Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Candor...can it be too honest???

Candor is an interesting word. It conjures reactions both good and bad. Randomly ask people what they think of the word candor and perhaps you'll get a few of the following responses:
  • It is overly rude. People shouldn't be that honest all the time.
  • It helps you know exactly where you stand.
  • It's okay as long as there is trust with the other person.
  • It feels unnatural to give and receive.
  • Scary.
  • Tough, but necessary.
As a manager I sometimes struggle with candor, and how "candid" to be. Recently I found myself in a meeting (volunteer organization outside of work) where a proposal was offered that felt like a conflict of interest to me. I was somewhat new to the group, largely unfamiliar with the group dynamics, and not familiar with some of the people. When the proposal was laid out on the table I confidentially wrote a note to the leader of the group asking to discuss my concerns offline. We had a nice discussion and it turns out there were others feeling the same as me.

I wondered afterward why I didn't simply address the issue straight on? Or, for that matter, why nobody else did either. Many of the responses above certainly played into my decision. I also didn't want to be the "bad guy", and wasn't sure how the dynamics of the group were handled. There was also the issue that the person involved was a long-time member of the group and sometimes has the reputation of "running the show" even though they have no more influence than anyone else on the board.


If I had the chance to go back and do it again I would candidly address the issue with the group. I would do so professionally, respectfully, and with the intent of turning the discussion into an exploration of how to arrive at the best outcome for all involved. But I would make my concerns known openly and honestly right from the beginning. By waiting to be candid, I did nothing more than waste time; my time, and the time of others, many of whom had that same "offline" conversation with the leader.

In Jack Welch's book Winning: The Answers he states; "once you become a manager, it is your obligation to let everyone who works for you know exactly where they stand. That's how you build the best team - and win." In Winning, he specifically attributes candor to performance evaluations. Really, who does it benefit to withhold candor in a work setting? Nobody! The issues, both good and bad must be addressed head-on, for real, sustainable change to take place (easier said than done...I know).

I believe there are some ingredients that must be present in order for true candor to be successful.
  1. Candor must be truth. Know your facts. Know what the end goal is. Don't bluff. Don't make up information. Don't hold back "bad" information.
  2. Listen. The other person might have additional information or insights that you don't know about, or that might shed new light to the situation.
  3. Mutual trust. This one is debatable as candor can be given without trust. But, I believe that in order for candor to work well, there needs to be at least some trust established between the involved parties. We're most open to, and with, those we trust.
  4. Never use candor with the intention to malign or tear down.
  5. Approach all "candor moments" with a mutual desire to improve (people, processes, team, division, company, etc.)
Candor is tough, but I believe that once used, it becomes easier. As it becomes easier, others just might try implementing it in their daily routine also. In conclusion, Jack Welch states; "Once you dispense with mixed messages and phony performance reviews, a team never fails to become faster, more creative, and more energetic." I like the sound of that...