彻底坦诚:与作者 Kim Scott 从理论走向实践
Radical Candor: From theory to practice with author Kim Scott
Full Interview Transcript
Kim Scott: If you say, “Do you have any feedback for me?” You’re wasting your breath. The other person’s going to say, “Oh no, everything’s fine.” The question that I like to ask is, “What could I do or stop doing that would make it easier to work with me?” Do not write down my question because if you sound like Kim Scott and not like yourself, then other people are not going to believe you want the answer. It needs to sound authentic to you, and if everybody can write down their question, who they’re going to ask it of and then pop it into their calendar right now, this will be one of the most productive podcasts in all of podcast land.
Core Concepts of Radical Candor
Lenny: Today my guest is Kim Scott. Kim is the author of Radical Candor, which is the single most referenced book on this podcast. The book has sold over 1 million copies, has been translated into twenty-three languages. It was such an honor to have Kim on the podcast. Prior to this book, Kim was a CO coach at Dropbox, Qualtrics, Twitter and many other tech companies. She was a member of the faculty at Apple University. Before that, she led AdSense, YouTube and DoubleClick teams at Google. Prior to that, Kim managed a pediatric clinic in Kosovo and started a diamond cutting factory in Moscow. She’s also working on a new book that you can pre-order now called Radical Respect. In our conversation, we get very practical and very tactical about practicing radical candor. Kim briefly describes the core idea, shares, language and phrases and words you can use to get better at practicing radical candor.
She shares tips for people-pleasers like myself. Also, a lot of very concrete advice for how to get feedback. Also, what to do if your culture is on the ruinous empathy side of the spectrum, or even worse, obnoxious aggression and so much more. I guarantee listening to this episode will make you a better leader and a better employee. With that, I bring you Kim Scott after a short word from our one featured sponsor for this episode.
You fell in love with building products for a reason, but sometimes the day-to-day reality is a little different than you imagined. Instead of dreaming up big ideas, talking to customers and crafting a strategy, you’re drowning in spreadsheets and roadmap updates, and you’re spending your days basically putting out fires. A better way is possible. Introducing Jira Product Discovery, the new prioritization and road mapping tool built for product teams by Atlassian.
With Jira Product Discovery, you can gather all your product ideas and insights in one place and prioritize confidently, finally replacing those endless spreadsheets. Create and share custom product roadmaps with any stakeholder in seconds. And it’s all built on Jira where your engineering team’s already working. So true collaboration is finally possible. Great products are built by great teams, not just engineers, sales support, leadership, even Greg from finance. Anyone that you want can contribute ideas, feedback, and insights in Jira Product Discovery for free, no catch. And it’s only $10 a month for you. Say goodbye to your spreadsheets and the never-ending alignment efforts. The old way of doing product management is over rediscover what’s possible with Jira Product Discovery. Try it for free at atlassian.com/Lenny. That’s atlassian.com/Lenny.
Kim, thank you so much for being here and welcome to the podcast.
Kim Scott: Thank you for having me. I’m excited for our conversation.
The Most Common Scenario
Lenny: Your book, Radical Candor is the single most recommended book on this podcast. I don’t know if you know this podcast well, but at the end of the podcast, I ask every guest, “What are two or three books you recommend most to other people?” And your book has come up the most of any book mentioned on the podcast.
Kim Scott: Amazing. Well, tell your listeners I love them and I’m grateful to them.
Impact of Building Radical Candor Skills
Lenny: Okay, they’ll hear this. So I’m really excited to have you on chat about all the things that you teach and your book. For people that have heard the term Radical Candor, have maybe skimmed the book, maybe even read the book a while ago, but don’t truly remember or understand the concept. Could you just spend just a few minutes giving a high level overview of the concept of Radical Candor?
Kim Scott: Absolutely. Radical Candor is just what happens when you care personally and challenge directly at the same time. And I think it’s probably best understood by what it’s not because we all fail on one of those two dimensions or both of them multiple times a day. So you can think about it as a two by two framework. On the vertical axis is care personally, the horizontal axis is challenge directly. What happens when we remember to challenge directly, but we forget to show that we care personally. That is what I call obnoxious aggression, and it’s really important to distinguish between radical candor and obnoxious aggression. I think one of the mistakes that people often make about, and I’ve gotten a lot, you write a book about feedback, you’re going to get a lot of it, and I’ve heard a lot of feedback that sometimes teams will be rolling out the idea of Radical Candor and someone will charge into the room and say, “In the spirit of Radical Candor,” and then they act like a garden variety jerk.
And that is not the spirit of Radical Candor. That’s the spirit of obnoxious aggression. And obnoxious aggression is a big problem. It’s a problem because it hurts other people. It’s also a problem because it’s inefficient. If I’m a jerk to you Lenny, then I’m going to send you into fight or flight mode and then you literally cannot hear what I’m saying, so I’m wasting my breath. But I don’t know if this is true for you, but for me, there’s a third problem. And the third problem is that when I realize I’ve acted like a jerk, when I realize I’ve landed in obnoxious aggression, it’s not actually my instinct to go the right way on care personally. Instead, it’s my instinct to go the wrong way on challenge directly and to pretend that I agree when I disagree, and then I wind up in the worst place of all, manipulative insincerity.
And it’s kind of fun to tell stories about obnoxious aggression and manipulative insincerity. If you watch The Office or any show about problems at work or problems in any kind of relationship really, you’re going to see a lot of episodes about obnoxious aggression and manipulative insincerity. But I think the real rub comes and the fact that these, even though this is what we like to talk about, these two problems are what we like to talk about, these are not the most common problem. By far and away the most common problem occurs when we do remember to show that we care personally because you know what? Most people try to be nice people. So we do remember to show that we care personally, but we’re so worried about not hurting someone’s feelings or not offending them, that we fail to tell them something they’d be better off knowing in the long run. And that is what I call ruinous empathy. So that is Radical Candor in a nutshell. That’s the TLDR. But please do read.
Kim’s Google Story
Lenny: Amazing and we’ll link to a diagram of this two by two for people that aren’t visual thinkers and want to actually see it. So just to make it super clear, if you’re challenging directly, basically being very candid with feedback, but it’s not clear you care deeply about the person, you call that obnoxious aggression.
Kim Scott: Yes.
How to Challenge Directly in Practice
Lenny: And if you make it clear, you care a lot about the person but aren’t actually giving them direct candid feedback, you call that ruinous empathy.
The Importance of Synchronous Communication
Kim Scott: Yes, exactly.
Lenny: Which of these buckets do you find most people fall into? Is there a percentage of people or companies?
Understanding the HHIIPPP Principles
Kim Scott: Yeah, I mean, I would say 90% of us make 90% of our mistakes in that ruinous empathy bucket. It’s by far and away the most common problem. But I think all of us make mistakes in the other quadrants as well. And very often we kind of, I think one of, if I’m going to offer some self-criticism of this framework, it’s much easier to notice when one has been ruinously empathetic. It’s almost like, give yourself some critical feedback. “I work too hard.” But it’s much harder to notice when we’ve been manipulatively insincere and obnoxiously aggressive. And maybe I could have named those things because very often manipulative insincerity is sort of self-protective insincerity. Very often obnoxious aggression is just extreme frustration. So I want people to use this framework not to judge themselves or other people harshly, but like a compass to guide specific conversations with specific people to a better place and to help us understand when we’re going in the wrong direction, which we are all bound to do on a daily basis.
The CORE Feedback Framework
Lenny: I want to talk about all those things and also how to get better at these things. But before we do that, it’s very hard to change. And it’s also hard just to challenge directly innately, it’s hard for people to be candid, just to give people a little motivation to invest in this skill. What sort of impact do you see when people develop the skill of being better at radical candor?
A Story of Ruinous Empathy
Kim Scott: When we get better at radical candor? I mean, I’ll tell you a story in fact about the impact it had on my life, some radical candor, but the sort of abstract answer to your question is we build better relationships and we do better work and we’re more successful and we’re happier. You ready for a story? Let’s do it. Love stories. Okay. So shortly after I joined Google, this was now a very long time ago, 2004, I had to give a presentation to the founders and the CEO about how the AdSense business was doing. And I walked into the room and there in one corner of the room was one of the founders on an elliptical trainer wearing toe shoes and a bright blue spandex unitard, super tight, not what I was expecting or frankly wanting to see in the room. And there in the other corner of the room was the CEO doing his emails like his brain had been plugged into the machine.
So probably like you in such a situation, I felt a little bit nervous. How was I supposed to get these people’s attention? Luckily for me, the AdSense business was on fire. And when I said how many new customers we had added, the CEO almost fell off his chair. “What did you say? This is incredible. Do you need more engineers? Do you need more marketing dollars?” So I’m thinking the meeting’s going all right. In fact, I now believe that I am a genius. And I walked out of the room, I walked past my boss and I was expecting a high five a pat on the back. And instead she said to me, “Why don’t you walk back to my office with me?” And I thought, Oh gosh, I screwed something up in there and I’m sure I’m about to hear about it. And she began not by telling me what I had done wrong, but what had gone well in the meeting, not in the feedback sandwich.
I think there’s a less polite term for that. I’m not sure how you feel about cussing on your podcast.
How You Lose Top Talent
Lenny: It’s acceptable, fully acceptable.
Kim Scott: Not in the shit sandwich since the word, but really seeming to mean what she said. But of course, all I wanted to do was hear about what I had done wrong. And eventually she said to me, “You said um a lot in there, were you aware of it?” And with this, I braved a huge sigh of relief if that was all I had done wrong who really cared. And I kind of made this brush off gesture with my hand. I said, “Yeah, I know, it’s a verbal tech. It’s no big deal, really.” And then she said to me, “I know this great speech coach. I bet Google would pay for it. Would you like an introduction?” And once again, I made this brush off gesture with my hand.
I said, “Oh, I’m busy. I don’t have time for a speech coach. Didn’t you hear about all these new customers?” And then she said to me, “I can tell when you do that thing with your hand, then I’m going to have to be a lot more direct with you. When you say um every third word, it makes you sound stupid.” Now she’s got my full attention. And some people might say it was mean of her to say I sounded stupid, but in fact, it was the kindest thing that she could have done for me at that moment in my career because she knew me well enough to know that if she didn’t use just those words with me, and by the way, this is a really important point, she never would’ve used those words with other people on her team who were perhaps a better listener than I was.
But she knew me well enough. She cared personally enough to know that if she didn’t use those words with me, I never would’ve gone to visit the speech coach and I wouldn’t have learned that she was not exaggerating. And this was news to me because I had raised millions of dollars for two different startups giving presentations. I thought I was pretty good at it. And it really got me to thinking sort of why had no one told me. It was almost like I suddenly realized I’d been marching through my whole career with a giant hunk of spinach in between my teeth and nobody had had the common courtesy to tell me it was there. So why had no one else told me. But what was it about her leadership style that made it so seemingly easy for her to tell me? And as I thought about that, I realized it really came down to those two things.
She cared personally and she challenged directly. She cared about me not just as an employee but as a human being. For example, when my father was diagnosed with late stage cancer, I was devastated and she could tell that I was devastated. And she said, “Kim, look, you go to the airport, fly home to Memphis, you need to be with your family. Your team and I will sit down and write your coverage plan.” That’s what great teams do for one another. And those were the kinds of things, that was the kind of thing that she did. She couldn’t do, of course, for all 5,000 people in her organization, no matter how talented you are, relationships don’t scale. But she did do those things for her direct reports and the people who she worked most closely with, all of us.
And when a leader treats their team, the people who they interact with on a day-to-day basis with that kind of real care, then it’s much more likely that their direct reports in turn are going to treat their teams with real care. And that creates a culture of caring. And even though relationships don’t scale, culture does scale. So that was part of it. But of course there’s also this challenge directly part which is equally as important. And I learned very quickly beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I screwed up, she was going to tell me and she was going to keep telling me until it penetrated my sometimes thick skull.
Overcoming the Need to Be Liked
Lenny: I had a manager that was also very good at this. He was very good at just giving me very direct feedback, and I knew that he was only doing it because he cared about my future. To kind of follow this thread and get a little tactical, is there language or phrases or ways of communicating that you recommend people use to either challenge directly and avoid people getting defensive or make it clear you care deeply?
Kim Scott: People always want me to give them a script. And the problem with the script is that if I write it, you’re going to sound like Kim Scott and not like yourself. And then people won’t really think you mean what you’re saying. But I do think there are some important things to consider when having these conversations. I think you want to go into the conversation, and by the way, everything I’m about to say applies to praise as much as it does to criticism. And I want to pause for a moment. That story is helpful because that’s the kind of thing that has happened to so many of us, that’s not unique to me. However, praise is even more important than criticism in terms of radical candor. Radical candor is not all about the boss giving the employee criticism. It should always start with soliciting feedback and it should include more praise and criticism, but anyway, way without offering up shit sandwiches.
So anyway, I think that the important thing for these conversations, these sort of two-minute impromptu moments of management, is to go into the conversation being humble. To me, I call it candor and not truth because if I march into a room and I say, “Lenny, I’m going to tell you the truth.” I’m kind of implying I’ve got a pipeline to God and you don’t know anything. And that’s not what this is all about. This is a dialogue, not a monologue. So to me, candor implies here’s how I understand the situation. I’m also curious to know how you understand the conversation. So you want to go in being humble, you might be wrong, and that’s totally fine. Omniscience is not a requirement for radical candor, thank heavens. So you want to be humble. You want to state your intention to be helpful. You want to remember in your own head and you want to make it explicit to the other person that you’re telling them this to help them.
You’re not trying to be dominant or kick them in the shins or anything like that. You’re telling them this because you care about them. So you want to state your intention to be helpful. You want to have these conversations right away, almost immediately. I mean, there’s exceptions to everything I’m saying. None of this is absolute. But usually if I’m telling myself and Lenny, you can tell me if you have the same problem, but if I tell myself, Oh, I’m going to wait for a better moment to tell this person this thing, what I’m really saying is I’m never going to say. So if the purpose of praise is to tell people what to do more of, and the purpose of criticism is to tell them what to do less of, why wait. So you want to do it immediately unless you are so upset that you’re going to say it in a terrible way or the other person is so upset that they can’t hear you. But usually that’s not the case.
You also want, and in the before times I used to say have these conversations in person. Now I say have these conversations synchronously and I’m going to recommend phone over video. There’s a lot of evidence coming out of University of Chicago and probably other places, but that’s the article I’ve read that there’s more noise than signal in facial expressions and body language, especially if somebody is just a little square on a computer screen. But it also may be true in real life, like the phone actually may be one of our best communication innovations of all time because when you’re talking to someone on the phone, you’re listening to the words that they are saying to you, and that is really what you want to do in this moment. So make sure that you’re having these conversations synchronously, because what you want to do next is gauge how it’s landing.
So I’ll talk about that in a minute. And you can’t gauge how something is landing if you’re sending an email or a text, and Slack is just a feedback train wreck waiting to happen. I once coached someone who kept giving feedback over Slack and I finally just quit coaching him. I was like, “If you keep making this mistake, I can’t be your coach.” So don’t do that. Take a moment to pick up the phone and call the person. Go back to those old AT&T commercials when I was a kid. Reach out and touch someone. You want to show you care.
So let’s review. You want to be humble, you want to be helpful, you want to do it immediately. You want to do it in person or at least synchronously. If you can’t do it in person. You also want to praise in public and criticize in private, and you don’t want to give people either praise or criticism about their personality. So if you want to remember all that, it’s HHIIPPP, two H’s, two I’s, kind of three P’s depending on how you count.
And so let’s double-click though on this not about personality point. I think it’s really important to remember that for both praise and criticism, you want to use sort of context, observation, result, next step. So context, in the meeting, observation, when you said um every third word, result, it made you sound stupid. Next step, go to the speech coach. Also is important for praise, in the meeting context, when you offered both sides of the argument, observation, result is it earned you credibility. Next step is do more of that. So you can call it CORE, you can think about that as CORE. I used to call it CORN, but I got some feedback that corn is like some shorthand for porn on TikTok. So I call it CORE instead, HIP CORE.
How to Give Better Feedback
Lenny: Wow, that is amazing. Thank you for sharing all that. So the E at the end stands for?
Kim Scott: Next step, big E.
Practicing Radical Candor in Non-Candid Cultures
Lenny: Oh, I see the E is the next, you skipped the N, clever.
Specific Steps to Solicit Feedback
Kim Scott: Yes. I don’t know, clever or ridiculous. Maybe I should just call it HIP CORN,
Lenny: Right? No, I think either one’s great. So you share this example of the speaking example. Maybe if we can do another example just to reinforce this framework.
Finding Your Own Go-To Question
Kim Scott: Let’s do a little ruinous empathy.
Embracing Silence and Discomfort
Lenny: Okay, great. Let’s do it.
Rewarding Openness and Candor
Kim Scott: How about that? That is the mistake. I think that I am really focused in the book Radical Candor and also in my next book Radical Respect. That’s the mistake I really want to eliminate.
Handling Feedback You Disagree With
Lenny: Let’s do it.
Kim Scott: Because ruinous empathy creates this false harmony, which is really bad. So here’s my ruinous empathy story. I had just hired this guy, we’ll call him Bob, and I liked Bob a lot. He was smart, he was charming, he was funny. He would do stuff like we’re at a manager offsite playing one of those endless get to know you games. And everybody was getting more and more and more stressed out. So start up, we’ve got a lot going on. And Bob was the guy who had the courage to raise his hand and to say, “I can tell everyone is getting stressed. I want to get to know all of you. I’ve got an idea. It’ll help us do that and it’ll be really fast.”
