The Candor Imperative
by James Bolton
Business literature (particularly in the US) is filled with calls for workforce candor. Jack Welch devoted an
entire chapter to it in his best seller, Winning (Welch and Welch, 2005). Jim Collins encourages business leaders
to “confront the brutal facts” to get from Good to Great (Collins, 2001). Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan talk
about the importance of “robust dialogue” in Execution (Bossidy & Charan, 2002). And for good reason: as
Welch points out, when more people get in the conversation, “more ideas get surfaced, discussed, pulled
apart, and improved.” This in turn enhances innovation and decision making while simultaneously reducing
costs (Welch and Welch, 2005, p. 27).
As with most things that sound too good
ditional work they’ve experienced as
to be true, there’s more to creating candor
by-products of candor. While a skilled
A definition of rigorous
candor
than meets the eye. While candor holds
leader (or outside facilitator) is able to
Candor has a mysterious and fleeting qual-
great promise as a source of competitive
manage the dynamics for productive
ity to it: it comes and goes as the dynamics
advantage, it’s a rarity in organizational
ends, for most leaders, inviting candor
that create it shift imperceptibly. While
life. Leaders who seek to institutionalize
can feel like opening Pandora’s Box.
most candor feels serendipitous, rigorous
candor find it elusive for three primary
reasons:
candor is different. I define it as:
Thus while candor offers great potential
for improved organizational performance,
An interpersonal process
those gains will only be realized when
that promotes the authentic expression
decision to practice candor is a per-
leaders understand that they can’t force or
of different points of view
sonal one. It is a choice to make public
enforce candor. Instead they must create
in search of actionable wisdom.
some aspect of our private thoughts,
an environment where there is sufficient
feelings, or beliefs. Because the depth
trust for people to openly to say and hear
Most people think of candor as “telling
and breadth of these revelations can’t
the hard things. And, of course, the good.
the truth.” But in meaning and in practice,
1. Candor lives between people, but the
be fully known by others unless we
candor is closer to “authenticity” than it
tell them—even under duress—candor
The goal of this paper is to help managers
is to “truth.” The American Heritage®
is an extension of our free will.
and human resource professionals create
Dictionary (2000) includes two defini-
environments that embrace this type of
tions of candor: “frankness or sincerity of
rigorous candor. First, I’ll offer a definition
expression,” and “freedom from prejudice;
ganic, messy process. Candor bubbles
of rigorous candor, and review a model
impartiality.” Rigorous candor embraces
up rather than cascades down which
for understanding the dynamics impact-
both, creating the interpersonal openness
makes it difficult for leaders to man-
ing its practice. Second, I’ll highlight the
that creates fertile ground where different
date candor as a cultural norm in their
challenges individuals face in choosing to
perspectives can be explored. At their best,
organizations.
be candid and a way to help them define a
candid conversations transcend individual
“Candor Commitment.” Third, I’ll intro-
points of view and yield fresh insights
2. Candor in its purest sense is an or-
3. Most managers have an “approach-
duce a framework for enhancing organi-
about an organizational obstacle or op-
avoid” attitude toward candor. While
zational candor, and identify strategies to
portunity. In this way, candor is a source of
they say they want it, most don’t
help candor take hold and grow.
actionable organizational wisdom that, in
want the conflict, frustration, and ad© Ridge Associates, Inc. 2006 • www.ridge.com
This article was originally published in Industrial and Commercial Training, Volume 38, Number 7, Emerald Group Publishing
The Candor Imperative
small ways and large, yield the competitive
the conflict inherent between the individ-
advantages that Welch describes.
ual and the organization. To do that, we’ll
ence of work is inseparable from the
look at the dynamics effecting Lewin’s “P”
people we work with, we worry about
and “E” in closer detail
the consequences of damaging those
A model for understanding
the dynamics effecting candor
in organizational life
2. Social retribution. Because our experi-
relationships. As in all groups, there is
When it comes to putting rigorous candor
The personal dimension of
candor
into practice in the twenty-first century,
A prerequisite for candor is authenticity.
