Radical Candor Across the Org Chart

Learn how to challenge peers and supervisors directly without damaging the relationship, using three moves that make upward and lateral candor land positively in higher ed contexts.

The performance conversation model from Monday works reasonably well when you have positional authority over the person you need to address. But it gets more complicated when you don’t. When the friction takes place with a peer who controls resources you need, or with a supervisor whose direction you think is wrong, or with a faculty colleague whose buy-in you can’t mandate, the same directness that works downward can feel like overreach.

It isn’t. But it does require a different approach.

The core challenge of lateral and upward candor is that you’re trying to influence without authority. You can’t assign consequences. You can’t make a unilateral decision about the relationship. You have to tell the truth about what you see in a way in which the other person can receive it, and that means attending carefully to how you frame what you’re saying.

Kim Scott’s concept of radical candor offers a useful compass here. Scott describes the failure modes as two variations: As ruinous empathy (in which you care enough about the person to stay quiet, even when your silence is costing the team) and as obnoxious aggression (you challenge directly but without sufficient care for the person’s dignity). The goal is to do both: to care personally and to challenge directly, at the same time.

In higher education, this plays out in specific ways. The department Chair who sees a Dean making a budget decision that will crater faculty morale but says nothing because, “It’s not my call.” Or there’s the advancement director who knows a campaign strategy is out of alignment with donor relationships but stays quiet in the leadership meeting. Or the senior faculty member who watches a policy fail—but who won’t say so publicly because it belongs to a colleague they respect.

Three moves that make lateral and upward candor more likely to land:

1. Name your perspective as your perspective.

   “I want to share what I’m observing from where I sit,” is a much less threatening opening than, “Here’s what’s actually happening.” You’re not claiming omniscience. You’re contributing your vantage point.

2. Ask before you tell.

   “Can I share a concern about how this might land with the team?” opens more doors than, “I think this is going to be a problem.” The question signals that you’re in a collaborative stance, not an adversarial one.

3. Stay anchored to shared stakes.

   The most effective upward and lateral candor is rooted in something both parties care about: the department’s reputation, a student outcome, the health of a long-term donor relationship. When you anchor your candor to shared stakes rather than personal preference, it becomes much harder for the other person to dismiss.