Whatever his idea was, if it was really fast, we were down with it. And Bob says, “Let’s just go around the table and confess what candy our parents used when potty training us.” Really weird but really fast. And then for the next 10 months, every time there was a tense moment in a meeting, Bob would whip out just the right piece of candy for the right person at the right moment. And we all remember that was the weirder thing. Like Hershey Kisses right here. That was what my parents used to potty train me.
And so Bob was quirky, but he brought a little levity to the office. Everybody kind of loved working with Bob. There was one problem with Bob. He was doing terrible work. He would hand stuff into me and there was shame in his eyes. He kind of knew it wasn’t good enough. He was very creative, but riddled with sloppy mistakes. And I would say something to Bob along the lines of, “Oh Bob, this is such a great start. You’re so awesome. We all love working with you. Maybe you can make it just a little bit better.” So let’s pause for a moment. Why did I say such a banal thing to Bob? I think part of the problem was that I liked Bob and I really didn’t want to hurt his feelings.
So that was the ruinous empathy part of why I said that. But also part of the problem was something more insidious, a little bit of manipulative insincerity, because Bob was popular and Bob was also sensitive kind of. And there was part of me that was afraid if I told Bob in no uncertain terms that his work wasn’t nearly good enough, he would get upset. He might even start to cry and then everybody would think I was a big, you know what? So the part of me that was worried about my reputation as a leader, that was the manipulative insincerity part, the part of me that was worried about Bob’s feelings, that was the ruinous empathy part. And this went on for 10 months, 10 long months, and I was so puzzled the whole time I couldn’t understand what was going on. I learned much later that one of the issues perhaps was that Bob was smoking pot in the bathroom three times a day, which maybe explained all that candy that he had at all times.
But I didn’t know any of that at the time. All I knew is that Bob was consistently doing bad work, but I wasn’t really dealing with it. And eventually the inevitable happened. I realized that if I didn’t fire Bob, I was going to lose all my best performers because not only had it been unfair to Bob not to tell him, I also had been unfair to everyone on the team. And they were frustrated. Their deliverables were late because his deliverables were late. They weren’t able to do their best work because they were having to spend so much time redoing his work.
And the people who were best at their jobs were going to quit because they wanted to be able to do their best work. They were going to go to a different company where they could do their best work. And so I sat down to have a conversation with Bob that I should have begun frankly 10 months previously. And when I finished explaining to him where things stood, he kind of pushed his chair back from the table. He looked me right in the eye and he said, “Why didn’t you tell me?” And as that question was going around in my head with no good answer, he looked at me again and he said, “Why didn’t anyone tell me? I thought you all cared about me.” And now I realized that by not telling Bob, thinking I was being so nice, I’m having to fire him as a result. Not so nice after all. But it was too late to say Bob because at this point even he agreed he should go because his reputation on the team was just shot.
All I could do in the moment was make myself a very solemn promise that I would never make that mistake again, and that I would do everything in my power to help other people avoid making that mistake. It was so painful. It was painful for me. It was painful for Bob, much more painful for Bob actually, and it was bad for the whole team and it was bad for our investors. We weren’t getting results because of my ruinous empathy and ruinous empathy slash manipulative insincerity. It’s much harder to admit the manipulative insincerity part. And that is really why I’m here talking to you because I want all of your listeners to avoid making that mistake because it’s the most painful and the most common mistake that I think leaders and not just leaders, I mean all of us make this mistake in all of our relationships.
Reviewing the Feedback Solicitation Steps
Lenny: I love that this also gives an example of the impact of getting better at this point of you’ll lose not just the people that are not necessarily great, but also other high performers on the team because they’re seeing people slip through the cracks that aren’t amazing. And if you’re not practicing this early, your team basically becomes not high performing.
Time Management for Giving Feedback
Kim Scott: Yeah, exactly. You’re going to lose your top performers. And I think very often people are afraid to tell someone on their team when their work isn’t good enough because they’re afraid of losing them. But that’s not a good reason. You should be helping this person to improve. This person deserves to have a job where they can excel and you either help them excel on this team or you help them find a different job where they can excel, because everyone can do great work somewhere. And Bob could have done great work. Maybe I would’ve helped him keep it to the weekends because he’s very creative and very smart, but the floppy mistakes just got in the way of his ability to do his best work.
How to Give Upward Feedback
Lenny: So following that thread, I imagine the reason you didn’t tell him early, and most people don’t do this well, is many people are, you can maybe call them people pleasers. I’m a recovering people pleaser, I’ll say. It’s just hard to give people hard feedback. You want people to like you. It’s not a natural state for a lot of people. What do you find helps people get over this kind of need to be liked as a leader and helps them be more candid?
Kim Scott: I think that one of the things that was helpful for me anyway, so you can tell me if it’s helpful for you, was realizing that my job was not to be liked. My job was to care about other people and to get out of my own head and to become others focused is what helped me kind of let go of the need to be liked. I think that also as a woman, I think there was something extra, as my teenage children would say, there was something extra for me because the sort of likability- competence bias that a lot of women face pushed me, especially early in my career, in the wrong direction on challenge directly.
And it made it much harder for me to, because often I would say something and I would say it even more gently than my colleagues who were men, but people would say, “Ah, Kim is a real whatever.” And they weren’t saying, Kim is obnoxious. I was being unjustly accused of obnoxious aggression and it wasn’t obnoxious or they were accusing me of being bossy or or abrasive or whatever. And it’s really hard. I would also say when it comes to eliciting feedback, it’s really important to be open to it and it’s really important to separate the wheat from the chaff from the feedback you’re getting.
Gauging How Feedback Lands
Lenny: So in this example of Bob, say you were to do it now, what would you do differently other than give him feedback earlier? Is there something you’ve learned about just how you would’ve phrased it or approached it?
Kim Scott: I think probably what I would do, and I would love to hear what you would’ve said to Bob too, I certainly don’t have all the answers, but probably what I would’ve said is let’s go back to the first time Bob handed work into me with shame in his eyes. I would’ve said, “Bob, maybe I’m misinterpreting the expression on your face, but it looks to me like you are not happy with this. What’s going on?” And so I would’ve asked him to diagnose it himself and I want to pause on that because that can be very risky. He might have said to me, “I think this is awesome. This is my best work,” and now I’ve kind of made my job of giving him feedback a little bit harder. So it’s not always the right thing to ask questions, but I would’ve tried to ask it before I had examined the work when I noticed that he looked uncomfortable himself.
And I think also another thing I’ve learned about noticing, I said earlier that there’s a lot of evidence that we often misinterpret each other’s facial expressions and body language. So I would’ve tried to say that with some humility, it seems like you’re not, maybe I’m wrong, but you don’t look to me like you’re happy with this. And I would’ve given him an opportunity to say, “Yeah, maybe I need to do it again.” Let’s imagine though that he said, “Oh no, it’s awesome. It’s ready.” So then I get it and I look at it. I would have not been shy about pointing out very specifically every problem that I saw in that piece of work, every single one. Sometimes it can be tempting when you’re giving someone feedback to say, “Oh, there’s a number of careless mistakes here. Can you go back and look at it again,” and the person will notice a few of them and then you got to go, sometimes it’s useful to show someone a pattern.
All of the careless mistakes, especially if someone is defensive or if you think they’re likely to be defensive, if you think they’re likely to do to you what I did to my boss, oh no, everything’s fine. It’s no big deal. You need to move out on the challenge directly dimension. You need to be prepared to keep going until you have communicated with a person. And that was really the problem with Bob. He probably would not have started to cry. I think my fear around his tears was probably more about my fear than what was actually likely to happen. But I think we do fear someone else getting upset more often than they actually get upset. We have kind of a negativity bias when it comes to part of the reason why we’re reluctant to give feedback.
Coaching Leaders With Low Self-Awareness
Lenny: And I think to your point, that we want to be liked, like you said, that you should get over that. I think that’s obviously very hard just to be like, “Nah, I’m not going to worry about that.” But I think your point is really important that you’ll be liked later if you don’t do the hard thing now. It’ll only get worse if you just let it continue happening.
Kim Scott: And I think also for me to say to myself going into that conversation, it’s more important for me to demonstrate care, that I care about Bob than it is for Bob to like me, and if I demonstrate that I care about Bob, then I’m going to do the right thing that will ultimately create the conditions for a good relationship with Bob. Me pulling my punches did not create the conditions for a good relationship with Bob.
Methods for Gathering Impact Feedback
Lenny: I actually did that and I learned this from a manager of mine is just almost work backwards from ask them, what do you want to achieve in your career? Where do you want to go in this company and make sure they know you know what they want, and then basically work backwards from to get there. Here’s the things you need to get, and here’s the thing you did recently that isn’t necessarily on the track and here’s what we should be working on if you want to get to the skull that you have.
Kim Scott: Yeah, I think one of the really important things that all managers can do for their direct reports to show that they care is to have real meaningful career conversations, where you talk about their life story, sort of their past, whatever part of it they’re comfortable talking to you about so that you understand what motivates them at work. And I would have three separate 45 minute conversations, so one about their past, one about their future, their dreams for the future, and it’s not just the next couple of years. It’s like imagine at the height of your career you have everything you want. What does it look like? And give me three or four different pictures of that because very few of us know what we want to do when we grow up.
Then the third conversation is to sort of sit down with your director report and come up with a career action plan. So given what motivates you and where you want to go, what are the skills that it would be useful for you to develop so that you can get where you want to go and who can I introduce you to? What are the educational opportunities? Can we tweak your job so that you’re gaining those skills so you’re at least taking a step in the direction of your dreams, even if you’re not there yet?
Bridgewater’s Extreme Practices
Lenny: Awesome. I have a post about this. I’ll link to in the show notes that gives people a guide to having these conversations, and there’s a spreadsheet I share with people like, here’s an action plan you can come up with your teammate and here’s what you’re going to work on these next six months.
Kim Scott: Did you read the book When they Win, You Win by Russ Laraway?
The Tyrannical Leadership Myth
Lenny: No.
Kim Scott: Oh, he has a hundred pages on career conversations and he’s also built sort of some tools that help people. So check that out.
Finding Your Authentic Leadership Style
Lenny: And it’s called When You Win… When They Win, You Win.
People-Pleasing Versus Challenging Directly
Kim Scott: When They Win, You Win.
Common Misconceptions From Readers
Lenny: Amazing.
Kim Scott: Yes, by Russ Laraway, he and I worked together at Google and then we started a company together.
Introducing the New Book Radical Respect
Lenny: Oh wow. Okay, cool. We’ll link to them in the show notes. Maybe I’ll get him on the podcast too. Great.
Actionable Tip: Write Your Feedback Script
Kim Scott: Yeah, he’d be great.
Rapid Fire Q&A Session
Lenny: Okay, so we’ve been chatting about ways individually to get better at some of these skills. Another area that I think people struggle with is the company culture often isn’t welcoming of direct feedback. So there’s a question, so you probably saw this on Twitter. I asked people, what should I ask you? And a lot of people came in with a lot of questions and there’s one that came in from Pete, so I’m just going to read it along these lines. So this question is just how do you practice being radically candid in a culture? And most cultures are like this where people aren’t ready for direct feedback. Since company culture is often closer to ruinous empathy and being radically candid is more of a long-term good than a short-term good. You could potentially risk retention with your employees if you’re too direct with them. So how do you think about finding this balance of being candid but not pissing people off, or do you just hire people that are open and ready for direct feedback and that’s kind of how you solve that problem?
Opening a Diamond Factory in Moscow
Kim Scott: I don’t think you can only hire people who are open and ready for direct feedback because it’s hard for all of us. I just want to acknowledge that, it’s hard for me. I mean, I wrote the book, I believe in it to my core and sometimes it’s still hard for me. It’s hard for me to hear it and it’s hard for me to deliver it. This is a really difficult thing to do. The good thing about that two by two is it makes it look easy, which is useful, but it’s not easy. So anyway, I think there are, to answer Pete’s question, I think there are a few things that can help. There’s really an order of operations to radical candor, and if you begin with soliciting criticism, then you take the first and most important step to improving your relationship with that person enough that it becomes easier for you to give it as well as to get it.
So I want to leave folks with some sort of steps on how to solicit feedback, and this is true, especially if you’re a boss, but it’s true in all your relationships. You can use this at home as well. So if you say, “Do you have any feedback for me?” You’re wasting your breath. The other person’s going to say, “Oh no, everything’s fine.” Nobody in your life accepts your teenage children. If you have teenage children, they’d really want to give you some criticism, but nobody else in your life really wants to give you criticism. And so you want to think about how you’re going to ask the person that’s going to be most likely to elicit a response. The question that I like to ask is, “What could I do or stop doing that would make it easier to work with me?” But do not write down my question because if you sound like Kim Scott and not like yourself, then other people are not going to believe you want the answer. It needs to sound authentic to you.
I was working with Christa Quarles when she was CEO of OpenTable and she said, “Kim, I could never imagine those words coming out of my mouth.” She said, “The way I like to ask is tell me why I’m wrong.” Okay, that’s fine too. It demands an answer to her question. But of course there were a couple of people on her team who felt that that was too aggressive, that shut them down, so she had to adjust her question. Being authentic does not mean ignoring the impact you’re having on others. So you want to think about your question, you want to think about who you’re going to ask that question of, and if everybody can write down their question, who they’re going to ask it of and then pop it into their calendar right now, this will be one of the most productive podcasts in all of podcast land.
Lenny: Let’s spend more time on this actually. So what is it you recommend, that they pick? How many people would you recommend they pick, and ask feedback from?
Kim Scott: Well, I think if you are a manager, you need to be soliciting every week feedback from each of your direct reports, and you need to sort of, I would budget five minutes at the end of your one-on-one to solicit feedback. So mostly a one-on-one should be your employees setting the agenda and your employee’s time and don’t by the way, save up when you have to give feedback. Don’t save it up for your one-on-one and definitely don’t save it up for a performance review. You want to give that in the moment. We can talk more about that in a second, but when you’re soliciting feedback, save five minutes at the end of your one-on-one and ask that go-to question. And you also want to ask that go-to question of your cross-functional peers who you work most closely with and of your boss. And I think you don’t want to ask the same question every single time. It’ll start to sound like you don’t really want the answer, but you want to make this part of your daily weekly routine with the people who you interact most closely with.
Lenny: So you added to the end of this your one-on-one agenda, and two versions of this question are, what am I doing wrong? Which is that one I guess you iterated.
Kim Scott: Tell me why I’m wrong or what am I doing wrong or what could I do or stop doing that would make it easier to work with me? Or what should I stop doing? What should I start doing? What should I continue doing? Those are some common ones. What do you like to ask Lenny?
Lenny: I think it was something along the lines of like, what’s one thing I could be doing better or what’s one way I could be helping you be more successful?
Kim Scott: That’s a really good one. What’s one way I could help you be more successful? Or Jason Rosoff, my co founder at Radical Candor likes to ask, “What could I have done this week?” So he time, he time bounds it. “What could I have done this week to better support you in your work?” In fact, Jason told me after we had worked together for about a month, he was like, “Kim, I really hate your go-to question.” He said, “It’s too open-ended for me. If you can tell me what you’re working on and ask me at the end of a meeting specifically what I noticed then that is much better.”
Lenny: How often do you accept no answer? Just like, no everything’s great.
Kim Scott: Never,
Lenny: Never,
Kim Scott: Never. I mean, there are some people who really don’t like to be put on the spot. So if I can tell that I’m inflicting a cruel and unusual punishment on the person, I’ll say, “Look, you know I’m not perfect. I know I’m not perfect. Next time we meet, I want you to think of something, notice something. It’s the thing that you can do that would help me more than anything else that you could do is to tell me when I’m wrong because I need to know that.” In fact, Andy Grove, who was the CEO of Intel said he used to at the end of his one-on-ones say to people, “There’s one more thing. And he explained to me that that was coded Intel for like this is the most important thing.” I was working at Apple at the time and I said, “Oh, did you get that from Steve Jobs?”
That was always how he introduced, “Just one more thing, the iPad.” And Andy got immediately very grumpy and very offended, and he said, “No, we both got it from Colombo. The detective show.” You can get tips from anywhere. So you want to make sure that you’re though letting the person know that you really do care about what they say and that it’s really when they give you this critical feedback that you’re going to reward it. But that’s not the end. Asking that question is only the first step, the bad news about your question, no matter how hard you think about it, and no matter how good a question it is, the other person is still going to feel uncomfortable. There’s no such thing as emotional Novocaine. That’s why I don’t believe in scripts. People believe if I just say the magic words like the door will open, that’s not how it works. It’s a give and take. So you want to sort of be prepared to embrace that discomfort. The only way out is through. Simplest way to embrace the discomfort is to close your mouth and count to six.
Only made it to three just there, and your eyes were popping out.
Lenny: That is so long.
Kim Scott: Six seconds is a really long time. Almost nobody can endure six full seconds of silence. So they’ll probably tell you something. So now you’ve dragged this poor soul out on a conversational limb that they never wanted to go on. They’re probably going to say something. The third step is to make sure that you listen with the intent to understand not to respond, because you’re probably going to feel defensive and that’s okay. It doesn’t mean you’re a lesser mortal or that you’re shut down the feedback. All it means is that you’re human. And that’s all part of this. You want to figure out how to manage your natural defensive reaction to critical feedback, which you’re probably going to have. The simplest tactic I can offer folks there is to think of some follow-up questions.
