Radical Candor, as popularized by Kim Scott and echoed by Patrick Lencioni—who describes criticizing employees in order to hold them accountable as “an act of love” in his talks about conflict and accountability—is often praised as the ultimate leadership approach to feedback: direct, honest, but rooted in care. It encourages leaders to challenge directly while demonstrating personal investment in their team. But is directness always the best approach? Or is there an even more effective way to create lasting change? That’s the question I asked myself after viewing these videos.
The Evolution of Feedback: From Criticism to Coaching
Organizations typically progress through several stages when it comes to feedback and accountability. Understanding these stages can help leaders transition toward a healthier coaching culture:
The Case for Coaching Over Criticism
Instead of telling someone what’s wrong, coaching invites them to reach their own conclusions. Here’s why that might be a better long-term strategy:
Self-Discovery Leads to Real Change
Direct criticism, no matter how well-intended, often triggers defensiveness. Instead of processing the feedback, the recipient instinctively justifies themselves. Even those skilled at receiving feedback usually cannot avoid the initial amygdala-driven fight-or-flight response, however brief. A well-placed question, however, encourages reflection and self-correction without resistance. Instead of feeling attacked, the recipient recognizes an opportunity for growth.
Coaching Is Just as Fast—If Not Faster
If we measure feedback by how quickly it’s given, candor usually wins. But if we measure by how quickly it’s understood, then coaching has the edge. When someone reaches a realization on their own, they don’t have to spend time resisting before they can accept the truth and that “aha” feeling is much more impactful and memorable.
Criticism Relies on the Assumption of a ‘Correct’ Truth
Radical Candor assumes that the person giving feedback has the right answer. But what if they don’t? Or what if their approach or gesturing is off-putting? Coaching recognizes that improvement isn’t about imposing an external ‘truth’—it’s about guiding people toward better solutions they can own and implement.
Cultural Shifts Make Directness Less Necessary
In a coaching-driven organization, direct challenges become less necessary because people are already conditioned to seek out growth and feedback. Coaching itself becomes the ‘shock’ (albeit a more subtle one) that provokes action—without the tension of direct confrontation.
Radical Candor Still Has a Place
While coaching should be the default, there are moments when directness is warranted:
- Urgency – When a decision needs to be corrected immediately, there’s no time for a reflective process. For example, “Alex, You are showing the wrong PowerPoint deck.” Or, “Fernanda, we agreed that I would be the point-person for this meeting.”
- Extreme Blind Spots – If someone is completely unaware of a damaging behavior, they may need a strong push to even recognize the issue. For example, “Jim, you are yelling. Let’s keep our tone down.” Or, “Stop running, you’re making everyone in the restaurant nervous.”
- Accountability After Coaching Has Failed – If someone repeatedly resists coaching, directness may be the last option.
There are also some instances where a manager might be more direct and a peer less so:
Manager: “Dan, we don’t eat in online meetings.”
Peer: “Dan, have they changed the rules about eating in our Teams meetings?”
When we need Radical Candor, Angus Reid has some great advice regarding trust
The Future of Feedback: Moving Beyond Radical Candor
Radical Candor may be an improvement over harsh criticism, but it’s still a reaction to a flawed feedback culture. Instead of normalizing directness, what if we built organizations where coaching is the norm? A workplace where unsolicited coaching is welcomed, expected, and seen as a form of investment—not critique.
If we truly care about growth, we should move away from critical organizations and toward coaching organizations. Radical Candor may be useful in the short term, but in the long run, mindful colleagues won’t default to challenging directly—they’ll first ask the right questions.
How do you suppose you would respond to these criticisms?
Directness can feel attractive because it creates a sense of progress. But be careful not to confuse your urge to criticize with the most effective way to achieve positive influence and meaningful results.
Vinh Giang chooses a similarly intense and urgent approach—but channels it more constructively. His method takes only a few seconds longer (and significantly more mindfulness), yet it carries far greater potential for lasting positive impact.
The meaning of the message is the response it elicits separate from its intent.
What do you think? Have you experienced a shift from direct feedback to a coaching culture? Thank you for sharing your thoughts in the comments section below.
