| name | feedback-delivery |
| description | Deliver feedback using Kim Scott's Radical Candor framework - care personally while challenging directly. Use when a leader needs to give difficult feedback, says "I need to tell someone something hard", "how do I give feedback without hurting them", "I've been avoiding a conversation", "my direct report isn't performing", "someone on my team has a blind spot", "I keep sugarcoating things", or "how do I be honest without being a jerk". Also trigger when someone describes being too nice (ruinous empathy) or too harsh (obnoxious aggression), or when they describe avoiding a conversation they know they need to have.
|
Overview
Based on "Radical Candor" by Kim Scott. The core idea: caring about someone does not mean protecting them from hard truths. Ruinous empathy - being "nice" by withholding difficult feedback - actually harms the person more than the feedback would. Radical Candor is the intersection of caring personally (genuine investment in the person) and challenging directly (honest, specific, timely feedback). Both axes matter. High care without directness is ruinous empathy. High directness without care is obnoxious aggression.
The Radical Candor Grid
CHALLENGE DIRECTLY
High
|
Obnoxious | Radical
Aggression | Candor
|
CARE Low ------+------ High CARE
Low |
|
Manipulative | Ruinous
Insincerity | Empathy
|
Low
Most managers who think they are "being nice" are in Ruinous Empathy. Most managers who think they are "being direct" and come across as harsh are in Obnoxious Aggression. Radical Candor requires both axes high simultaneously.
Workflow
Step 1: Identify the Type of Feedback
Before delivering, know what kind of feedback this is:
- Immediate course correction - behavior that needs to stop or change now
- Pattern feedback - a recurring behavior that is limiting the person
- Developmental feedback - honest assessment of a growth area for someone who wants to improve
- Positive reinforcement - specific praise to anchor behavior you want repeated
Each type has the same framework but different urgency and framing.
Step 2: Check Your Care Baseline
Ask yourself: "Do I actually care about this person's success and growth?" If the honest answer is no, or if you are primarily irritated, wait. Feedback delivered from frustration lands as obnoxious aggression regardless of your words.
Signs you're ready:
- You can state what success looks like for this person
- You want them to succeed, not just to stop causing you problems
- You can say one true positive thing about their work before the hard part
Step 3: Apply the SBI Framework
Use Situation-Behavior-Impact to make feedback specific and inarguable.
Situation - the specific context, time, place, meeting
Behavior - the observable action (not interpretation, not character)
Impact - the concrete effect on you, the team, or the work
Template:
In [situation], when you [specific behavior], the impact was [concrete consequence].
Examples:
Ruinous Empathy version: "You're doing great overall, just maybe think about being more communicative with the team."
Radical Candor version: "In the sprint planning meeting on Tuesday, when you didn't share the blocker on the auth service until the end of the meeting, the team had already committed to a two-week timeline that doesn't account for it. We had to replan with engineering for 90 minutes after."
The second version is specific enough that the person can change their behavior. The first version is noise.
Step 4: Deliver It
Timing: as close to the behavior as possible. Delayed feedback loses its anchor to the specific event and feels like a list of grievances.
Setting: 1:1, private. Never in front of others unless the behavior is currently happening and needs immediate correction.
Structure:
- State the observation (SBI)
- Ask for their perspective: "What was going on from your side?"
- Listen without defending your framing
- Agree on a specific change: "Going forward, what would look different?"
Do not:
- Lead with "I feel" when you mean "you did" - this conflates emotional processing with feedback
- Sandwich the feedback between compliments - the compliments dilute the signal
- End with "but you're doing great overall" - this is the person's brain filing the feedback as "not serious"
Step 5: Follow Up
Feedback without follow-up is a lecture. Within 1-2 weeks:
- Observe whether behavior changed
- If it did - acknowledge it specifically: "I noticed you flagged the dependency issue in standup this morning. That's exactly what I was talking about."
- If it didn't - have the conversation again. Repeat feedback is not nagging - it is accountability.
Step 6: Feedback Prep Worksheet
Before a hard conversation, fill this out:
Feedback Prep - [date]
Person: [your direct report or colleague]
Type: [course correction / pattern / developmental / positive]
Situation: [specific time and place]
Behavior: [observable action, no interpretation]
Impact: [concrete consequence on team, work, or you]
Their likely reaction: [defensive / dismissive / upset / receptive]
What I'll do if they get defensive: [specific response plan]
What success looks like for this person: [1-2 sentences]
Change I'm asking for: [specific, observable behavior going forward]
Follow-up plan: [when and what I'll look for]
Anti-Patterns
1. Ruinous empathy disguised as kindness
Bad: Giving vague positive feedback because you don't want to upset someone, then being frustrated when they don't improve.
Good: Specific, direct feedback is a gift. Withholding it because it's uncomfortable is prioritizing your comfort over their development.
2. Character attacks instead of behavior observations
Bad: "You're not a team player."
Good: "In the last three sprint reviews, you didn't mention the work your teammates contributed. The impact is that your teammates feel invisible."
Feedback on character is inarguable and produces defensiveness. Feedback on behavior is specific and actionable.
3. Feedback in public
Bad: Correcting someone's approach in a group meeting.
Good: Pull them aside after. Public correction triggers shame, not reflection. The goal is change, not humiliation.
4. Saving it for the performance review
Bad: Bringing up a pattern from six months ago in an annual review.
Good: Six-month-old feedback is archaeology. Deliver it within a week of the behavior. The review should contain no surprises.
5. Skipping the follow-up
Bad: Giving good feedback once and assuming the job is done.
Good: People revert under pressure. One conversation is a data point. A pattern of consistent feedback is the intervention.
Quality Checklist