So at breakfast, my daughter not too long ago said to me, “Mom, I wish you weren’t the Radical Candor lady.” And immediately this wave of parental guilt washed over me and I thought, ah, I’m spending too much time at work. She wants more of my time. I shouldn’t be traveling so much. But then I thought, well, I should ask her, make sure I understood. I’m jumping to conclusions here. I’m not listening with the intent to understand. So I asked a follow-up question. I said, “Well, who do you wish I were?” And she said, “I wish you were the lady who minded her own business,” so I could go spend a little more time at work as far as she was concerned. So you want to make sure you really understand what a person is telling you. And once you feel certain that you really do understand and that you’ve been open to it, the last and most important step is to reward the candor.
A person takes a huge risk, especially if this person is your employee. A person takes a huge risk to give you critical feedback. And if you do not reward that risk richly, you’re never going to get any feedback again. So if you agree with the feedback, fix the problem and make your listening tangible, be loud. So-and-so told me that the tea in the break room is terrible, and now we have thirty-five different kinds of tea. Thank you for telling me. And that can demonstrate to people that they’re not wasting their breath to come to you. That if you become aware of a problem, you’ll fix it. And you also want to, by the way, you want to ask for feedback after you fixed it. Did I over-correct or did I under-correct?
My boss at Google, the same boss from the um story also told me when she gave me some feedback that I tended to move too fast. And she said, “Kim, until people and giving you feedback that you’re going too slow. You won’t have corrected this problem.” So you kind of want to shoot to over-correct if you get some critical feedback. I also want to though pause on what to do when you get some critical feedback that you disagree with because it can be easy to feel wedged here. And if all you do is say thank you for the feedback, the other person is going to hear something much less polite than a brush off or worse.
And so what you want to do is you want to look for that five or 10% of whatever the person said that you can agree with, and you want to give voice to that. And then what you want to do is you want to say, “As for the rest of it, I want to think about it and get back to you.” And then you’ve got to get back to them. You got to offer a respectful explanation of why you disagree. And it’s tempting to feel like a disagreement poses a risk to our relationships, but it’s not disagreement that poses a risk to our relationships. It’s unspoken disagreement. Many, I don’t know about you Lenny, but a lot of my best professional relationships began with a good respectful disagreement.
Lenny: Interesting. That reminds me of just watching Squid Games, the reality show on Netflix. Yeah. Have you seen this at all?
Kim Scott: I haven’t watched it, but it’s on my list.
Lenny: There’s this guy who makes a huge bad decision on behalf of his whole team and they hate him in the show. And then on TikTok, he shared that they’re best friends now, even though they called him a big idiot.
Kim Scott: Yeah, no.
Lenny: So funny.
Kim Scott: It can happen for sure.
Lenny: You fell in love with building products for a reason, but sometimes the day-to-day reality is a little different than you imagined. Instead of dreaming up big ideas, talking to customers and crafting a strategy, you’re drowning in spreadsheets and roadmap updates, and you’re spending your days basically putting out fires. A better way is possible. Introducing Jira Product Discovery, the new prioritization and road mapping tool built for product teams by Atlassian. With Jira Product Discovery, you can gather all your product ideas and insights in one place and prioritize confidently. Finally, replacing those endless spreadsheets create and share custom product roadmaps with any stakeholder in seconds. And it’s all built on Jira where your engineering team’s already working. So true collaboration is finally possible. Great products are built by great teams, not just engineers, sales support, leadership, even Greg from finance. Anyone that you want can contribute ideas, feedback, and insights in Jira Product Discovery for free.
No catch. And it’s only $10 a month for you. Say goodbye to your spreadsheets and the never ending alignment efforts. The old way of doing product management is over, rediscover what’s possible with Jira Product Discovery. Try it for free at atlassian.com/Lenny. That’s atlassian.com/Lenny.
So to recap the steps roughly for how to get feedback from people, it’s ask your question like what’s one thing I could have done this week to make you more successful? Wait six seconds potentially or try to, it’s very hard. Ask a few follow-up questions to make sure you understand what they’re saying and then find a way to reward them. Say thank you.
Kim Scott: Do more than say thank you.
Lenny: Especially if you disagree, which is a really interesting nuance of this. I had Jules Walter on the podcast. I always think of him when I think of getting feedback. He shared this advice. When you get feedback, just be so appreciative so that people keep giving me just like, “Thank you so much for that feedback.” The way he phrases it. Even if you’re melting inside and really hate this feedback, just like, “thank you, I really appreciate it.” But I think your nuance there is really key is if you do disagree, I really like this tip of just like, let me think about this element of it and then actually follow up.
Kim Scott: Even if you’re melting inside, if you say thank you and you’re melting inside, I mean maybe it’s a terrible actor, but usually people know. And that’s why I say it’s not enough to say thank you. You got to fix the problem and then show what you did to fix the problem and get more feedback. Did I over-correct? Did I under-correct. And if you disagree, you got to say that you disagree, but you got to say, so respectfully.
Lenny: As a leader, this sounds like a lot of work to be doing every week. If you have a one-on-one following up correcting things. Is there anything you’d recommend there? Or is it just, this is really important, you got to make time.
Kim Scott: It’s not as much work as failing to do this as we saw from the Bob story. So I think that the important thing that I have found is that this is part of why it’s so important to do it immediately. It’s important for the other person, but it’s also important for you. If you’re doing this in a one-on-one, which you should be having anyway. So you’re saving some time in a one-on-one. So it’s not adding time necessarily to your day. And when you hear about problems, you should fix them. Yes, it takes time, but that is your job. And when you disagree with something, you can disagree in your next regularly scheduled one-on-one. So I’m not talking about adding meetings to your calendar, so it doesn’t actually take more time. I have found that in fact, it saves tremendous amounts of time, but it does take emotional discipline.
And I think it also requires you, especially when it comes to giving it, which we talked about before, where the humble, helpful, those are impromptu two-minute conversations, giving the feedback that you should be having in between your meetings. In the um story, walk to my meeting with me, it didn’t take any extra time for my boss to give me that feedback. She had to walk to her meeting anyway, and I had to go in the same direction. So it didn’t even take extra time from me. But it is, I think one of the most common reasons why people don’t do this in addition to fear of retaliation and just sort of existential dread, which are both factors, which hopefully we’ve helped alleviate, but is that you’re scheduled back to back to back and you don’t have those two minutes in between meetings.
And that’s why I think it’s important either to schedule slack time in your calendar, make your 30 minute meetings, 25 minute meetings, make your hour-long meetings, 50 minute meetings, maybe give yourself a few breaks in the day. But if it’s not possible, and often it was not possible for me in my career to sort of schedule my time that way, I just decided that these moments of management were more important than being on time to my next meeting. And so I was just late sometimes. So I wish I had a better answer than either control your time, which is really annoying advice because it’s impossible to follow or be willing to be late to your next meeting. But those were the things that I tried to do.
Lenny: That was super helpful. I think your point of just, if you’re not making two minutes to do this thing now, it’ll be a lot more time intensive later.
Kim Scott: Oh yeah. It’s stitch in time takes nine on all these two minute, and really it should be brushing and flossing. This is not like a root canal. These are like, this is relationship hygiene that you should be doing all the time.
Lenny: I was just reading Charlie Munger’s book and there’s a quote that he references of just the classic, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Kim Scott: Yes, absolutely.
Lenny: Same idea. So we’ve talked about a leader getting feedback. What if you’re the employee? Do you also recommend the same thing in the one-on-one, have an agenda item and ask this question? Or is there a different approach you’d recommend?
Kim Scott: I think yes, if you’re the employee, you should also be soliciting feedback on a regular basis from your boss. So there’s sort of an order of operations you want to solicit at first, no matter who you are, it’s the same up, down, and sideways, even though it feels very different, the order of operations is the same. So start by soliciting feedback. Then you want to give both praise and criticism. I think sometimes it feels like you’re kissing up if you give your boss praise, but bosses need praise too. And if there are things that your boss does that you appreciate and you want your boss to do more of those things, praise is a better tool for that than criticism. When it comes time to offering your boss some critical feedback, you want to make sure, and by the way, this is also true when it comes time to give your employee critical feedback or your spouse or anybody else in your life, you want to be sure that you are prepared to gauge how it lands.
So you want to start in kind of a neutral place. You don’t want to go to the outer edge of challenge directly because then you’re going to wind up in obnoxious aggression. So if we go back to that story, my boss started, “You said um a lot, were you aware of it?” “Nah.” That was my response. And then “I know this great speech coach, would you like an introduction?” “Nah,” was my response. So she had to keep going out on that challenge directly. She didn’t start out by saying, “When you say um I’m every third word, it makes you sound stupid.” But she realized she had to go that far. So you want to keep going out if you think they’re brushing you off. But if you find that your boss looks either sad or mad, that is your cue to move up on the care personally dimension.
And so to take a moment, and if you find your employee looks sad or mad, if they look sad, pause and say, “I feel like maybe I didn’t say that in the best possible way. How could I have said it differently?” And so that means you’re going up on the care personally, dimension, but you’re not going the wrong way on challenge directly. I don’t know about you Lenny, but if I say something to someone and they look sad, it’s so tempting for me to try to pull the words back. “Oh no, it’s no big deal. I didn’t mean it,” but it is a big deal, and I did mean it, that’s why I just said it. And so if you go the wrong way on challenge directly, you wind up in ruinous empathy, and then you leave the person both sad and confused, so you make it worse.
So you want to take a beat to pay attention to the emotions in the moment, but not to go the wrong way on challenge directly. Same thing if they’re mad, although if somebody’s mad, that maybe is even harder. If somebody starts yelling at me, it’s tempting for me either to start yelling back and wind up in obnoxious aggression or to crawl off to a self-protective, manipulative insincerity. And so instead, what I try to do is get curious, not furious, and why is this person so mad? So say like, Look, maybe I didn’t say that in the right way, but this is an important issue and we need to resolve it.
Lenny: This comes back to the point you made about when you’re giving feedback to try to do it in person or on a phone call to do exactly what you’re saying, to read them as you’re giving this feedback and figure out which axis you want to go down.
Kim Scott: Yeah, you want to gauge it. I mean, when we communicate with other people, we communicate on an emotional level and on an intellectual level at the same time. And if we ignore the emotional signals that are coming at us or say don’t take it personally, then we’re just not going to communicate very well.
Lenny: Along these same lines, another question that came in is from a coach of yours that works I think for you or somehow with the program. She asked this question of many top leaders have very low self-awareness. They believe obnoxious aggression is the only way to give feedback, or they just ignore the problem and fire people with no feedback. Is there something you’ve learned about how to change their mind about this is the way to operate?
Kim Scott: Yeah, I think the most important thing with leaders like that, that you can do is to explain to them the impact that they’re having and to also show them that there is another way that is going to help them succeed. Very often the leaders who are low on the care personally dimension, they do care about their results and they do care about their own careers. And so when you sort of explain this to them in terms of enlightened self-interest, they tend to get better at it. And also, I mean there I can think of maybe one or two people I’ve worked with who are truly low on care, who truly don’t care. Very often people are bad at showing they care, but they do actually care. And also sometimes there are leaders who think they’re not supposed to care. And so unleashing that capacity that they innately have to care and telling them this is actually part of the job can make them a much better, more effective leader. But look, if someone is a psychopath and they truly don’t care, they shouldn’t be a manager. That’s the solution.
Lenny: I totally get that one. So I really like that takeaway. Just basically show them the impact they’re having because to your point, they want the company to succeed. They want their team to succeed. And if they’re not realizing there’s downsides to the way they’re operating.
Kim Scott: And they want themselves to succeed. That’s why I say part of the problem with obnoxious aggression is that you harm other people, but it’s also inefficient because when you act like that, people can’t hear what you’re saying, so you’re wasting your breath.
Lenny: And the way you show them that impact. Do you recommend interviewing people, getting stories, seeing, I don’t know, how do you collect this impact so that they’re like, oh, wow, I didn’t realize this.
Kim Scott: I think that the best thing to do is, for me anyway, is I start by sharing stories from my career and stories when I was a jerk. I’ve acted like a jerk too, plenty of times, unfortunately. And I show the impact that I’ve had and then I ask them for a similar story. And usually sort of me holding up the mirror to myself is useful for them to be able to hold the mirror up to themselves to realize you want to help these people adopt a growth mindset around this stuff. I am not telling you that you’re an asshole. I’m telling you that we all behave like assholes sometimes. And it’s a big problem for us as well as for the people around us. And here’s my story, when I acted like a jerk, what’s yours? And people, that kind of self-awareness, sometimes people talk about inflicted insight like it’s some kind of burden, but usually that kind of self-awareness makes people feel lighter. They’re like, “Ah, now I know what’s wrong and now I know what I can do about it.”
Lenny: Yeah, I’ve definitely noticed that about your stories. They always are you making the mistake, which I think is very disarming.
Kim Scott: We all make mistakes.
Lenny: Yeah. Maybe the extreme of this obnoxious aggressiveness is Bridgewater. Their whole approach is like theirs.
Kim Scott: Oh my gosh. Did you read the book The Fund?
Lenny: No, not yet.
Kim Scott: You must read it. It’s all about Bridgewater. I always thought it was problematic. I had no idea just how problematic it is. Put that book in the show notes one of the best business books I’ve read in the last decade.
Lenny: Wow, that is high praise. Yes, I will read that. And so I guess for people that aren’t familiar, like Bridgewater, they encourage, they have a system called Dots where they tell people, you must give hard critical feedback after every meeting, publicly.
Kim Scott: Not after the meeting, in the meeting, publicly. And it’s recorded on, it was, I think they changed it since, but it was recorded for posterity on video. And sometimes, in fact, true story, shortly after I left Google, I was approached to work at Bridgewater in a management capacity, not in an investment capacity. And so I called someone I knew who worked there and he said, “Let me give you an anecdote.” He said, “The other day there was a meeting and there was a woman who in the meeting who had made a mistake and everybody just piled on. The criticism was very personal. There was no core about the criticism. It was like, these are your personality attributes that make you a useless human being. Kind of terrible feedback until she started to cry and the whole meeting was recorded and then they emailed a recording of the meeting out to the whole company, including all the people who were not in the meeting saying, this is an example of how to have…” So I would say that is deep, dark, obnoxious aggression. That is not radical candor. That is horrible.
Lenny: So it’s safe to say you’re not a fan of that approach?
Kim Scott: No. In fact, I did an analysis of Dalio’s book Principles and it’s like a, I don’t know, 3 or 400 page book. And there were I think four or five pages about caring about people. There’s very low care personally.
Lenny: I imagine many people see that, they see Elon, they see Steve Jobs, and the perception is they’re very challenge directly people, they’re not clearly care about you people, but they’re very successful. What do you say to people that are like, but it works. Why wouldn’t I be that if that’s the way I want to do it?
Kim Scott: Well, first of all, I would not put Steve Jobs in the same category as Ray Dalio and Elon Musk. I mean, Steve Jobs could be obnoxiously aggressive, but mostly I would say he built such good relationships with his direct reports that when he got cancer, Tim Cook offered to give him half his liver. And I don’t know of a word to describe that other than love. These were real human relationships. When I worked at Apple, you could see Steve and Johnny talking. You could tell these people cared about each other. Now, radical candor gets measured not at the speaker’s mouth, but at the listener’s ear. And I think that Steve had built a team around him of people who didn’t mind rather what other people would consider obnoxious aggression. But I think in the context of their relationship, it was understood as care.
I’ll give you an example of that from my own career, not that I am comparing myself to Steve Jobs, I think I’m a much gentler person, but sometimes I develop relationships with people. And part of that relationship is that we push each other pretty hard. So there was a person who I had worked with for a long time, for many years. He had followed me from one company to another, and we were localizing a product and he kept conflating Slovakia and Slovenia, and I corrected him once. I corrected him twice the third time, I was like, did Slovakia, not Slovenia dumb ass.
And he started laughing, and that was fine in the context of our relationship, but I realized that the people around me, I was silencing them. They were like, “Oh my gosh, I don’t want to make a mistake. Kim’s going to call me a dumb ass.” So I had to pause and say, “Look, I respect this person enormously, and I like this person enormously. We work very well together.” And so I think that sometimes people have relationships with others and they have those relationships in public and other people misinterpret those relationships.
Steve Jobs was not perfect. He made all kinds of mistakes, but he was no Ray Dalio or Elon Musk, who I would say make far more and worse and more egregious mistakes. And I think you’re raising a really important point. You’re raising a point, which is that there’s this false dichotomy. In fact, the new biography of Elon Musk falls into this category. I like Walter Isaacson’s work a lot, but he falls prey to this in his biography of Elon Musk, which is there’s this notion that we have to choose between being a total jerk but really competent or really nice but incompetent. And those are not our two choices. That’s the whole point of radical candor is that there’s this other way that works better and doesn’t hurt people.
Lenny: I think that’s the key takeaway there is you can be even more successful if you lean into the care deeply. In theory, they could have gotten more out of their people if they made it clear they really care about them.
Kim Scott: And there’s plenty of counter examples of incredibly successful people who are very caring leaders, and it’s not as much fun to tell stories about that. And so we don’t as often.
Lenny: Along the same lines, there’s someone that you worked with that suggested I ask you about investing in your authentic leadership style, Melissa Tan. I don’t know if you remember her.
Kim Scott: Yes.
Lenny: Okay, great. And she was on the podcast in the past, and she just said how when she met you, she was a very people-pleasery person and just wanted to be like, and you helped her develop her natural leadership style. Can you just talk about what you suggest to people to figure this out and how to find that for yourself?