we can learn a lot from a leading behav-
Without it, communication can quickly
ioral scientists of last century: Kurt Lewin.
become defensive and the potential for
censor ourselves because we don’t
As a social scientist and early organization-
candor is lost. For this reason we drive
want our feedback or disagreement
al development pioneer, Lewin articulated
with a foot on the brake: we hold back
to be hurtful to others. And while our
a simple, useful formula for understanding
from being fully and publicly ourselves. In
concern for others is genuine, hurting
human behavior:
part we’re not clear about how we want
others’ feelings often results in more
to “show up” when confronted with a
work for us: we often have to “clean
“candor moment” and in part we’re afraid
up” the relationship issue candor
of the impact we imagine our candor
created—a further incentive to keep
might have.
quiet.
b=f(P,E)
Behavior is a function of the Person in
pressure to conform, and conformity
often inhibits authenticity.
3. Hurting others’ feelings. We often
his/her Environment (Lewin, 1951, p. 25).
To become more authentically direct, we
4. Losing face. We worry if we speak
In essence, Lewin’s “Field Theory” asserts
need to first clarify our intention and
up, we can look bad. And while the
that an individual’s behavior is influenced
transform it into a commitment. We need
chances of losing face are rare, even
by the social context in which it occurs
to align what Dean Barnlund (Barnlund,
the slightest potential for humiliation
and vice versa. Thus behavior change must
1975) calls our “public selves”—the parts
acts as a deterrent to candid discus-
be effected at the level of the Person
of ourselves we share with the world—and
sion.
and at the level of the Environment.
our “private selves” where the our ideals
While this sounds easy at a high level, the
and fears reside. To do that, it’s important
relationship between the individual and
to understand why “going public” with
prehensive about the unknown, even
the organization is characterized by an
our private thoughts, wants, and ideas
when it’s for the better. Many people
uneasy tension, as Chris Argyris points out
feels so risky.
choose to not share ideas that could
(Argyris, 1957). Building on the work of
5. Change. It’s human nature to be ap-
improve their performance or their
Erik H. Erikson and others, Argryis notes
Candor-based fear
team’s performance if they perceive
that individuals strive toward self-actual-
Risk is defined as “the possibility of suffer-
those improvements are threats to
ization—a state of psychological maturity
ing harm or loss” (The American Heri-
their job security, social standing, or
and wholeness. Organizations, on the
tage® Dictionary, 2000) and it is fear of
social network. They may also keep
other hand, strive toward efficiency; in
this possibility that governs our willingness
problems to themselves if those prob-
that pursuit they’ve instituted processes
to be candid. The harm or loss we’re afraid
lems could result in “ownership” of
and controls that constrain an individual’s
will occur can be broadly categorized into
the problem.
developmental aims.
five distinct yet interrelated categories:
Rigorous candor has the potential to
1. Job Retribution. We worry that our
As is natural with fear, we generally leap
to the worst-case scenario: “What if I lose
reduce this tension: it promotes authentic
words will be held against us. We
the opportunity for that promotion?”;
interactions between people (which are
might not be selected for a high-vis-
“What if I get on Chris’s bad side?”; “What
essential to the process of self-actualiza-
ibility project; we might alienate our
if the team thinks my idea is stupid?”
tion), and it can make companies more
managers; we might lose influence
When we frame the consequences this
effective, if not always more efficient. But
and support we’ve worked hard to
way, our fear limits the contributions we
for rigorous candor to become a standard
gain. In light of these concerns, it’s
have to make. What if your feedback
operating procedure, we need to reconcile
safer to be quiet than speak up.
helps Chris overcome a glaring weakness?
