About a month ago, we discussed Dale Carnegie’s guidance to never “criticize, condemn or complain” if we want to learn How to Win Friends and Influence People. Then, two weeks ago we looked at Building a Storybrand: Clarify Your Message So Customers Will Listen, which offered a modern approach to this principle, using stories to cast those you seek to influence as the hero and offering them a path to success. This week, we will finish our review of the first principle in How to Win Friends and Influence People by looking at the counterpoint presented by Kim Scott in her book Radical Candor: Be a Kick-ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity.
It is worth noting that Kim Scott re-released a revised edition of this book after seeing her concept of “Radical Candor” portrayed on television by a bunch of heartless bosses who shredded the emotions of their employees to provide honest and direct feedback. This is a behavior that Scott would call, “Obnoxious Aggression,” which ultimately shuts down communication because the critic is too harsh, and the recipient becomes unreceptive.
Clearly, the writers of the television show missed the opening chapters of the book where Scott argues in favor of the need for a relationship between the boss and his or her employees. This relationship requires two key ingredients – caring personally and challenging directly. That second part is where we find conflict with the advice of Dale Carnegie.
I have not asked her, but I would guess that Kim Scott would say that a strict adherence to Carnegie’s no-criticism rule would lead to what she calls “Ruinous Empathy.” This is the state in which the boss cares about the employee a little too much and often makes excuses to avoid criticizing the employee. We know that even Dale Carnegie didn’t follow this principle completely, favoring instead the use of stories to offer a different perspective to the object of his criticism.
Kim Scott advocates for the importance of challenging directly – which eliminates the possibility of avoiding criticism. Sincerely caring for a person includes respecting their time and providing efficient and effective guidance. If using stories leads to confusion and requires the other person to spend unnecessary time deciphering the connection between the story and the correction, it may not be the most efficient or respectful approach. In this case, the author would likely argue that the influencer has entered the space she calls “Manipulative Insincerity,” due to the absence of both caring personally and challenging directly.
I think there is an argument to be made where both Dale Carnegie and Kim Scott arrive in the “Radical Candor” quadrant. Consider the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. In this story, an emperor has been swindled by a clothier into believing that he has been given wonderful new clothes that can only be seen by the truly powerful. Not wanting anyone to think that he is not one of the finest people in the world, the emperor, of course, never admits that he cannot see the clothes. As a result, the emperor parades through the kingdom naked and is exposed as a fool.
Both Carnegie and Scott would have addressed the emperor from a caring position. Both likely would have acknowledged his feelings about his new clothes. It’s very important that we never diminish the thoughts or feelings of those we are seeking to influence. Regardless of the overall outcome, the feelings of the decision-maker during the process are every bit as real as the feelings of pride or shame they will feel when the decision has been made. Caring for the person we are guiding is what separates influence from manipulation.
Dale Carnegie, in his efforts to avoid criticizing, complaining or condemning would likely have asked the emperor several questions. From a position of humility, he would have admitted that he could not see the clothes, but he would like to understand what makes them so fabulous. As the answers to these questions become increasingly ridiculous, Carnegie would guide the emperor to his own conclusion. To borrow from Donald Miller, Carnegie would have allowed the emperor to be the hero of his own story and save himself from embarrassment.
In contrast, Kim Scott would move from the caring personally aspect of her relationship with the emperor to challenge him directly. She may also ask questions, but her inquisition would likely be more directed. Instead of asking what made the clothes so fabulous, Scott would likely inquire about the process of making invisible fabric. She would likely build consensus from the emperor’s advisors that no one in the room knew how invisible fabric was made. Her direct feedback would acknowledge the majesty of the king and his earlier decisions made on a complete understanding of the issues. Then she would likely offer a suggestion (not a direction) that until the emperor could better understand these clothes, he probably should not show them off. In taking this path she approaches the advice of a friend, rather than the wise counsel his advisor did not give him.
The application from all three books we have reviewed seems clear – before we can begin to influence someone, we first must show genuine empathy toward them. In unpleasant workplaces all over the world, bosses rule from a position of authority granted only by virtue of their title. If we want to create a culture that makes people enjoy the work they do and reach their highest potential, we must start by caring about the people more than the mission. From there, we can decide on our approach – whether it’s an interview fueled by genuine interest, a story aimed at producing a new hero, or candid feedback meant to prevent disaster – all can arrive at a positive outcome.
If you are interested in better understanding the more direct approach, I recommend
- Start with Why by Simon Sinek
- Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High by Joseph Grenny, Kerry Patterson, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler
- The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business by Patrick Lencioni