Kim Scott: I mean, I wonder what Melissa would say, but my memory of conversations with her, and this is an issue that I talk about a lot because a people pleaser too. I grew up in the South and I’m a woman. I was not brought up to challenge directly. That was not part of the culture that I was brought up in. I was brought up to be polite but also brought up to be kind. And for me, the thing that is most important to hang on to is that fundamental kindness and to realize that it’s actually unkind not to say the thing. And so that is part of the reason why I encourage people. I tell the Bob story so often and I encourage other leaders who I work with to think about what their Bob story is that you realize it’s not nice in the long run.
It’s unkind in the long run, not to tell someone if they’re making a mistake. There’s nothing nice about that in the long run. And so that I think at least for me, that’s been helpful. And then another thing that is helpful is again, to get others focused, to focus not on pleasing people, but on doing the right thing for those people, on truly caring about those people more than you care about your own discomfort in the moment. And that is something that is easier for people to do than just to challenge directly. I think in many ways it’s about what is getting in the way. That’s why I call it ruinism. Empathy is a good thing, but sometimes empathy can paralyze at least me because I’m so acutely aware of how what I’m going to say might impact the other person, might hurt their feelings that I don’t say it.
And so when I push myself to be, and you can call it compassionate candor if you like that better than radical candor. But when I push myself not to feel so acutely what I think the other person might feel, and by the way, I could be wrong about what I think the other person might often, they’re like, it’s no big deal. They’re like, oh, thank you for letting me know. But when I can let go of that and think about the other person and what I care about and what they care about for their future, going back to your point, if you know that it’s really important for someone to get promoted and they won’t get promoted if they keep talking to people in a particular way, then you’re focused on what they want. That is really helpful to move past that.
Lenny: Just a few more questions before we wrap up. Your book sold something like half a million copies.
Kim Scott: A million now.
Lenny: A million copies.
Kim Scott: Million copies. Million in 23 languages. Yes.
Lenny: 23 languages. I had a stat of 20 languages. Jesus Christ. So a lot of people have read it, a lot of people have been using it. What’s something that people often just get wrong that super frustrates you about the system, the recommendations that you just wish people come on, here’s what I really wanted to say, or here’s what you should change.
Kim Scott: There’s two things. I mean, as I mentioned earlier, when you write about a book about feedback, you’re going to get a lot of it. One is this, in the spirit of Radical Candor and then the person acts like a jerk. That is not the spirit of Radical Candor. That is the spirit of obnoxious aggression. But shortly after the book came out, I was giving a talk at a tech company in San Francisco and I got some feedback from the CEO of that company that was so impactful that it caused me to write my next book, which is called Radical Respect. And in many ways, Radical Respect is kind of the prequel to Radical Candor because if you don’t respect the other person, it’s impossible to care about them and you’re not going to bother challenging them directly. So what happened in this meeting? I walked in, I was really excited to give this talk.
The CEO had been a colleague of mine for the better part of a decade. She’s a person I like and respect enormously, and she’s one of too few black women CEOs in tech or in any other sector. And when I finished giving the talk, she pulled me aside and she said, “Kim, I’m excited to roll out Radical Candor. I think it’s really going to help me build the kind of career I want.” But she said, “I got to tell you, it’s much harder for me to roll it out than it is for you.” And she went on to explain to me that as soon as she would offer folks even the most gentle, compassionate criticism, they would call her an angry black woman. And I knew this was true as soon as she said it, and I knew how unfair it was because she’s like one of the most even keeled, cheerful people I’ve ever worked with.
And I realized a bunch of things at the same time when she told me that, the first was that I had not been the kind of colleague that I aspire to be, that I imagined myself to be. I had failed even to notice the extent to which she had to show up unfailingly, cheerful and pleasant in every meeting we had ever been in together even though she had what to be ticked off about as we all do at work. So I had failed to be an upstander, a good colleague. The second thing I realized was that I had also failed to acknowledge when I was experiencing different versions of bias, prejudice and bullying. And I think part of the reason it’s kind of hard for the author of a book called Radical Candor to admit she was in denial. But I had been in denial about a bunch of experiences I had had in the workplace.
I had pretended that a whole host of things were not happening, that were in fact happening. And I think part of the reason why I did that was that I never wanted to think of myself as a victim, but even less than wanting to think of myself as a victim did I want to think of myself as the culprit. So I’d been even more deeply in denial about the times that I had said or done things that hurt other people who I worked with, said or done things that were biased or worse. I had bullied people before. And by the way, when you become a leader, you’re much more prone to bullying even if you don’t think of yourself as a bully, which I certainly don’t think of myself as a bully, but that doesn’t mean I never bullied anyone. And then the last thing I realized was that as a leader, I imagined that I was creating these BS free zones, but I had allowed all manner of BS to pass. So that was what prompted me to write the next book, Radical Respect, which you can pre-order right now and please do.
Lenny: That was my next question. Talk more about this book. What is it about? Where people find it?
Kim Scott: Radical Respect comes out in May. You can pre-order it now. Anywhere you buy books, at your local independent bookstore, I’m speaking at a conference of independent bookstore owners soon you can pre-order it on Amazon or Barnes Noble or anywhere else you buy buy books.
Lenny: And who would you say it’s most for?
Kim Scott: So there are chapters in that book about things leaders can do. There are chapters in the book about things you can do if you’re harmed by bias, prejudice, or bullying. There are chapters in the book about how to be a great upstander, how to be a better colleague, and there are chapters in the book about how to become part of the solution, not part of the problem when you’re the culprit. And I think we all find ourselves in all four of those roles at different moments in time, and I don’t think there’s any one group who can solve this problem. Everyone is responsible for creating a more respectful work environment.
Lenny: Awesome. We’ll link to that in the show notes.
Kim Scott: Amazing.
Lenny: To leave people with a very tactical next step. What’s one thing they could do this week today to get better at Radical Candor, to start building that muscle?
Kim Scott: I would love it if everyone would write down their go-to question what are the words that will come out of your mouth and practice it. Practice it in front of the mirror and then practice it with a friend and refine it. Just figure out what, because it is uncomfortable to solicit feedback from others. They don’t want to give it to you and you don’t really want to hear it. So if everybody can write down their go-to question and then put five minutes in your calendar of someone you’re going to ask that question of.
Lenny: And that calendar entry, I was going to come back to it actually. So you do the one-on-one agenda, adding the question, the calendar entry is for people you don’t have a one-on-one with, pick someone that you’re going to ask that you’re not meeting with regularly.
Kim Scott: Absolutely. Or add it to the bottom of your next one-on-one agenda. That’s fair too. Either one.
Lenny: Amazing. Kim, is there anything else you want to leave folks with before we get to our very exciting lightning round?
Kim Scott: I think just remember, you do not have to choose between being successful and being a jerk. You can be a successful kind person.
Lenny: Oh, I love that. Amazing. Okay, well with that, we’ve reached a very exciting lightning round. Are you ready?
Kim Scott: I’m ready.
Lenny: What are two or three books you’ve recommended most to other people? You’ve already mentioned a few but what do you want to share?
Kim Scott: Yes, I’ve mentioned a couple. Please do buy Radical Respect, I believe that the more novels people read, the better. People often ask me, what can I do to move up on the care personally dimension of Radical Candor and read more novels? This is the best way I know of to build compassion for other people, to understand the emotional signals that might be coming at you. I mean, some of my favorite novels are Middlemarch. I try to reread that all the time. Anything that Toni Morrison wrote, the Bluest Eye is one of my favorite, but also Song of Solomon. It just such a brilliant writer and will help you enter into the lives of people that you haven’t entered into. I think that Orlando by Virginia Woolf is another one of my favorites. And Robertson Davies, the Deptford Trilogy is an incredible set of novels to read. I’m cheating now and giving you three.
Lenny: The more the merrier.
Kim Scott: Yes, Alice Walker, the Color Purple is another one of my very favorite books, so I recommend reading more novels.
Lenny: I love this leaning into fiction that doesn’t come up often on this podcast, so this is great. What is a favorite recent movie or TV show that you really enjoyed?
Kim Scott: I watched all 19 seasons of Grey’s Anatomy with my daughter during and after COVID. That was really fun.
Lenny: Actually. I did the same thing with my wife. We didn’t do all the seasons, but we watched a lot of Grey’s Anatomy.
Kim Scott: We watched every single one. It’s still coming out.
Lenny: Yeah, it’s funny to see which characters continue and which I die off, leave.
Kim Scott: Yeah, exactly.
Lenny: Oh man. Okay. Funny
Kim Scott: And Shonda Rhimes, I mean, watch her TED Talk, amazing person.
Lenny: All right, we’ll link to that in the show notes. Do you have a favorite interview question that you like to ask when you’re interviewing people that might be helpful to folks interviewing?
Kim Scott: The question that I like to ask is just tell me the story of your career. And I know that’s kind of, maybe it’s a hard, it seems like a softball, but it’s actually can be unfairly hard or not. I don’t know, unfairly hard, but I always learn a lot about people from how they tell the story of their life and their career. And then what I try to do is they’ll say a couple of things that really interest me and I sort of double-click down into the details of a couple of aspects. I love people’s life stories, so that makes it a more fun conversation for me. Often people like talking about themselves so it’s not too painful for them, but you also learn all kinds of unexpected things.
Lenny: And is there anything you’re looking for in an answer that’s like, this is a good person to hire or is it mostly information? I’m just gathering a lot of background.
Kim Scott: I find that I learn how the person approaches setbacks from a story, from the way they tell a story. I learn whether a person is able to identify mistakes they made. I mean, if you say, “Tell me the story of your career,” if there’s not a couple of mistakes in there, I also find that when they talk about accomplishments and then I double click on it, I learn a lot about what a person really did. Sometimes a person will claim credit for something that just happened that they had very little to actually to do with, and I learn about very often. I find that a good way to learn about people’s skills and depth of knowledge.
Lenny: Is there a favorite product you’ve recently discovered that you really like?
Kim Scott: Yes. I love my new it’s called Attitude, and they’re shampoo bars and conditioner bars, so it comes in cardboard, wrapped in paper. There’s no plastic. It’s much more environmentally friendly, and I have long hair. It gets very tingly and the conditioner works, so I recommend.
Lenny: Very unique suggestion. Is there a favorite motto that you often repeat to yourself, share with people, find useful to come back to in work or in life?
Kim Scott: “It’s not mean. It’s clear.” This is something someone told me on the streets of Manhattan. It’s actually the origin story of Radical Candor. I was walking my dog, almost got hit by a cab, and this man, a perfect stranger, looked at me and he said, “I can tell you love that dog.” That was all he had to do to move up on the care personally dimension, but he says, “You’re going to kill that dog if you don’t teach her to sit.” And he pointed at the ground this kind of harsh gesture. He said, “Sit.” The dog sat, had no idea she even knew what that meant. And I kind of looked up at him in amazement and he said, “It’s not mean. It’s clear.” And then the light changed and he walked off leaving me with words to live by. So I think about that stranger all the time.
Lenny: Such a good story. Final question. I read online that you started a diamond cutting factory in Moscow at some point in your life. Can you please explain this part of your life?
Kim Scott: Yes. So I studied Russian literature in college, very practical major. And then I moved to what was then the Soviet Union in 1990 when I graduated from college, and I wound up taking a job with, first of all, I was with an investment company and then they pulled out of Russia and put the money in China. And so I wanted to stay in Russia and through a friend of a friend, I got a job working for this diamond company called Lazare Kaplan, new York-based diamond company, and they were trying to figure out what they should do in Russia. And I found out there was an opportunity to start this diamond cutting factory. And it was actually my first management job because I had to hire these diamond cutters and I had to hire them away from these Russian diamond cutting factories and I knew nothing about management or business or anything.
I’d studied Russian literature. I knew a lot about Dostoyevsky, so I thought it was going to be easy though. I was like, well, the ruble is collapsing. I’m going to pay them in dollars. Of course they’ll come work for me. But they didn’t take the job right away. To my surprise, they wanted to have a picnic. And at the picnic we brought a bottle of vodka, and there’s a rule in Russia, if you open a bottle, you got to finish the bottle.
So by the end of the bottle of vodka, I realized that what I could offer that the state could not offer them was to give a damn about them. They wanted to know that I would be a manager who would get them out of Russia if things went sideways there. And as you can imagine, I’ve been thinking a lot about, they were all men, about these men because I haven’t been able to get them out. And I’m devastated by what Russia has done to Ukraine, but that was the moment when I realized that management really matters, and that to be good at it, you have to care about other people. And that was what made it interesting to me.
Lenny: Man, that is a heavy first job as a manager.
Kim Scott: Yeah. Yes, it was.
Lenny: Wow, Kim, this was awesome. I think we’re going to help a lot of people become better leaders. I think we’re going to help a lot of companies change their culture. I’m so honored that you agreed to do this. Two final questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to follow up and learn more about your stuff? And then two, how can listeners be helpful to you?
Kim Scott: Radicalcandor.com is our website, and I’m not much on Twitter slash X anymore, but you can find us. We do a lot of posting on LinkedIn. I think that the thing that people can help me do is to send us a note. You can also email us radicalcandor@radicalcandor.com and let us know what could we do in podcasts like this or in our materials? What could we do that would make it easier for you to put these ideas into practice? Because Radical Candor is, it’s about behavior change, and it sounds easy, but it’s really hard, and we’re always trying to figure out how to help people walk the talk here.
Lenny: I think doing this podcast is going to make a dent in that goal.
Kim Scott: Oh, good.
Lenny: Kim, thank you so much for being here.
Kim Scott: Thank you. I really enjoyed it.
Lenny: Same. Bye everyone.
Kim Scott: Take care everyone.
Lenny: Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lenny’spodcasts.com. See you in the next episode.
Reformatted by reformat_english_direct.py
彻底坦诚:与作者 Kim Scott 从理论走向实践
访谈实录
Kim Scott: 如果你说”你对我有什么反馈吗?“,那就是白费口舌。对方会说”哦,没有,一切都挺好的。“我喜欢问的问题是:“我可以做些什么,或者停止做些什么,会让跟我合作变得更轻松?“不要把我的问题原话记下来,因为如果你听起来像 Kim Scott 而不像你自己,别人就不会相信你真的想听回答。这个问题听起来必须是 authentic(真实的、发自内心的),如果大家都能写下自己的问题、打算问谁,然后现在就把这件事加进日历里,那这期播客将成为整个播客界最有成效的节目之一。
Lenny: 今天的嘉宾是 Kim Scott。Kim 是《彻底坦诚》(Radical Candor)的作者,这本书是本播客中被引用最多的一本书。该书已售出超过 100 万册,被翻译成 23 种语言。能邀请 Kim 来到播客真是荣幸之至。在这本书之前,Kim 曾在 Dropbox、Qualtrics、Twitter 等多家科技公司担任 CEO 教练。她曾是 Apple University 的教员。再之前,她在 Google 领导 AdSense、YouTube 和 DoubleClick 团队。更早之前,Kim 在科索沃管理过一家儿科诊所,还在莫斯科创办过一家钻石切割工厂。她还在写一本新书,现在可以预购,名叫《彻底尊重》(Radical Respect)。在我们的对话中,我们非常务实地、非常具体地讨论了如何践行彻底坦诚。Kim 简要介绍了核心理念,分享了可以用来提升彻底坦诚能力的语言、短语和词汇。
她分享了一些给像我这种讨好型人格的建议。还有许多非常具体的关于如何获取反馈的建议。以及如果你的文化处于有害同理心这一端,甚至更糟——恶意攻击那一端——该怎么办,还有很多很多。我保证听这期节目会让你成为更好的领导者和更好的员工。言归正传,下面为您带来 Kim Scott。
彻底坦诚的核心理念
Lenny: Kim,非常感谢你的到来,欢迎来到播客。
Kim Scott: 谢谢你的邀请,我对我们的对话很期待。
Lenny: 你的书《彻底坦诚》是本播客中被推荐最多的一本书。我不知道你对这个播客了解多少,但在每期节目最后,我都会问每位嘉宾”你最推荐别人读的两三本书是什么?“你的书是整个播客中出现次数最多的。
Kim Scott: 太棒了。请告诉你的听众们,我爱他们,我很感激他们。
Lenny: 好的,他们会听到的。所以我非常高兴能和你聊聊你教授的所有内容以及你的书。对于那些听说过”彻底坦诚”这个概念、可能翻过这本书、甚至很久以前读过但不太记得或不太理解的人,你能不能花几分钟时间概述一下彻底坦诚这个概念?