The Candor Imperative
What if your idea helps your team achieve
the internal conflict. The first is our
more of a goal at first, but one that
a break-through? In that candor moment,
candor-based fear, described above.
is realistic to attain and ultimately
it can be helpful to consider not just the
The second is a deeper underlying
sustain in your interactions with oth-
worst-case scenario, but the “not so bad”
need, rooted in our self-interest—to
ers. The question to ask here is: how
and “best case” scenarios as well.
be competent, to be liked, to be
can I honor both my ideals and my un-
“right”—that gives rise to that fear.
derlying needs in my interactions with
The candor commitment:
reconciling the private and
public self
Understanding what you’re afraid of
others?
Reconciling the desire for safety with
the practice of your candor ideal.
Candor Commitment from the private
the desire for candor means aligning the
Questions that can help you pinpoint
into the public realm. The “next
private self with the public self, in the four
those blocks include:
action” concept is borrowed from
steps of creating a “Candor Commitment”:
• What keeps you from honoring
productivity expert David Allen (Allen,
1. Clarify your candor ideal the way
you’d like your “best self” to show
up in important conversations. It’s
can point the way to the underlying
need that will always interfere with
your ideal? What are you afraid
2001). He defines the next action as
of?
“the next physical, visible activity that
• What underlying need is interfering with your practice of candor?
important to realize that the ideal
is aspirational in nature; like a good
4. Choose a next action to move the
needs to be engaged in” (Allen, 2001,
p.34). The questions to ask here are:
What opportunities exist for you to
3. Mine the paradox between the
put your Candor Commitment into
vision statement, the concept of the
candor ideal and the internal conflict
practice? What, then, is your next ac-
best self is unattainable or at least
in a way that results in a Candor Com-
tion?
unsustainable. The key questions here
mitment. It’s virtually impossible to
are: What personal value(s) do you
“will away” the source of our internal
Table I presents an example of how this
want you want model in your interac-
conflict; those needs are too deeply
process can help individuals develop and
tions with others? What would that
rooted in our private selves. In order
actualize their Candor commitments. With
look like behaviorally?
to practice candor and be authentic,
your Candor Commitment and next action
we need to find a way to honor this
in hand, you’re ready to enter the public
2. Identify the internal conflict that
need as well as our candor ideal. The
realm—where the principles of organiza-
blocks you from being that best
Candor Commitment seeks to synthe-
tional dimension apply.
self. There are two components to
size the two. This commitment will be
Table 1
Step
Example
Candor ideal
What personal value(s) do you want you want to model in your
To be genuine and authentic in all my interactions.
interactions with others?
Internal conflict: fear
What keeps you from honoring that ideal? What are you afraid
Authenticity can be socially awkward; I’m afraid of hurting others’
of?
feelings.
Internal conflict: underlying need
What underlying need is interfering with the practice of your
I want conversations to feel safe and not awkward; I want to be
candor ideal?
and be perceived as being a gracious person.
Candor commitment
How can I honor both my ideal and my underlying need in my
I want to be authentic with others in a socially graceful way.
interactions with others?
Next Action
What opportunities exist for you to put your Candor Commitment
Disclose my Candor Commitment to my team and ask for feedback
into practice? What, then, is our next action?
on my effectiveness and on the impact it has.
The Candor Imperative
The organizational dimension
of candor
that create the corporate culture. While
being direct. If members feel that there’s
the organizational environment is rarely a
sufficient relational strength to “mess up”
Lewin’s concept of “environment” is
focus of our work, it influences behavior
and still be accepted, they’re more likely
broad; everything outside the boundar-
at personal and group levels.
to be authentically direct. But there is a
“lowest common denominator” effect for
ies of the private self is “E”. In applying
Field Theory to organizational behavior an
Add to this Elton Mayo’s widely accepted
group candor: the least trustworthy mem-
additional distinction needs to be made.
observation that each organization has
ber or interaction sets the bar for how
People actually interact with two different
both formal and informal structures
candid others will be.
levels of the Environment—one is the local
(Mayo, 1933) and you can look at the
work group environment, the network
environmental impacts effecting candor
At the Formal Group level, roles and
of relationships in which most interac-
through the following Candor Matrix in
norms impact the practice of candor. If
tion and work takes place. This group
Figure 1.
