback is often effective but look at the synonyms for "criticize" and ask yourself, “Is this what I’m genuinely trying to create?”. I think it's a fixed belief that leaders who adopt "radical candor" miraculously have recipients that have cathartic epiphanies, or now the leader is considered a “good leader.” Indeed, this concept may work in some situations, but humans have different communication styles. I believe an effective leader who can pivot between various communication styles and modalities can effectively achieve the same desired outcome. There’s also a cultural aspect that Ms. Scott is missing. For example, in the Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) community and culture, the law and spirit of aloha would consider “radical candor” anti-aloha or against the principles, our culture is inspired to operate within.
Agreed! I've cc'd it to my employees. I have said before that no one should be anxious to call me out if they think some part of my performance is incompetent or a new idea is hairbrained. It creates a better culture when someone can tell me to my face that I'm being a doofus, rather than they all quietly go along with something no one agrees with.
I hear Ms. Scott's model and messaging and I respect her diligent work towards this philisophy; however, human beings don't fit into a quadrant or compass. If I say, "Kim, every time you say uh, you sound stupid!" however, the recipient doesn't digest the feedback and instead becomes defensive or internalizes the feedback negatively, have you done more damage than good? Sure, assertive, direct, and precise feedback is often effective but look at the synonyms for "criticize" and ask yourself, “Is this what I’m genuinely trying to create?”. I think it's a fixed belief that leaders who adopt "radical candor" miraculously have recipients that have cathartic epiphanies, or now the leader is considered a “good leader.” Indeed, this concept may work in some situations, but humans have different communication styles. I believe an effective leader who can pivot between various communication styles and modalities can effectively achieve the same desired outcome. There’s also a cultural aspect that Ms. Scott is missing. For example, in the Kanaka Maoli (Hawaiian) community and culture, the law and spirit of aloha would consider “radical candor” anti-aloha or against the principles, our culture is inspired to operate within.
What font did you use in the presentation? It looks incredible
this lady reall gets my attention when she says "damn" wow *slightly more woke than before*
Who thought a stage wall with slats was good for zooming and panning?
I actually chose the stage wall. I felt it was appropriate. Thanks for the feedback.
We will not only use this model, but, we will share it on our social media. This is critical for any startup or human resource manager. Thank you!
She replaced "um" with "ADN...." and "So" and "Now". That said, I agree with radical candor as a philosophy.
This was a terrific presentation.
Agreed! I've cc'd it to my employees. I have said before that no one should be anxious to call me out if they think some part of my performance is incompetent or a new idea is hairbrained. It creates a better culture when someone can tell me to my face that I'm being a doofus, rather than they all quietly go along with something no one agrees with.
I found this to be inspiring. Thanks