Kim Scott: 当然。彻底坦诚就是当你同时做到个人关怀和直接挑战时所发生的事情。我觉得通过它”不是什么”来理解可能是最好的,因为我们每个人每天都会在这两个维度中的一个或两个上失败多次。你可以把它想成一个 2×2 框架。纵轴是”个人关怀”,横轴是”直接挑战”。当我们记得直接挑战,却忘记表达个人关怀时会怎样——那就是我所说的恶意攻击。区分彻底坦诚和恶意攻击非常重要。我觉得人们经常犯的一个错误是——我收到过很多反馈,你写了一本关于反馈的书,自然会收到很多反馈——我听到过很多反馈,有时候团队在推广彻底坦诚的理念时,会有人冲进来说”本着彻底坦诚的精神”,然后表现得像个典型的混蛋。
这可不是彻底坦诚的精神,这是恶意攻击的精神。恶意攻击是一个大问题。它之所以是问题,是因为它会伤害他人。它也是问题,因为它效率低下。如果我对你恶意相向,Lenny,那你就会进入战斗或逃跑模式,然后你根本听不进我在说什么,所以我就是白费口舌。但我不确定你是不是也这样,对我来说还有第三个问题。第三个问题是,当我意识到自己表现得像个混蛋,当我意识到自己滑入了恶意攻击时,我的本能实际上不是在”个人关怀”上往正确的方向走,而是在”直接挑战”上往错误的方向走——假装同意自己其实不同意的事,然后我就会落入最糟糕的地方:虚伪逢迎。
讲恶意攻击和虚伪逢迎的故事其实挺有趣的。如果你看《办公室》或者任何关于职场问题或任何关系问题的剧集,你会看到很多关于恶意攻击和虚伪逢迎的集数。但我觉得真正的难题在于——尽管这是我们喜欢谈论的,这两个问题是我们喜欢谈论的——它们并不是最常见的问题。到目前为止最常见的问题是:当我们确实记得表达个人关怀时——因为你知道吗?大多数人还是想做个好人——所以我们确实记得表达个人关怀,但我们太担心伤害别人的感情或冒犯他们,以至于没能告诉他们一些从长远来看知道了会更好的事情。这就是我所说的有害同理心。以上就是彻底坦诚的简要概述,是太长不看版。但还是请去读一读原著。
Lenny: 太好了,我们会附上这个 2×2 框架的图示链接,给那些不是视觉型思考者、想亲眼看看的人。所以为了说得超级清楚——如果你在直接挑战,基本上就是给出非常坦率的反馈,但不太清楚你是否深切关心这个人,你把这叫做恶意攻击。
Kim Scott: 是的。
Lenny: 如果你清楚表明你非常关心这个人,但实际上并没有给他们直接坦率的反馈,你把这叫做有害同理心。
Kim Scott: 没错,正是如此。
哪种情况最常见
Lenny: 你觉得大多数人落入哪个象限?有没有一个大概的比例?
Kim Scott: 我觉得我们当中 90% 的人犯的错误有 90% 都落在有害同理心那个象限里。这毫无疑问是最常见的问题。但我认为我们所有人也都会在其他象限犯错。而且很多时候我们——如果我要对这个框架做一点自我批评的话——那就是,我们很容易注意到自己犯了有害同理心的错误,就像给自己一条批评反馈:“我工作太拼了。“但很难注意到自己什么时候犯了虚伪逢迎和恶意攻击的错误。也许我当初的命名可以更准确一些,因为虚伪逢迎很多时候其实是一种自我保护式的虚伪,恶意攻击很多时候只是极度沮丧的宣泄。所以我希望大家用这个框架不是为了严厉地评判自己或他人,而是把它当作一个指南针,引导与具体的人的具体对话走向更好的方向,帮助我们意识到自己何时偏离了方向——而这种偏离是我们每个人每天都在所难免的。
培养彻底坦诚技能的影响
Lenny: 我想聊聊所有这些话题,以及如何在这些方面变得更好。但在那之前,改变是非常困难的,而且直接挑战本身就是一件不自然而然的事情,人们很难做到坦率。为了给大家一点动力去投入这项技能——你看到人们在培养了彻底坦诚这项技能之后,会产生什么样的影响?
Kim Scott: 当我们在彻底坦诚方面变得更擅长时?我给你讲一个它对我人生影响的故事吧,但先抽象地回答你的问题:我们建立了更好的人际关系,做出了更好的工作成果,变得更成功、更快乐。准备好听故事了吗?来吧,我喜欢故事。好的。那是加入 Google 后不久——现在已经是很久以前的事了,2004 年——我需要向创始人和 CEO 做一个关于 AdSense 业务表现的汇报。我走进会议室,房间一角,一位创始人正在椭圆机上锻炼,穿着五趾鞋和亮蓝色紧身连体衣,超级紧的那种——完全不是我在那种场合预期或坦率说想看到的画面。房间另一角,CEO 正在处理邮件,像大脑已经接入了机器一样。
大概和你处在那种情况一样,我有点紧张。我该怎么吸引这些人的注意力?幸运的是,AdSense 业务正在爆发式增长。当我说出我们新增了多少客户时,CEO 差点从椅子上摔下来。“你说什么?太不可思议了。你需要更多工程师吗?你需要更多市场预算吗?“我心想会议进行得还不错。事实上,我开始相信自己是个天才。我走出会议室,经过我老板身边,期待着击掌或者拍拍背。然而她对我说:“你跟我一起走回我办公室吧?“我心想,糟糕,我是不是搞砸了什么,肯定要挨批了。她没有先告诉我做错了什么,而是先说了会议中哪些方面做得好——不是那种反馈三明治的方式。
Kim 的 Google 故事
我觉得那个有个不太文雅的说法。不确定你对播客里说脏话怎么看。
Lenny: 可以接受,完全没问题。
Kim Scott: 不是”狗屎三明治”,而是真的看上去发自内心地说那些好话。但当然了,我一心只想知道自己做错了什么。最终她对我说:“你在里面说了很多’嗯’,你意识到了吗?“听到这话,我长舒一口气——如果这就是我做错的全部,谁还在乎呢。我做了一个轻描淡写的手势,说:“嗯,我知道,这是口头禅,没什么大不了的。“然后她说:“我认识一位很棒的演讲教练,Google 应该会买单的,要不要我介绍你们认识?“我又做了一次那个轻描淡写的手势。
我说:“哦,我很忙,没时间找什么演讲教练。你没听到刚才那些新客户的数据吗?“然后她对我说:“我看得出你在用手做那个动作,那我只好更直接一点了。你每说三个字就嗯一次,这让你听起来很蠢。“这下她完全抓住了我的注意力。有些人可能会说她讲我”听起来很蠢”很刻薄,但事实上,在我职业生涯的那个时刻,这是她能为我做的最善意的事情。因为她足够了解我,知道如果她不用那样的措辞——顺便说一句,这是一个非常重要的点——她绝不会对团队里其他比我更善于倾听的人用那样的措辞。
但她足够了解我,对我有足够的个人关怀,知道如果她不那样对我说,我绝不会去找演讲教练,也就不会发现她其实并没有夸大其词。这对我来说是个新闻,因为我此前曾为两家不同的创业公司融资数百万美元,做过无数次演示汇报,我一直以为自己在这方面挺擅长的。这真的让我开始思考——为什么之前没有人告诉我?就像我突然意识到,自己整个职业生涯都在牙缝里塞着一大块菠菜走来走去,却没有一个人出于基本的礼貌告诉我一声。为什么没有别人告诉我?但她的领导风格中有什么特质,让她能如此轻松地做到这一点?当我仔细回想,我意识到归根结底就是两件事。
她关心我这个人,同时也会直接挑战我。她不只是把我当作员工来关心,而是当作一个完整的人来关心。比如,当我父亲被诊断为晚期癌症时,我崩溃了,她能看出我崩溃了。她说:“Kim,听着,你去机场,飞回孟菲斯,你需要陪在家人身边。你的团队和我会一起坐下来制定你的工作代理方案。“这就是伟大的团队为彼此做的事情。她做的就是这样的事。当然,她不可能为她组织中所有五千人都做到这一点——无论你多有才华,人际关系无法规模化。但她确实为她的直接下属和她最密切合作的人做了这些事,我们每一个人。
当一位领导者以那种真正的关怀对待他们的团队——每天与他们互动的人——那么他们的直接下属反过来也更有可能以真正的关怀对待自己的团队。这就创造了一种关怀的文化。虽然人际关系不能规模化,但文化可以。这就是其中一部分。但当然还有直接挑战的部分,这同样重要。而且我很快就确信无疑——如果我搞砸了什么,她会告诉我,而且会一直说,直到穿透我有时相当迟钝的脑壳。
如何在实践中表达直接挑战
Lenny: 我曾经有一位经理也很擅长这个。他非常善于给我非常直接的反馈,而我知道他这样做只是因为他关心我的未来。沿着这个话题往下走,说得更具体一点——你有没有推荐的语言、措辞或沟通方式,可以帮助人们既做到直接挑战又不让对方产生防御心理,或者让人明确感受到你是在真心关心?
Kim Scott: 人们总是希望我给他们一个话术脚本。但话术的问题在于,如果由我来写,你听起来就会像我 Kim Scott,而不是你自己。那样别人也不会真正相信你说的是真心话。但我确实认为,在进行这类对话时有一些重要的原则需要考虑。我认为,走进这场对话时要谦逊——顺便说一下,我接下来要说的所有内容,表扬和批评同样适用。我想先停顿一下。刚才那个故事很有帮助,因为类似的事情发生在我们很多人身上,并不是只有我才遇到。不过,在彻底坦诚中,表扬甚至比批评更重要。彻底坦诚并不全都是老板给员工提批评意见。它应该始终从主动征求反馈开始,表扬应该多于批评——但不能用夹心饼干的方式来表达。
所以,我认为这些对话——这些两分钟的即兴管理时刻——最重要的是带着谦逊进入对话。我把它叫做”坦率”(candor)而不是”真相”(truth),因为如果我大步走进一个房间说:“Lenny,我要告诉你真相。“我其实暗含的意思是我有一条直通上帝的管道,而你什么都不知道。但这不是我们要做的。这是一场对话,不是独白。所以对我来说,“坦率”意味着:这是我对情况的理解,我也很好奇你是怎么理解的。所以你要带着谦逊进入,你可能错了,这完全没关系。谢天谢地,全知全能并不是彻底坦诚的前提。所以你要谦逊,要表明你的意图是为了帮忙。你要在自己心里清楚,并且明确地告诉对方,你告诉他们这些是为了帮助他们。
你不是想要居高临下,也不是想要踢他们一脚之类的。你告诉他们这些是因为你关心他们。所以要表明你的善意。你要尽快进行这些对话,几乎是立刻。我是说,我说的每件事都有例外,没有什么是绝对的。但通常,如果我告诉自己——Lenny,你可以告诉我你是不是也有同样的问题——如果我告诉自己”哦,我要等一个更好的时机再告诉这个人这件事”,我实际上是在说我永远不会开口。如果表扬的目的是告诉别人多做些什么,批评的目的是告诉别人少做些什么,那为什么要等呢?所以要立刻做,除非你太生气了以至于说出来的方式会很糟糕,或者对方太激动了以至于听不进去。但通常情况并非如此。
同步沟通的重要性
还有一个要点——以前我会说这些对话要面对面进行。现在我说这些对话要同步进行,而且我更推荐电话而不是视频。芝加哥大学以及可能其他地方有很多研究证据——我看到的那篇文章说,面部表情和肢体语言中的噪音多于有效信号,尤其是当对方只是电脑屏幕上的一个小方块时。但这在现实中可能也是成立的——电话实际上可能是有史以来最好的沟通发明之一,因为当你在电话里和一个人交谈时,你在认真倾听他们说的话,而这正是你在这个时刻真正需要做的。所以要确保这些对话是同步进行的,因为你接下来要做的是判断对方的反应。
这个我一会儿再讲。如果你发的是邮件或短信,你根本无法判断对方的反应,而 Slack 简直就是一个随时可能发生的反馈灾难。我曾经辅导过一个人,他一直通过 Slack 给反馈,我最后直接停止了辅导他。我说:“如果你继续犯这个错误,我没法做你的教练。“所以别那样做。花点时间拿起电话打给对方。回到我小时候那些 AT&T 的广告——“伸出手,触碰某人。“你要展现出你的关心。
HHIIPPP 原则
好,我们来回顾一下。你要谦逊(Humble),要有帮助(Helpful),要立即做(Immediate),要面对面或至少同步进行(In person/synchronously),要公开表扬、私下批评(Praise in public, criticize in Private),不要针对别人的性格给表扬或批评(not about Personality)。如果你想记住这些,就是 HHIIPPP——两个 H,两个 I,差不多三个 P,取决于你怎么数。
CORE 反馈框架
然后我们再深入说说这个”不要针对性格”的要点。我认为无论是表扬还是批评,都要记住使用”背景-观察-结果-下一步”(Context-Observation-Result-Next step)的结构。比如批评:背景——在会议上;观察——你每说三个字就带一个”嗯”;结果——让你听起来很蠢;下一步——去找个演讲教练。表扬也同样重要:背景——在会议上;观察——你把论点的两面都摆了出来;结果——为你赢得了公信力;下一步——继续这样做。你可以把它叫做 CORE,你可以用 CORE 来记。我以前叫它 CORN,但有人告诉我”corn”在 TikTok 上是某种色情内容的缩写,所以我现在改叫 CORE 了。HIP CORE。
Lenny: 哇,太棒了。谢谢你分享这些。那最后那个 E 代表什么?
Kim Scott: 下一步(next step),大写的 E。
Lenny: 哦,我明白了,E 就是 next,你跳过了 N,真巧妙。
Kim Scott: 是的。也不知道是巧妙还是荒唐。也许我还是应该叫它 HIP CORN。
Lenny: 是吧?不,我觉得哪个都很好。你刚才举了演讲的那个例子。如果我们再举一个例子来巩固这个框架怎么样?
Kim Scott: 我们来做一个”有害同理心”的例子吧。
Lenny: 好,来吧。
Kim Scott: 怎么样?这个才是我真正想消除的错误。在《彻底坦诚》这本书里,以及在我的新书《彻底尊重》中,我都非常聚焦于这个错误。
Lenny: 来吧。
有害同理心的故事
Kim Scott: 因为有害同理心会制造一种虚假的和谐,这非常糟糕。所以这是我的有害同理心的故事。我刚雇了一个人,我们暂且叫他 Bob,我很喜欢 Bob。他聪明、有魅力、有趣。他会做一些这样的事情——有一次我们在管理层外出活动,玩那种没完没了的破冰游戏。大家都越来越焦虑。创业公司嘛,事情很多。Bob 就是那个有勇气举手说:“我看得出来大家都很紧张。我想认识你们每一个人。我有一个主意,既能帮我们做到这一点,又非常快。”
不管他的主意是什么,只要真的很快,我们都愿意试试。Bob 说:“我们就围着桌子转一圈,坦白一下小时候父母在训练我们上厕所时用什么糖果当奖励。“很奇怪但真的很快。然后在那之后的十个月里,每次会议上出现紧张的时刻,Bob 都会在恰当的时机给恰当的人掏出恰当的糖果。我们都记得那件更奇怪的事——比如好时之吻(Hershey Kisses)就在这儿。那就是我父母训练我上厕所时用的糖果。
Kim Scott: 所以 Bob 确实有点古怪,但他给办公室带来了一点轻松的氛围。大家都挺喜欢和 Bob 共事的。但 Bob 有一个问题——他的工作做得很差。他把东西交给我的时候,眼里带着羞愧。他自己也知道不够好。他很有创造力,但到处都是马虎的错误。我会对 Bob 说类似这样的话:“哦 Bob,这是一个非常好的开端。你太棒了。大家都很喜欢和你一起工作。也许你可以把它再改进一下。“让我们停下来想一想,我为什么会对 Bob 说这么一句敷衍了事的话?我想部分原因是我喜欢 Bob,我真的不想伤害他的感情。
这是我说出那句话的有害同理心层面的原因。但还有一个更隐蔽的问题——一点虚伪逢迎,因为 Bob 很受欢迎,Bob 也算是比较敏感。我心里有一份担忧:如果我毫不客气地告诉 Bob 他的工作远远不够好,他会很难过,他甚至可能会哭,然后所有人都会觉得我是个大——你懂的。那个担心自己作为领导者声誉的我,那就是虚伪逢迎的部分;那个担心 Bob 感受的我,那是有害同理心的部分。这种情况持续了十个月,漫长的十个月,整个过程中我一直很困惑,搞不清楚到底是怎么回事。很久以后我才知道,其中一个原因可能是 Bob 每天在卫生间里抽三次大麻,这也许解释了他为什么随时都有那么多糖果。
但当时我对这一切一无所知。我只知道 Bob 一直在做糟糕的工作,而我并没有真正去处理这件事。最终不可避免的事情发生了。我意识到如果我不解雇 Bob,我会失去所有最优秀的员工——因为我不但对不起 Bob,没有告诉他真相,我也对不起团队里的每一个人。他们很沮丧。他们的交付物延迟了,因为他的交付物延迟了。他们没法做出自己最好的工作,因为他们不得不花大量时间重做他的工作。
损失顶尖人才
而那些工作能力最强的人会辞职,因为他们想能做出最好的工作。他们会去另一家能让他们发挥所长的公司。于是我坐下来和 Bob 进行了一次谈话,那次谈话其实十个月前就该坦诚地开始了。当我向他解释完事情的现状后,他把椅子从桌子边往后一推,直视着我的眼睛说:“你为什么不告诉我?“当这个问题在我脑海里翻来覆去找不到好答案的时候,他又看了我一眼说:“为什么没有人告诉我?我以为你们都关心我。“此时我才意识到,因为不告诉 Bob,自以为是在做好人,结果却不得不解雇他。这可一点都不好。但一切已经太晚了,因为此时连 Bob 自己都同意他应该离开——他在团队中的声誉已经彻底毁了。
我唯一能做的就是向自己郑重承诺,我绝不再犯这个错误,并且尽我所能帮助其他人避免犯同样的错误。那太痛苦了。对我来说很痛苦,对 Bob 来说更痛苦,实际上 Bob 受到的伤害更大,而且对整个团队来说也不好,对我们的投资者来说也不好。我们没有取得成果,就是因为我有害同理心——或者说是有害同理心加上虚伪逢迎。虚伪逢迎的那部分更难承认。这也正是我今天来和大家聊这个话题的原因——我希望你们所有的听众都避免犯这个错误,因为这是最痛苦的,也是最常见的一个错误。我认为领导者——其实不只是领导者,我们所有人在所有的关系中都会犯这个错误。
Lenny: 我很喜欢这个故事,因为它也说明了一件事:如果在这方面做得不好,你失去的不仅仅是那些表现不够好的人,还会失去团队里其他高绩效的人,因为他们会看到那些不够好的人蒙混过关。如果你不及早实践这一点,你的团队基本上就不可能成为高绩效团队。
Kim Scott: 没错,你会失去你最优秀的人。我觉得很多人不敢告诉团队成员工作不够好,是因为害怕失去他们。但这不是一个好理由。你应该帮助这个人进步。这个人值得拥有一份能让他出彩的工作,你要么帮助他在这个团队中出彩,要么帮他找到另一份能出彩的工作,因为每个人都能在某个地方做出出色的工作。Bob 本来也可以做出出色的工作。也许我可以帮他把那些习惯控制在周末——因为他确实很有创造力也很聪明,但那些马虎的错误阻碍了他做出最好的工作。
克服被喜欢的需要
Lenny: 顺着这个话题,我想你之所以没有及早告诉他,而大多数人在这方面也做得不好,是因为很多人——也许可以叫讨好型人格。我自己就是一个正在康复中的讨好型人格。给别人严厉的反馈真的很难。你希望别人喜欢你。这对很多人来说不是一种自然的状态。你觉得什么方法能帮助人们克服作为领导者想要被喜欢的这种需求,帮助他们变得更加坦率?