roles are highly structured, they define
many of the ways people relate. Group
may range in size from 4–20 people; it’s
defined as those who we work with most
At the Informal Group level, candor is
norms are also highly influential. Just as
frequently and whose behaviors create the
governed by trust between and among
the purpose of the Candor Commitment
social context that informally governs our
members. The degree of trust present in
is to align an individual’s private self and
behavior.
the group depends on a number of fac-
public behavior, norms can provide a
tors: respect, closeness, and history among
touchstone for a group’s collective com-
The other “E” is the organizational en-
members—to name a few. Acceptance is
mitment to the task and to each other.
vironment, comprised of formal policies
core to candor-based trust: it diminishes
But not all groups have clearly defined
and procedures as well as informal norms
the perceived social risks associated with
norms, and many stated norms are merely
lists of platitudes. Groups may not intend
for their norms to be empty commitments
Figure 1 The Candor Matrix
but they become relegated to that status
when there isn’t sufficient rigor or trust to
put the group’s hoped-for behavior into
Formal
practice.
At the Formal Organization level, orga-
Roles & Norms
Policies &
Programs
nizational structure, policies, procedures,
and programs all influence candor. If these
initiatives have any effect, they are usually
negative, at least initially. They are generally used to drive change, and change
creates ambiguity, which magnifies the
perceived risk to individuals’ self-interest.
Additionally, these motives are seen to
Informal
benefit the organization versus the individual. For both reasons people will gener-
Trust
Culture
ally withhold; they will wait and watch
until new patterns of conduct emerge.
The Informal Organization is defined by
shared and socially transmitted assumptions, norms, beliefs, and behaviors that
are collectively referred to as an organi-
Group
Organization
zation’s culture. While it is usually beyond
our conscious awareness, culture exerts
The Candor Imperative
powerful influences on candor-based
tion, mis-estimation, and misunderstand-
One way to do this is to create a Candor
behavior. If there is alignment between
ing of things (Schulman, 2004, p. 39).
Team (hereafter called a “C-Team”)—a
formal and informal organizational mes-
super group that exemplifies the practice
sages and practices, the organization itself
To grow candor at the group level, groups
of direct, actionable communication.
is experienced as authentic and individuals
need to improve their informal and formal
Ascribing to the idea that some individu-
are more likely to be more candid. If there
effectiveness. At the Informal Group level,
als exercise a disproportionate degree of
isn’t alignment, people are more likely to
groups need strong communication and
influence on the behavior of others, the
play it safe.
facilitation skills to create openness to
membership of this group would be com-
diverse perspectives and make the inter-
prised 8-10 respected opinion leaders who
To promote the environment’s tolerance
personal risk members feel a reasonable
work on high impact, highly visible proj-
of candor, it’s useful to assess the current
risk to take. Of these, the most critical is
ects. Ideally these individuals—nominated
state of organizational candor. Managers
listening. While reflective listening has
for C-Team membership by the rank and
and human resource professionals can use
become common knowledge in most orga-
file—would already be effective people
many techniques to do this, depending
nizations, it is surprisingly rare in practice.
leaders, and open to coaching from their
on the rigor they seek. Because candor is
This one change alone can dramatically
peers. They would meet regularly to refine
qualitative in nature and so ingrained in
enhance candor. While you can’t force
their Candor Commitments and hone their
the informal systems within an organiza-
people to be candid, genuine listening can
candor skills. Once they’re able to consis-
tion, tools like Lewin’s Force Field Analysis
create an environment of openness where
tently model the practice of personal and
(Lewin, 1951) can shed light on the forces
people are more likely to be candid. If the
group candor, they would then become
that support and restrain the practice of
group consistently values, respects, and is
candor agents, “infecting” other teams
organizational candor. It has the added
accepting of an individual’s perspectives—
they work on. When ready, those members
benefit of encouraging high degrees
regardless of whether others agree with or
would similarly carry the seeds of candor
of participation that in itself increases
like what they hear—then candor will
to other teams and so on until critical
candor.
become a standard and can deepen over
mass has been achieved and the practice
time.
of candor becomes “the way we do things
Once the candor barriers and levers have
around here.”
been identified, it can be useful to place
Skills alone aren’t sufficient to create this
them in one of the four environmental
consistency. Even highly skilled groups can
C-Teams don’t need to begin with an orga-
quadrants. Depending on which quadrant
benefit from formal group processes that
nization’s superstars; candor can emerge
represents the candor challenge, there are
provide structure for group communica-
and grow anywhere. But assigning those
a number of methods available to encour-
tion. Reality-tested norms are important.
that others respect and admire with the
age direct, open, and respectful commu-
But there are other kinds of discussion
responsibility for spreading candor makes
nication.
structures that can help as well; meet-
an organization’s commitment to candor
ing processes like Edward DeBono’s “Six
both urgent and visible.
Based on the personal, paradoxical, and
Thinking Hats” (DeBono, 1999), “After
organic nature of candor described above,
Action Reviews,”[1] and feedback models
In summary, enhanced candor can come
and because the essence of candor lives
like Marshall Goldsmith’s “feedforward”
from any of the four environmental quad-
in the relationships between individuals,
methodology (Goldsmith, 2003), all pro-
rants as Table II summarizes (see following
my bias is that the small group and the
mote openness among groups that foster
page).
cultures in which those groups operate
greater candor.
Conclusion
are the loci of change. That’s not to say
change can’t occur in the formal organiza-
To enhance rigorous candor at the cultural
While the benefits of candor are becom-
tion; General Electric’s “Work Out” was a
level is a more challenging proposition.
ing increasingly clear as the next source of
large-scale effort in candor-based change.
Change of this type is closer to Malcolm
competitive advantage, an understanding
Six Sigma efforts also seek to promote can-
Gladwell’s (2000) concept of a “social
of how to establish candor in business per-
dor, as do so-called high reliability orga-
epidemic” than it is to traditional organi-
formance has lagged behind the rhetoric.
nizations that actively seek out failures in
zational change that can be designed and
But Lewin’s Field Theory offers manag-
their quest to “disvalue the mis-specifica-
“managed.”
ers and human resource professionals a
The Candor Imperative
Table 2
theoretical framework for enhancing the
practice of candor. By helping individuals
Formal/Group
Formal/Organization
clarify their personal “Candor Commit-
“Six Thinking Hats”
“Work Out”
ments”; by instilling small groups with the
“After Action Reviews”
Six sigma/total quality management
skills and strategies to make candor core
“Feedforward”
“High Reliability Organizations”
leaders and human resource professionals
Informal/Group
Informal/Organization (Culture)
can tap into the well of actionable wisdom
Reflective listening
“C-Teams”
that resides within the social networks of
Facilitation skills
to their ongoing success; and by using
those groups to propel a candor epidemic,
their organizations.
Note
1. A good summary can be found at: www.depts.ttu.edu/aged/leadership/leadaar.htm
References
Allen, D. (2001), Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity, Viking, New York.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (2000), 4th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Argyris, C. (1957), “The Individual and the Organization: Some Problems of Mutual Adjustment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Ithaca,
New York, vol. 2, no. 1.
Barnlund, D. (1975), Public and Private Self in Japan and the United States, Intercultural Press, Inc. [no location available]
Bossidy, L. & Charan, R. (2002), Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done, Crown Business, New York.
Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t, HarperCollins, New York.
DeBono, E. (1999), Six Thinking Hats, Little, Brown & Company, Boston (originally published 1985).
Gladwell, M. (2000), The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Little, Brown & Company, Boston.
Goldsmith, M. (2003), “Try Feedforward Instead of Feedback,” Leader to Leader, vol. 25, New York.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York.
Mayo, E. (1933), The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Macmillan, London.
Schulman, P. (2004), “Attributes of Safe Organizations”, Quality and Safety in Health Care, vol. 13.
Welch, J. & Welch, S. (2005), Winning, HarperBusiness, New York.