Kim Scott: 我觉得对我个人来说有帮助的一件事是——你可以告诉我对你是否也有帮助——就是意识到我的职责不是被人喜欢。我的职责是关心他人,从自己的脑袋里走出来,把注意力放在别人身上,这帮助我放下了被喜欢的需求。另外,作为一名女性,我觉得还有额外的——用我那些十几岁的孩子的话说——“额外的东西”,因为很多女性面临的那种”讨人喜欢与能力之间的偏见”,把我在直接挑战这个维度上推向了错误的方向,尤其在我职业生涯早期。
这让我的处境更加困难,因为常常我说同样的话,甚至比男性同事说得更委婉,但人们会说:“Kim 真是怎么怎么的。“他们不是在说 Kim 在恶意攻击。我被不公正地指责为恶意攻击,而实际上我并没有恶意。他们指责我专横、粗鲁之类的。这确实很难。我还想说,在征求反馈方面,保持开放态度非常重要,同时也要学会区分你收到的反馈中哪些有价值、哪些没价值。
如何更好地给出反馈
Lenny: 那在 Bob 这个例子中,假设你现在来处理,除了更早给他反馈之外,你还会做什么不同的事情?关于措辞或方法,你学到了什么吗?
Kim Scott: 我想我大概会这样做——我也很想听听你会对 Bob 说什么,我当然不是什么答案都有。但大概我会从第一次 Bob 带着羞愧的眼神把工作交给我的时候说起。我会说:“Bob,也许我误解了你脸上的表情,但看起来你对自己交上来的这份工作并不满意。怎么回事?“所以我会让他自己来诊断问题。我想在这里停顿一下,因为这其实是有风险的。他可能对我说:“我觉得这太棒了,这是我最好的作品。“这样我就反而让自己给他反馈变得更困难了。所以提问并不总是正确的做法,但我会尝试在还没有细看那份工作的时候,在我注意到他自己看起来就不舒服的那个瞬间,先提出这个问题。
另外我还学到一点关于”注意到”的事——我之前说过,有大量证据表明我们常常会误读彼此的面部表情和肢体语言。所以我会带着一些谦逊去表达:“看起来你好像——也许我判断错了——但在我眼里你似乎对这份工作并不满意。“我会给他一个机会说:“嗯,也许我需要重新做一遍。“不过假设他说:“哦不,这很棒,可以了。“那我就拿过来看。我不会回避,会把那件工作中我看到的每一个问题都一一具体指出来,每一个都不放过。有时候,给人反馈时会有一种诱惑,想说”这里有不少粗心的错误,你能回去再检查一遍吗”,然后对方注意到其中几个,你还得再继续——有时候把整个模式展示给一个人看是有用的。把所有粗心的错误都列出来,特别是当对方有防御心理,或者你觉得他可能会有防御心理的时候——如果你觉得他可能会像我对老板做的那样说”哦不,一切都很好,没什么大不了的”——那你就需要在”直接挑战”这个维度上更加用力。你需要准备好持续推进,直到你真正把信息传达给对方为止。Bob 的问题本质上也是这个。他可能根本不会哭。我对眼泪的恐惧,更多是我自己的恐惧,而不是实际可能发生的情况。但我们确实常常高估别人会情绪崩溃的可能性,他们实际崩溃的频率远低于我们的担忧。在反馈这件事上,我们有一种负面偏差,这也是我们不愿意给出反馈的部分原因。
Lenny: 而且我觉得你说到点子上了——我们都希望被人喜欢,就像你说的,我们应该放下这一点。我觉得这显然很难,不是说”好吧,我不在意了”就能做到的。但我认为你的观点非常重要:如果你现在不做困难的事,之后你反而会更被喜欢。如果你任由问题继续下去,只会变得更糟。
Kim Scott: 而且对我来说,走进那次对话之前我会对自己说:向 Bob 展示我关心他,比让 Bob 喜欢我更重要。如果我展示出我对 Bob 的关心,那我就会做出正确的事,最终为与 Bob 的良好关系创造条件。我手下留情、不指出问题,并没有为与 Bob 的良好关系创造条件。
Lenny: 我确实这样做过,这是从我一个经理那里学到的——基本上从结果倒推:先问他们,你在职业生涯中想实现什么?你在这家公司想走到哪里?确保他们知道你了解他们的目标,然后从这个目标倒推:要达到那个目标,你需要获得这些东西;而你最近做的这件事,未必在那个路径上;如果你想达到你心目中的那个高度,我们应该在这几方面努力。
Kim Scott: 对,我认为所有管理者能为直接下属做的真正重要的事情之一,就是进行真正有意义的职业发展对话——谈他们的人生经历,谈他们的过去,谈他们愿意和你分享的那部分,这样你才能理解他们在工作中的动力是什么。我会安排三次各四十五分钟的独立对话:一次关于他们的过去,一次关于他们的未来——他们对未来的梦想,而且不只是接下来两三年的那种。而是想象一下,在你职业生涯的巅峰,你拥有了你想要的一切,那会是什么样子?给我三四种不同的画面,因为我们中很少有人真正知道”长大后想做什么”。
第三次对话则是和你的直接下属一起坐下来,制定一份职业行动方案。那么,鉴于你的动力所在和你想去的方向,你需要发展哪些技能才能到达那里?我可以介绍你认识谁?有哪些学习机会?我们能否对你的工作做一些调整,让你在获得那些技能的同时,至少朝着你梦想的方向迈出一步——哪怕你还没到达那里?
Lenny: 太好了。我有一篇关于这个的帖子,我会在节目备注里附上链接,给人们一个进行这类对话的指南,还有一个我分享给别人的表格:这是一个你可以和团队成员一起制定的行动方案,以及接下来六个月你们要重点做什么。
Kim Scott: 你读过 Russ Laraway 的 When They Win, You Win 吗?
Lenny: 没有。
Kim Scott: 哦,他有一百页的篇幅专门讲职业发展对话,还构建了一些工具来帮助人们。去看看吧。
Lenny: 书名叫 When You Win… When They Win, You Win?
Kim Scott: When They Win, You Win。
Lenny: 太棒了。
Kim Scott: 对,作者是 Russ Laraway,他和我在 Google 共事过,后来我们一起创办了一家公司。
Lenny: 哇,好的。我们会在节目备注里附上链接。也许我也会请他来上播客。太好了。
Kim Scott: 对,他会很棒的。
在非坦诚文化中实践彻底坦诚
Lenny: 好的,我们一直在聊如何在个人层面提升这些技能。还有一个我觉得人们经常遇到的困难,就是公司文化往往不欢迎直接的反馈。所以有一个问题——你可能也在 Twitter 上看到了——我问大家应该问你什么,很多人提了很多问题,其中 Pete 提了一个跟这个方向相关的问题,我就直接读一下。他的问题是:你如何在一个文化中实践彻底坦诚?而大多数文化都是这样的——人们没有准备好接受直接反馈。既然公司文化往往更接近有害同理心,而彻底坦诚更多是一种长期利好而非短期利好,那么如果你对员工太过直接,可能会面临留任风险。你怎么看待这种平衡——既要坦率又不激怒人?还是说你干脆只招聘那些开放且准备好接受直接反馈的人,用这种方式来解决这个问题?
Kim Scott: 我不认为你可以只招聘那些开放且准备好接受直接反馈的人,因为这对我们所有人来说都很难。我想先承认这一点——对我来说也很难。我的意思是,我写了这本书,我从心底里相信它,但有时候对我来说仍然很难。倾听反馈很难,给出反馈也很难。这真的是一件非常困难的事。那个二维矩阵的好处是它让这件事看起来很简单,这很有用,但实际做起来并不简单。总之,回答 Pete 的问题,我认为有几件事可以帮助到你。彻底坦诚确实有一个操作顺序——如果你从主动征求批评开始,你就迈出了改善与对方关系的第一步,也是最重要的一步,这会让给出反馈和接受反馈都变得更容易。
征求反馈的具体步骤
Kim Scott: 我想给大家一些关于如何征求反馈的具体步骤,尤其是如果你是一位上司,这很重要,但它适用于你所有的关系,在家里也一样可以用。如果你问”你对我有什么反馈吗?“——那就是白费口舌。对方会说”没有,一切都好”。你生命中除了你十几岁的孩子——如果你有十几岁的孩子的话,他们是真的想批评你——除此之外没有谁真的想批评你。所以你要想清楚怎么问,用最有可能引出回答的方式去问。我喜欢问的问题是:“我可以做什么或停止做什么,让跟我合作变得更轻松?“但不要照抄我的问题,因为如果你听起来像 Kim Scott 而不像你自己,别人就不会相信你真的想要答案。它必须听起来像你自己说的话。
我之前和 Christa Quarles 合作过,当时她是 OpenTable 的 CEO。她说:“Kim,我完全无法想象那些话从我嘴里说出来。“她说:“我喜欢问的方式是——告诉我哪里错了。“这也行,这个问题要求对方必须回答。但当然,她团队里有几个人觉得这太强势了,反而让他们不敢说话,所以她不得不调整自己的问题。保持真实不意味着忽视你对他人产生的影响。所以你要想好自己的问题,想好要问谁。如果每个人现在就能写下自己的问题和要问的对象,然后把它放进日程表里,这将是所有播客中最有成效的一期。
Lenny: 那我们在这上面多花点时间吧。你推荐他们怎么做?选谁?你建议选多少人,向多少人征求反馈?
Kim Scott: 如果你是一位管理者,你需要每周向每位直属下属征求反馈。我建议在一对一会议的最后留出五分钟来做这件事。一对一会议主要应该是你的员工设定议程,是员工的时间。顺便说一下,当你需要给出反馈时不要攒着——不要攒到一对一会议时才给,更不要攒到绩效评估时才给,要在当时就给。这一点我们稍后可以多聊。但回到征求反馈,在一对一会议最后留出五分钟,问那个你惯用的问题。你也要向与你合作最紧密的跨部门同事和你的上司问这个问题。我觉得你不要每次都问同一个问题,那样会开始让人觉得你并不是真的想知道答案,但你要把这件事变成你和最常互动的人之间日常每周惯例的一部分。
Lenny: 所以你在一对一会议议程的最后加了这个环节,这个问题的两个版本是”我做错了什么”——这就是你迭代出来的那个对吧。
Kim Scott: 告诉我哪里错了,或者我做错了什么,或者我可以做什么或停止做什么让跟我合作变得更轻松?或者我应该停止做什么?我应该开始做什么?我应该继续做什么?这些是常见的几种。Lenny,你喜欢问什么?
Lenny: 我记得大概是类似于”有什么一件事我可以做得更好”,或者”有什么一种方式我可以帮你取得更大的成功”?
找到属于你自己的问题
Kim Scott: 这个很好。“有什么一种方式我可以帮你取得更大的成功?“或者我的联合创始人 Jason Rosoff 喜欢问的是”这周我本可以做什么?“——他给它加了一个时间范围。“这周我本可以做什么来更好地支持你的工作?“事实上,Jason 在我们一起工作大约一个月后跟我说:“Kim,我真的不喜欢你那个惯用问题。“他说:“对我来说太开放了。如果你能告诉我你在做什么,然后在会议结束时具体问我注意到了什么,那会好得多。”
Lenny: 多少次你会接受对方不给答案?就是那种”没有,一切都很好”。
Kim Scott: 从不。
Lenny: 从不。
Kim Scott: 从不。我的意思是,确实有些人不喜欢被突然点到。所以如果我能看出我在让对方遭受一种残酷而非寻常的折磨,我会说:“你看,你知道我不完美,我也知道自己不完美。下次见面时,我希望你留意一些东西、想到一些东西。你能帮我做的最有帮助的一件事,就是在我错的时候告诉我,因为我需要知道。”
实际上,安迪·格鲁夫(Andy Grove)在担任 Intel CEO 时,以前在一对一会议结束时会对人说”还有一件事”。他跟我解释说,那在 Intel 是暗号,意思是”这是最重要的事”。我当时在苹果工作,就说:“哦,这是你从乔布斯那里学来的吗?“因为乔布斯每次都是这样引出的——“还有一件事,iPad”。安迪立刻变得很不高兴,很受冒犯,他说:“不,我们都是从《神探哥伦布》(Colombo)那里学来的。那部侦探剧。“你真的可以从任何地方获取技巧。但你要确保让对方知道你确实在乎他们说的话,当他们给你批评性反馈时你要给予奖励。但这还不是结束。问那个问题只是第一步。不管你多么认真地思考你的问题,不管它多么好,坏消息是——对方仍然会感到不舒服。不存在什么情感麻醉剂。这就是为什么我不相信话术。人们以为只要我说出那些神奇的词语,门就会打开——不是这样的。它是一种一来一往。所以你要做好准备去拥抱那种不舒服。唯一的出路就是穿过去。
拥抱沉默与不适
拥抱不适感最简单的方法就是闭上嘴,数到六。
(刚才只数到了三,你的眼睛就瞪出来了。)
Lenny: 那太长了。
Kim Scott: 六秒钟是一段很长的时间。几乎没有人能忍受六整秒的沉默,所以他们多半会跟你说些什么。现在你把这个可怜的人拉到了一个他们根本不想去的对话枝头上,他们大概会说点什么。第三步是确保你带着理解的意图去倾听,而不是带着回应的意图。因为你很可能会感到防御,这没关系——这不意味着你低人一等,也不意味着你在拒绝反馈。这只意味着你是人。这就是整个过程的一部分。你要想办法管理自己对批评性反馈的自然防御反应——这种反应很可能会有。我能给大家提供的最简单的策略就是想一些后续问题。
奖励坦率
Kim Scott: 不久前,我女儿在早餐时对我说:“妈妈,我希望你不是那个’彻底坦诚’女士。“家长式内疚感立刻像潮水一样涌上来,我心想,啊,我在工作上花了太多时间。她想让我多陪陪她。我不应该出差这么多。但随后我又想,我应该问问她,确认自己理解对了。我这是在匆忙下结论,我没有带着理解的意图去倾听。于是我问了一个后续问题,我说:“那你希望我是什么女士?“她说:“我希望你是那个少管闲事的女士。“——在她看来,我倒可以多花点时间在工作上。所以你要确保自己真正理解对方在说什么。一旦你确信自己真的理解了,并且对此保持了开放态度,最后也是最重要的一步就是:奖励这份坦率。
一个人冒了很大的风险来给你批评性反馈,尤其是当这个人是你的下属时。如果你不充分回报这份风险,你以后再也得不到任何反馈了。如果你同意这条反馈,就去解决问题,让你的倾听变得可见——大声说出来。某某告诉我休息室的茶很难喝,现在我们有三十五种茶了。谢谢你告诉我。这样可以向人们证明,来找你不是白费口舌。你一旦发现问题就会去解决。另外,你还想在解决问题之后再次征求反馈:我是矫枉过正了,还是纠正得不够?
我在 Google 的老板——就是之前那个故事里的同一个老板——有一次给我反馈,说我做事节奏太快。她说:“Kim,直到有人跟你说你太慢了,你才算真正纠正了这个问题。“所以当你收到批评性反馈时,你应该朝着矫枉过正的方向去做。不过我也想暂停一下,谈谈当你收到一条你不同意的批评性反馈时该怎么办,因为这时人很容易觉得卡住了。如果你只是说一句”谢谢反馈”,对方听到的会远不止敷衍了事——甚至更糟。
面对不赞同的反馈
所以你要做的是,从对方说的话中找出你能认同的那百分之五或百分之十,把它说出来。然后你要说:“至于其余的部分,我想想一想,然后再回复你。“然后你必须真的回复他们。你需要给出一个尊重性的解释,说明你为什么不同意。人们很容易觉得分歧会危及我们的关系,但真正危及关系的不是分歧,而是没有说出口的分歧。我不知道你怎么想,Lenny,但我很多最好的职业关系都是从一次良好的、相互尊重的分歧开始的。
Lenny: 有意思。这让我想起在 Netflix 上看《鱿鱼游戏》真人秀——你看过吗?
Kim Scott: 我还没看,但已经在我的清单上了。
Lenny: 里面有个人替整个团队做了一个很大的错误决定,节目里大家都恨他。然后在 TikTok 上他分享说,他们现在反而是最好的朋友,虽然当时骂他是大傻瓜。
Kim Scott: 哈哈,确实有可能。
Lenny: 你当初爱上打造产品是有原因的,但有时候日常现实跟想象中有点不一样……(此处为广告,已跳过)
回顾获取反馈的步骤
Lenny: 所以大致回顾一下从他人那里获取反馈的步骤:提出你的问题,比如”本周我有什么可以做的事能让你更成功?“然后可能等六秒钟——或者尽力去等,虽然这很难。问几个后续问题确保你理解了他们在说什么,然后想办法奖励他们,说谢谢。
Kim Scott: 不只是说谢谢,要做更多。
Lenny: 尤其是当你不同意的时候,这是其中非常有趣的一个细微之处。我之前请 Jules Walter 上过播客。每当想到获取反馈,我就会想起他。他分享了这样一个建议:收到反馈时,要非常感激,这样人们才会继续给你反馈。就像他会说”非常感谢你的反馈”,他就是这样措辞的。哪怕你内心已经在融化,非常讨厌这条反馈,也要说”谢谢,我真的很感激”。但我认为你提到的那个细微之处非常关键——如果你确实不同意,我很喜欢那个建议,就是:让我想想这一部分,然后真的去跟进。
Kim Scott: 即使你内心在融化,如果你嘴上说谢谢但内心在融化——也许你演技很好,但通常别人看得出来。这就是为什么我说仅仅说谢谢是不够的。你必须解决问题,然后展示你做了什么来解决它,并获取更多反馈:我矫枉过正了还是纠正得不够?如果你不同意,你必须表达你的不同意,但要以尊重的方式说出来。
Lenny: 作为领导者,每周做这些听起来工作量很大。如果你有一对一会议,要跟进、纠正各种事情。你在这方面有什么建议吗?还是说这确实非常重要,你必须腾出时间?
Kim Scott: 这比起不这样做所带来的后果,工作量并不算大——我们从 Bob 的故事里已经看到了。我觉得我发现的重要的一点是,这就是为什么即时处理如此关键——对对方重要,对你也一样重要。如果你是在一对一会议中做这件事——反正你本来就应该有一对一会议——你实际上是在一对一时间里省下了时间,所以不一定会增加你一天中的时间。当你听说问题时,你应该去解决。是的,这需要时间,但这本来就是你的工作。当你不同意某件事时,你可以在下一次定期的一对一会议中表达不同意。所以我说的不是在你的日历上加会议,实际上并不会占用更多时间。我发现它实际上节省了大量时间——但它确实需要情感上的自律。
给反馈的时间管理
Kim Scott: 我还认为,尤其是当你要给反馈的时候——我们之前讨论过,谦逊、有帮助,这些都是即兴的两分钟对话,是你应该在会议间隙进行的反馈。在我说的那个故事里,和我一起走去开会——我的老板给我那番反馈根本没有占用额外时间。她反正要去开会,我也正好同路。所以对我来说连额外时间都没花。但我认为,除了害怕报复和那种说不清道不明的恐惧感之外——这两个因素确实存在,希望我们已经帮你缓解了一些——人们不做这件事最常见的原因之一,就是你的日程被会议排得满满当当,会议之间根本没有那两分钟。
所以我认为,要么在日历里留出弹性时间——把 30 分钟的会议改成 25 分钟,一小时的会议改成 50 分钟,也许在一天中给自己留几个休息时段。但如果做不到——在我的职业生涯中,很多时候我也没办法这样安排时间——我就认定这些管理时刻比准时参加下一个会议更重要。所以有时候我就是迟到。我希望我能给出一个更好的答案,而不是要么”控制你的时间”——这条建议真的很烦人,因为根本做不到——要么”甘愿迟到”。但这些就是我尝试过的办法。
Lenny: 这非常有帮助。你说的那个观点——如果你现在不腾出两分钟做这件事,以后花的时间会多得多。
Kim Scott: 没错。这些两分钟的事情就是”小洞不补,大洞吃苦”,而且说真的,这应该像刷牙和用牙线一样日常。这不是根管治疗。这是你应该一直在做的关系维护。
Lenny: 我刚好在读 Charlie Munger 的书,他引用了一句经典的话——一分预防胜过十分治疗。
Kim Scott: 是的,完全同意。
员工如何向上反馈
Lenny: 同样的道理。我们已经讨论了领导者获取反馈的情况。如果你是员工呢?你也建议在一对一会议中用同样的方式,设一个议程项来问这个问题吗?还是有不同的推荐做法?
Kim Scott: 是的,如果你是员工,也应该定期向老板征求反馈。这里有一个操作顺序——无论你是谁,都应该先征求反馈。对上、对下、对平级都是一样的,虽然感觉上很不一样,但操作顺序是相同的。先从征求反馈开始,然后你既要给予表扬,也要给予批评。我觉得有时候给老板表扬会让人觉得你在拍马屁,但老板也需要表扬。如果你的老板做了一些你欣赏的事情,你希望他多做,表扬比批评是更好的工具。到了要给老板批评性反馈的时候——顺便说一句,这同样适用于给员工、配偶或你生活中的任何人批评性反馈——你要确保自己准备好去衡量反馈的着陆情况。
所以你要从一个相对中性的起点开始。你不想一上来就走到”直接挑战”的极端,因为那样你就会落入恶意攻击。回到我那个故事,我的老板一开始说的是,“你说’um’说得很多,你意识到这一点了吗?""没有。“那是我的回应。然后她说,“我认识一个很好的演讲教练,要不要给你介绍一个?""不要。“所以她不得不一步步在”直接挑战”上走得更远。她一开始并没有说”你说’um’每隔三个词就说一次,听起来很蠢”。但她意识到她必须说到那个程度。所以如果你觉得对方在敷衍你,你要继续往前推进。但如果你发现老板看起来要么难过要么生气,那就是你该在”个人关怀”维度上提升的信号。
感知反馈的着陆
暂停一下,如果你发现你的员工看起来难过或生气——如果看起来难过,停下来,说”我觉得我可能没有用最好的方式表达。你觉得我怎么说会更好?“这样意味着你在”个人关怀”维度上提升了,但你没有在”直接挑战”上往错误的方向退。我不知道你怎么想,Lenny,但如果我对某人说了什么,对方看起来难过了,我很想把这些话收回来——“哦不,没什么大不了的,我不是那个意思。“但这确实是大不了的,我确实是那个意思,所以我才说了。如果你在”直接挑战”上走错方向,你就会落入有害同理心,然后对方既难过又困惑,你反而让事情变得更糟。
所以你要停下来,关注当下的情绪,但不要在”直接挑战”上往回退。对方生气也是一样——不过对方生气时可能更难应对。如果有人开始对我大喊大叫,我要么也想喊回去然后落入恶意攻击,要么退缩到一个自我保护式的虚伪逢迎中。所以相反,我努力做的是好奇而非愤怒——这个人为什么这么生气?所以我会说,看,也许我的表达方式不对,但这是一个重要的问题,我们需要解决它。
Lenny: 这又回到了你之前说的那个观点——给反馈时尽量当面或打电话,正是为了做到你现在说的这些,在给反馈的过程中读取对方的反应,判断该沿哪个维度调整。
Kim Scott: 对,你需要去衡量。我们与他人交流时,同时在情感层面和理性层面进行沟通。如果我们忽视对方传递的情感信号,或者说”别往心里去”,那我们就无法很好地沟通。
改变低自我觉察的领导者
Lenny: 顺着这个方向,还有一个问题,来自你们项目的一位教练——我想她是在你的项目里工作或合作的。她问的是,很多高层领导者自我觉察能力很低。他们认为恶意攻击是给反馈的唯一方式,或者干脆无视问题,不给任何反馈就直接开除人。关于如何改变他们对这种做法的看法,你有没有学到什么?
Kim Scott: 对于这类领导者,你能做的最重要的事情就是向他们解释他们所造成的影响,同时向他们展示还有另一种能帮助他们成功的方式。很多时候,那些在”个人关怀”维度上得分低的领导者,他们确实关心自己的业绩,也关心自己的职业发展。所以当你从开明的自利角度向他们解释这件事时,他们往往会变得更好。而且——我回想了一下,也许只遇到过一两个我合作过的真正缺乏关怀的人,真正不关心的人。更多时候,人们只是不善于表达关怀,但他们实际上是关心的。还有些领导者认为自己不应该关心。所以释放他们天生具备的关怀能力,告诉他们这其实是工作的一部分,可以让他们成为更出色、更高效的领导者。但是,如果有人是个心理变态,真的毫不在乎,那他就不应该当管理者。这就是解决办法。
Lenny: 我完全理解这个观点。我非常喜欢这个收获。基本上就是向他们展示他们造成的影响,因为正如你所说,他们希望公司成功,希望团队成功。如果他们没有意识到自己的管理方式有负面影响……
Kim Scott: 而且他们也希望自己成功。这就是为什么我说恶意攻击的问题之一是你伤害了别人,但它也是低效的,因为当你那样行事时,人们听不进你在说什么,你等于白费口舌。
收集影响反馈的方法
Lenny: 那么向他们展示这种影响的方式呢?你是否建议去采访员工、收集故事、观察——我不知道,你是怎么收集这些影响信息,好让他们意识到”哦,天哪,我没意识到这些”?
Kim Scott: 我认为最好的做法——至少对我来说是这样——是从分享我职业生涯中的故事开始,分享我当混蛋的那些故事。很遗憾,我也做过不少次混蛋。我会展示我造成的影响,然后请他们讲一个类似的故事。通常我这样对自己照镜子,也有助于他们对自己照镜子,意识到你想帮助这些人在这类事情上建立成长型心态。我不是在说你是混蛋。我是在说我们所有人有时都会表现得像混蛋。这对我们自己和周围的人都是一个大问题。这是我的故事,我当混蛋的那次,你的呢?而人们——那种自我觉察,有时人们把被迫的自我洞察说成是某种负担,但通常那种自我觉察反而让人感到轻松。他们会说:“啊,现在我知道问题出在哪儿了,而且我知道我能怎么解决它。”
Lenny: 对,我确实注意到你的故事都是这样——总是你自己犯错,我觉得这非常让人放下防备。
Kim Scott: 我们都会犯错。
Bridgewater 的极端做法
Lenny: 是的。也许这种恶意攻击的极端例子就是 Bridgewater。他们整个做法就像是——
Kim Scott: 天哪。你读过《The Fund》那本书吗?
Lenny: 还没有。
Kim Scott: 你一定要读。那本书讲的全是 Bridgewater。我一直觉得他们的做法有问题,但我完全不知道问题有多严重。把那本书放到节目备注里——这是过去十年我读过的最好的商业书籍之一。
Lenny: 哇,这是很高的评价。好的,我会去读。对于那些不太了解的人,Bridgewater 鼓励——他们有一个叫 Dots 的系统,要求人们在每次会议后当众给出尖锐的批评反馈。
Kim Scott: 不是会议后,是在会议中,公开的。而且会被录下来——我想他们后来改了——但当时会录下来永久保存。有时候,说个真实的故事——我离开 Google 后不久,有人找我去做 Bridgewater 的管理工作,不是投资方面的工作。于是我给一个我认识的在那里工作的人打了电话,他说:“我给你讲一件事。“他说:“前几天有个会议,会上有位女士犯了一个错误,所有人都群起攻之。批评非常针对个人,完全没有用 CORE 方法。就是说’你的人格特质让你毫无价值’这类话。简直是可怕的反馈——直到她哭了出来,而整个会议都被录了下来,然后他们把会议录像发给了全公司所有人,包括所有没参加那场会议的人,说这是如何进行……的示范。“所以我要说,这是深度的、黑暗的恶意攻击。那不是彻底坦诚。那是可怕的。
Lenny: 所以可以稳妥地说,你并不认可那种做法?
Kim Scott: 不认可。实际上,我对 Dalio 的《原则》那本书做过分析——那是一本大概三四百页的书。其中大概只有四五页是关于关心人的。“个人关怀”的成分非常低。
“暴君式领导”的迷思
Lenny: 我猜很多人会看到这些——他们看到 Elon,看到 Steve Jobs,印象中他们是非常”直接挑战”型的人,看不出他们”关心你”,但他们非常成功。对于那些说”但这招管用啊,如果我想这样做,为什么不这样做呢”的人,你怎么回应?
Kim Scott: 首先,我不会把 Steve Jobs 和 Ray Dalio、Elon Musk 放在同一类。我的意思是,Steve Jobs 有时也会有恶意攻击的行为,但总体来说,我认为他与直属下属建立了非常好的关系——当他得了癌症时,Tim Cook 提出要把自己的一半肝脏给他。除了”爱”,我不知道还能用什么词来形容那种关系。那是真正的人际关系。我在 Apple 工作时,你可以看到 Steve 和 Jony 在交谈,你能看出来这些人彼此关心。而彻底坦诚的衡量标准不是在说话者的嘴里,而是在听者的耳朵里。我认为 Steve 身边组建的团队,都是一些不在意——用其他人的标准来看会被视为恶意攻击——的人。但在他们关系的语境中,我认为那被理解为关怀。
我给你举个我自己职业生涯中的例子——我不是在拿自己跟 Steve Jobs 比,我觉得自己比他温和得多——但有时候我和某些人建立了关系,那段关系的一部分就是我们彼此施压比较狠。有一个人,我和他一起工作了很长时间,很多年。他跟着我从一家公司到另一家公司,我们在做产品本地化,他老是把 Slovakia(斯洛伐克)和 Slovenia(斯洛文尼亚)搞混。我纠正了他一次,纠正了他两次,第三次我说:“是 Slovakia,不是 Slovenia,白痴。”
他笑了,在我们关系的语境中这没问题,但我意识到周围的人被我的行为吓到了。他们会想:“天哪,我可不想犯错,不然 Kim 要骂我白痴了。“所以我不得不停下来解释说:“看,我非常尊重这个人,我也非常喜欢这个人。我们合作得非常好。“所以我认为有时候某些人之间的关系在公开场合展现时,会被其他人误读。
Steve Jobs 并不完美,他犯过各种各样的错误,但他不是 Ray Dalio 或 Elon Musk——我会说后面两位犯的错误更多、更严重、更过分。而且我觉得你提出了一个非常重要的问题。你提出的观点是,存在一种虚假的二分法。事实上,Elon Musk 的新传记也落入了这个窠臼。我很喜欢 Walter Isaacson 的作品,但他在写 Elon Musk 传记时也中了这种陷阱——就是那种我们必须在”做个混蛋但能力很强”和”做个好人但能力不行”之间二选一的说法。这不是我们仅有的两个选择。这正是彻底坦诚的核心要义——存在另一种更好的方式,而且不会伤害人。
Lenny: 我认为关键的收获就是你如果深入地关怀,其实可以更成功。理论上,如果他们能让员工感受到真心关怀,他们本可以从员工身上获得更多。
Kim Scott: 而且有很多反例——极其成功的人同时也是非常关怀型的领导者,只是这类故事没那么有趣,所以我们不那么经常讲。
找到自己的真实领导风格
Lenny: 顺着这个方向,有一位和你共事过的人建议我问你关于”投资于你真实的领导风格”这个话题——Melissa Tan。不知道你还记不记得她。
Kim Scott: 记得。
Lenny: 太好了。她之前上过我的播客,她说她刚认识你的时候,是一个非常讨好型的人,就是想一味迎合,而你帮助她发展出了她自然的领导风格。你能谈谈你建议人们如何找到属于自己的领导风格吗?
讨好型人格与直接挑战
Kim Scott: 我很好奇 Melissa 会怎么说,但根据我和她交谈的记忆——这也是我经常谈到的一个问题,因为我本人也是个讨好型的人。我在南方长大,又是个女性,我从小受的教育不是直接挑战别人,那不是我成长文化的一部分。我被教导要礼貌,但也被教导要善良。对我而言,最重要的是守住那份根本的善意,并意识到不说出该说的话,实际上才是不善良的。这也是我鼓励大家的原因之一。我经常讲 Bob 的故事,也鼓励与我合作的其他领导者想想他们自己的 Bob 故事——你会意识到,从长远来看,不指出别人的错误并不好。
从长远来看,看到别人犯错却不说,那才是真正的不善良。这件事没有任何好处。所以,至少对我而言,这一点很有帮助。另一件有帮助的事,同样是将注意力转向他人——不去取悦别人,而是为这些人做正确的事,真正关心这些人,超过关心自己当下的不适。这比单纯去直接挑战别人要容易做到。我认为在很多方面,关键在于什么东西在阻碍你。这就是为什么我称之为”有害同理心”。同理心是好事,但有时候同理心会让人瘫痪——至少对我而言如此,因为我太敏锐地感受到我即将说的话可能如何影响对方、可能伤害他们的感情,以至于我什么都不说了。
所以当我推动自己去做到——你也可以称之为”富有同理心的坦率”,如果你觉得这比”彻底坦诚”更好的话——当我推动自己不要那么敏锐地去感受我自以为对方可能会有的感受时——顺便说一句,我对对方感受的判断可能是错的,他们往往觉得没什么大不了的,会说”哦,谢谢你告诉我。“——当我能放下这一点,去想想对方,想想我关心的和对方关心的关于他们未来的事情,回到你刚才说的那一点:如果你知道某人非常想获得晋升,但他们如果继续用某种方式跟人说话就永远升不上去,那么你就聚焦在他们想要的东西上,这对于跨越那个障碍真的非常有帮助。
读者的常见误解
Lenny: 在结束之前还有几个问题。你的书卖了大概五十万册?
Kim Scott: 现在一百万了。
Lenny: 一百万册。
Kim Scott: 一百万册,二十三种语言,是的。
Lenny: 二十三种语言,我之前的数据还是二十种语言。天哪。所以有很多人读过,有很多人在实践它。有什么东西是人们经常搞错的,让你特别沮丧?关于这套体系、这些建议,你最希望大家能意识到——“这才是我真正想说的”,或者”这才是你应该调整的”——是什么?
Kim Scott: 有两件事。正如我之前提到的,当你写了一本关于反馈的书,你会收到大量的反馈。第一件是——有人会说”我这是本着《彻底坦诚》的精神”,然后表现得像个混蛋。那不是《彻底坦诚》的精神,那是恶意攻击的精神。但在书出版后不久,我在旧金山一家科技公司做演讲,我从那位公司 CEO 那里得到了一些非常有冲击力的反馈,促使我写了下一本书,也就是《彻底尊重》。在很多方面,《彻底尊重》可以说是《彻底坦诚》的前传,因为如果你不尊重对方,就不可能关心他们,也不会费心去直接挑战他们。
那么在那次会议中发生了什么呢?我走进去,非常兴奋要做这场演讲。那位 CEO 与我共事了大近十年,她是我非常敬重和喜欢的人,也是科技行业乃至任何行业中为数不多的黑人女性 CEO 之一。演讲结束后,她把我拉到一边说:“Kim,我很期待推广《彻底坦诚》,我觉得它真的能帮助我建立我想要的那种职业生涯。“但她说:“我得告诉你,对我来说推广它比你难得多。“她接着解释说,每她向别人提出哪怕最温和、最富有同理心的批评,别人就会叫她”愤怒的黑人女人”。她一说完我就知道这是真的,我也知道这有多么不公平,因为她是我共事过的人中最沉稳、最开朗的人之一。
她告诉我这件事时,我同时意识到了好几件事。第一,我并没有成为我理想中、我自以为是的那种同事。我甚至没有注意到,在我们共同参加的每一次会议中,她不得不始终表现得无可挑剔地开朗和友善,尽管她完全有理由像我们所有人一样对工作中的事情感到不满。所以我没有成为一个站出来维护她的人,一个好同事。第二,我也意识到,当我自己遭遇不同形式的偏见、歧视和霸凌时,我同样选择了忽视。我觉得部分原因是,作为一本名为《彻底坦诚》的书的作者,很难承认自己一直在逃避现实。但我确实在逃避自己在职场中经历过的一些事情。
我假装很多事情没有发生,而它们实际上在发生。我觉得部分原因是,我从不想把自己看作受害者,但比不想当受害者更强烈的,是我不想当施害者。所以对于那些我说过或做过伤害同事的事情——说过或做过的带有偏见甚至更糟的事情——我逃避得更加彻底。我以前霸凌过别人。顺便说一句,当你成为领导者时,你更容易出现霸凌行为,即使你并不认为自己是霸凌者——我当然不认为自己是霸凌者——但这不意味着我从未霸凌过任何人。最后一件事是,作为领导者,我以为自己在营造一个没有废话的环境,但实际上我放任了各种各样的废话横行。这就是促使我写下一本书《彻底尊重》的原因,这本书现在可以预购,请大家多多支持。
《彻底尊重》新书介绍
Lenny: 这正是我接下来想问的。多讲讲这本书吧,它是关于什么的?在哪里可以找到?
Kim Scott: 《彻底尊重》五月出版,现在可以预购。无论你在哪里买书都可以——当地的独立书店也行,我很快就要在一个独立书店店主大会上做演讲;你也可以在亚马逊、Barnes & Noble 或其他任何你买书的地方预购。
Lenny: 你觉得它最适合谁读?
Kim Scott: 书中有一些章节讲的是领导者可以做的事情,有一些章节讲的是如果你遭受偏见、歧视或霸凌可以怎么做,有一些章节讲的是如何成为一个好的挺身而出者、一个更好的同事,还有一些章节讲的是当你自己是施害者时,如何成为解决方案的一部分而不是问题的一部分。我认为我们所有人都会在不同的时刻身处这四种角色之中,我不认为有任何一个群体能单独解决这个问题。创造一个更受尊重的工作环境,每个人都有责任。
Lenny: 太好了,我们会在节目简介里附上链接。
Kim Scott: 太棒了。
Lenny: 最后给大家一个非常实操的下一步行动——本周、今天,有什么一件事情是他们可以做来提升《彻底坦诚》的能力、开始锻炼那块肌肉的?
实操建议:写下你的反馈请求话术
Kim Scott: 我希望大家都能写下自己的”常备问题”——你嘴里会说出的话是什么——然后练习它。对着镜子练习,然后跟朋友练习,再打磨它。就想清楚该怎么说,因为向他人征求反馈确实令人不太舒服。他们不想给你反馈,你也并不真的想听。所以如果每个人都能写下自己的常备问题,然后在日历上安排五分钟,约一个你要去问的人。
Lenny: 关于那个日历事项,我本来就想回来说这个。一对一会议的议程上加问题是给有一对一的人的,日历事项是给没有一对一会议的人的——挑一个你不是经常见面的人去问。
Kim Scott: 完全正确。或者加到你下一次一对一会议议程的末尾,也行。两种都可以。
Lenny: 太棒了。Kim,在我们进入非常令人期待的快问快答环节之前,还有什么想对大家说的吗?
Kim Scott: 我只想提醒大家,你不必在成功和做一个混蛋之间做选择。你可以做一个成功的善良之人。
快问快答
Lenny: 哦,我太喜欢这句话了。太棒了。好,那我们就此进入非常令人期待的快问快答环节。准备好了吗?
Kim Scott: 准备好了。
Lenny: 你最常向别人推荐的两三本书是什么?你已经提到了几本,但你想分享什么?
Kim Scott: 好,我已经提了几本。请大家务必购买《彻底尊重》。我相信人们读的小说越多越好。人们经常问我,怎样才能在《彻底坦诚》的”个人关怀”维度上有所提升?——多读小说!这是我所知道的建立对他人的同理心、理解向你传来的情感信号的最佳方式。我最喜欢的小说包括《米德尔马契》(Middlemarch),我一直在反复重读。Toni Morrison 写的任何作品我都喜欢,《最蓝的眼睛》(The Bluest Eye)是我最爱的之一,《所罗门之歌》(Song of Solomon)也是。她是一位才华横溢的作家,能帮助你走进你未曾走进过的人的生活。Virginia Woolf 的《奥兰多》(Orlando)是我的另一本最爱。还有 Robertson Davies 的”德普特福德三部曲”(Deptford Trilogy),是一套非常精彩的小说。我现在在作弊了,给了你三个。
Lenny: 越多越好。
Kim Scott: 是的,还有 Alice Walker 的《紫色》(The Color Purple),也是我非常喜欢的书之一,所以我推荐大家多读小说。
Lenny: 我很喜欢这种对小说的推崇,这在我们的播客上不常见到,所以非常好。你最近非常喜欢的一部电影或电视剧是什么?
Kim Scott: 在疫情期间和疫情之后,我和我女儿一起看完了《实习医生格蕾》(Grey’s Anatomy)全部十九季。真的很开心。
Lenny: 说来也巧,我和我妻子做了同样的事。我们没有看完所有季,但也看了很多《实习医生格蕾》。
Kim Scott: 我们每一集都看了。它现在还在播。
Lenny: 对,看哪些角色留下来、哪些角色死掉或离开,挺有意思的。
Kim Scott: 没错,就是这种感觉。
Lenny: 哎呀。好的,挺有意思的。
Kim Scott: 还有 Shonda Rhimes,去看看她的 TED 演讲,非常了不起的人。
Lenny: 好的,我们会在节目笔记里放链接。你有没有一个最喜欢的面试问题,在面试别人时喜欢问的,可能会对正在面试的人有帮助的?
Kim Scott: 我喜欢问的问题是:“给我讲讲你的职业故事。“我知道这个问题听起来好像——也许它——看起来像是个 softball(简单问题),但实际上它可能出乎意料地难。不过也不一定是那种不公平的难。但无论怎样,我从人们讲述自己生活和职业生涯的方式中总能学到很多。然后我会做的是,他们会说到一些让我特别感兴趣的地方,我就会像双击一样深入追问那几个方面的细节。我喜欢听人的人生故事,所以对我来说这是一次更有趣的对话。人们通常也喜欢谈论自己,所以对他们来说也不太痛苦,而且你还能了解到各种意想不到的事情。
Lenny: 在回答中你有没有在寻找什么——比如”这是个值得雇佣的人”的信号,还是主要就是收集大量背景信息?
Kim Scott: 我发现从一个人讲故事的方式中,我能了解他如何应对挫折。我能看出一个人是否能够识别自己犯过的错误。我的意思是,如果你说”给我讲讲你的职业故事”,如果里面没有几个错误,那就有问题了。当他们谈到自己的成就时,我进一步深入追问,能了解到这个人到底真正做了什么。有时候一个人会声称某件事是他做的,但其实那件事只是碰巧发生了,他实际上参与得很少。我经常能发现这一点。我觉得这是了解人们技能和知识深度的好方法。
Lenny: 有没有你最近发现的、非常喜欢的产品?
Kim Scott: 有。我喜欢一个叫 Attitude 的新品牌,他们做洗发皂和护发皂,用纸板包装,外面再包一层纸,完全没有塑料。更加环保,而且我是长发,用起来头皮很清爽,护发效果也很好,所以我推荐。
Lenny: 非常独特的推荐。你有没有一个最喜欢的座右铭,经常对自己重复、与人分享,或者在工作或生活中觉得值得反复回味的?
Kim Scott: “那不是刻薄,那是清晰。“这是有人在曼哈顿街头对我说的。这其实就是《彻底坦诚》的起源故事。我当时在遛狗,差点被一辆出租车撞到,然后一个完全陌生的人看着我说:“我看得出来你很爱那条狗。“仅凭这句话,他就已经在”个人关怀”维度上得分了。但他接着说:“你要是不教她坐下,你会害死她的。“然后他指着地面,做了一个有点严厉的手势,说:“坐下。“狗坐下了——我完全不知道她居然知道这个指令。我惊讶地抬头看着他,他说:“那不是刻薄,那是清晰。“然后灯变了,他就走了,留给我一句终身受用的话。所以我一直在想那个陌生人。
Lenny: 真是一个好故事。最后一个问题。我在网上看到你曾经在莫斯科开过一家钻石切割工厂。能不能讲讲你人生中的这段经历?
在莫斯科开钻石切割工厂
Kim Scott: 好。我大学学的是俄罗斯文学,非常”实用”的专业。然后 1990 年毕业后搬到了当时的苏联。我先是进了一家投资公司,后来他们撤出了俄罗斯,把钱投到了中国。而我想留在俄罗斯,通过朋友的朋友,我找到了一份工作,在一家叫 Lazare Kaplan 的钻石公司——一家总部在纽约的钻石公司——他们当时在研究应该在俄罗斯做什么。我发现了一个开设钻石切割工厂的机会。那实际上是我的第一份管理工作,因为我必须去招募那些钻石切割师,把他们从俄罗斯的钻石切割工厂挖过来,而那时我对管理、商业什么的完全一窍不通。
我学的是俄罗斯文学,我对陀思妥耶夫斯基了如指掌,所以我觉得这应该不难。我心想,卢布正在崩盘,我用美元付工资,他们当然会来我这儿工作。但他们并没有马上接受这份工作。出乎我意料的是,他们想先搞一场野餐。野餐上我们带了一瓶伏特加,而在俄罗斯有一条规矩——一瓶打开,就必须喝完。
一瓶伏特加喝到最后,我意识到我能提供的、而国家不能给他们的,是真正在乎他们。他们想知道,如果局势恶化,我会不会是一个能把他们带出俄罗斯的管理者。你可以想象,我一直很惦记他们——他们都是男性——惦记着这些人,因为我没能把他们带出来。俄罗斯对乌克兰所做的一切让我痛心疾首,但正是在那一刻,我意识到管理真的很重要,而要做好管理,你必须关心他人。正是这一点让管理对我来说变得有意义。
Lenny: 天哪,作为管理者的第一份工作就这么沉重。
Kim Scott: 是的,确实如此。
Lenny: 哇,Kim,这期太棒了。我想我们会帮助很多人成为更好的领导者,帮助很多公司改变他们的文化。非常荣幸你能接受这次访谈。最后两个问题。第一,大家在网上哪里可以找到你,进一步了解你的工作?第二,听众怎样才能帮到你?
Kim Scott: 我们的网站是 radicalcandor.com,我不太用 Twitter/X 了,但你可以在那里找到我们。我们在 LinkedIn 上会发很多内容。我觉得大家能帮到我的,就是给我们发个消息。你也可以发邮件到 radicalcandor@radicalcandor.com,告诉我们在这类播客或者我们的材料中,我们还能做什么,才能让你更容易把这些理念付诸实践?因为《彻底坦诚》归根结底是关于行为改变的,听起来简单,做起来却真的很难,我们一直在想办法帮助大家言行一致、知行合一。
Lenny: 我觉得做这期播客本身就会朝这个目标迈出一大步。
Kim Scott: 哦,太好了。
Lenny: Kim,非常感谢你来参加这次访谈。
Kim Scott: 谢谢你,我很享受这次对话。
Lenny: 我也是。大家再见。
Kim Scott: 大家保重。
Lenny: 非常感谢你的收听。如果你觉得这期内容有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅本节目。也请考虑给我们评分或留下评论,这真的能帮助更多听众找到这个播客。你可以在 lennyspodcasts.com 找到所有往期节目或了解更多关于本节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| When They Win, You Win | 《当他们赢,你也赢》(Russ Laraway 的书名,保留原文) |
| Alice Walker | Alice Walker(美国小说家,保留原文) |
| Andy Grove | 安迪·格鲁夫(Intel 前 CEO,公认中文译名) |
| Attitude | Attitude(个人护理品牌名,保留原文) |
| bias, prejudice, and bullying | 偏见、歧视和霸凌 |
| BS free zones | 没有废话的环境 |
| candor | 坦率 |
| care personally | 个人关怀 |
| challenge directly | 直接挑战 |
| Charlie Munger | Charlie Munger(美国投资家、 Berkshire Hathaway 副董事长,保留原文) |
| Christa Quarles | Christa Quarles(时任 OpenTable CEO,保留原文) |
| Colombo | 《神探哥伦布》(美国侦探电视剧) |
| CORE (Context, Observation, Result, Next step) | CORE(背景-观察-结果-下一步) |
| Deptford Trilogy | 德普特福德三部曲(Robertson Davies 的小说三部曲) |
| Devin | Devin(Cognition 公司开发的 AI 软件工程师产品名,保留原文) |
| Dostoyevsky | 陀思妥耶夫斯基(俄国作家,公认中文译名) |
| Dots | Dots(Bridgewater 的内部反馈评价系统,保留原文) |
| Grey’s Anatomy | 《实习医生格蕾》(美国医疗题材电视剧) |
| HHIIPPP | HHIIPPP(Humble, Helpful, Immediate, In person, Praise in public, criticize in Private, not about Personality) |
| Jason Rosoff | Jason Rosoff(Kim Scott 在 Radical Candor 的联合创始人,保留原文) |
| Jony | Jony(指 Jony Ive,Apple 前首席设计官,保留原文) |
| Jules Walter | Jules Walter(播客嘉宾,保留原文) |
| Kim Scott | Kim Scott(嘉宾,保留原文) |
| Lazare Kaplan | Lazare Kaplan(纽约钻石公司名,保留原文) |
| Lenny | Lenny(播客主持人,保留原文) |
| manipulative insincerity | 虚伪逢迎 |
| Melissa Tan | Melissa Tan(播客听众/Lenny 播客嘉宾,保留原文) |
| Middlemarch | 《米德尔马契》(George Eliot 的长篇小说) |
| obnoxious aggression | 恶意攻击 |
| OpenTable | OpenTable(公司名,保留原文) |
| Orlando | 《奥兰多》(Virginia Woolf 的小说) |
| Principles | 《原则》(Ray Dalio 的书名,中文版公认译名) |
| Radical Candor | 《彻底坦诚》(Kim Scott 的书名及核心理念,中文版译名) |
| Radical Respect | 《彻底尊重》(Kim Scott 新书名) |
| Ray Dalio | Ray Dalio(Bridgewater Associates 创始人,保留原文) |
| Robertson Davies | Robertson Davies(加拿大小说家,保留原文) |
| ruinous empathy | 有害同理心 |
| Russ Laraway | Russ Laraway(与 Kim Scott 在 Google 共事过的同事、合创公司合伙人,保留原文) |
| Shonda Rhimes | Shonda Rhimes(美国电视制作人,保留原文) |
| Slovakia | Slovakia(斯洛伐克) |
| Slovenia | Slovenia(斯洛文尼亚) |
| Song of Solomon | 《所罗门之歌》(Toni Morrison 的小说) |
| Squid Games | 《鱿鱼游戏》(Netflix 真人秀节目) |
| The Bluest Eye | 《最蓝的眼睛》(Toni Morrison 的小说) |
| The Color Purple | 《紫色》(Alice Walker 的小说) |
| The Fund | 《The Fund》(关于 Bridgewater 的书名,保留原文) |
| Toni Morrison | Toni Morrison(美国小说家、诺贝尔文学奖得主,保留原文) |
| upstander | 挺身而出者(指在看到不公时主动站出来维护他人的人) |
| Virginia Woolf | Virginia Woolf(英国作家,保留原文) |
| walk the talk | 言行一致、知行合一 |
| Walter Isaacson | Walter Isaacson(美国传记作家,保留原文) |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)