Learning & Leading from Mistakes: Balancing “Winning Friends & Influencing People” with “Radical Candor”
Those who are familiar with the leadership philosophies in Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People and Kim Scott’s Radical Candor may initially think the authors present dichotomous opinions on how to lead subordinates. Both authors apply leadership principles to many situations. As a leader at any echelon in the military, one undoubtedly has confronted with challenges on how to effectively develop subordinates through mistakes that have been made. Together, we explore the intersection of these two books and analyze practical takeaways to synchronize these philosophies.
How to Win Friends and Influence People:
Dale Carnegie’s magnum opus is a 1937 classic that frames how people can influence others through strong communication and ultimately achieve better organizational results. Carnegie outlines over 30 principles that people can live out in their daily lives. Here, we will discuss select principles that articulate Carnegie’s position on developing leaders and their subordinates through an examination of their mistakes.
How to Win Friends and Influence People is a culmination of research and interviews he conducted over several years. As a non-fictional read, Carnegie centers many stories on himself and illustrates the principles he espouses via accounts from famous leaders and people he knew and met personally. His research also further shapes his leadership philosophy. Some notable leaders include Thomas Edison, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Julius Caesar, and Mary Pickford. An example that stands out to me is Carnegie’s anecdote about Bob Hoover, a famous air show flyer and test pilot in the mid-20th century. During an air show in San Diego, Mr. Hoover’s aircraft engines suddenly stopped working at three hundred feet in the air. Miraculously, Mr. Hoover maneuvered the aircraft into a safe landing and immediately suspected that the wrong fuel was used. He inspected the aircraft and was right: a mechanic had put jet fuel in the aircraft instead of gasoline. Mr. Hoover met with the downtrodden mechanic, put his arm around him and said, “To show you I’m sure that you’ll never do this again, I want you to service my F-51 tomorrow”.[1] As a leader, we would typically approach this subordinate’s mistake with outrage, long thoughts on corrective action. Naturally, many leaders feel this way. Carnegie challenges this approach and demonstrates the power of failure tolerance.
Radical Candor:
Kim Scott, the author of Radical Candor and a thought leader in management philosophy, developed a fascinating brand. At its core, radical candor means “caring personally while challenging directly.” More specifically, Radical Candor is a “guidance and feedback that’s both kind and clear, specific, and sincere”.[2] Below, I review a military leader who exemplified Scott’s approach. Colonel (Retired) Ralph Puckett is an Honorary Colonel of the 75th Ranger Regiment who led a Ranger company through the Korean War, a battalion through the Vietnam War, and a Medal of Honor Winner. His leadership lessons continue to infuse maneuver officers training at Fort Benning. COL Puckett’s stories are preserved in his memoir Word for Warriors, A Professional Soldier’s Notebook. In the writings, COL Puckett describes his leader development philosophy. His style placed a heavy emphasis on training and the importance of staying away from a “zero defects” mentality. Through the example of scenario training, he emphasized that commanders must allow junior leaders to make mistakes. This allows for junior leaders to assume more responsibility when they eventually take on real-world scenarios. As is the military norm, COL Puckett emphasized the role of capturing lessons learned, poor performances, and ensured that commanders diligently practiced. Scott would amplify Puckett’s approach through her practical application steps- publicly and privately praise good performance, criticize the failures and poor performance, share their own relevant failures, solicit feedback on their own performance, and coach the subordinates the way they need it.[3]
Points of Divergence between Carnegie and Scott:
The role of humility. It is quite normal to have the selfish urge to do what makes one feel good. As leaders, we agree to play a selfless role but even given this understanding, we are challenged to meet the demand of remaining selfless, because it presents itself in nuanced ways. Carnegie’s most telling example describes President Lincoln in a difficult situation following General Robert E. Lee’s July 1863 escape following the Battle of Gettysburg. Lincoln recognized that Lee’s army was in a trap. Poor weather and a swollen Potomac River denied Lee’s army the ability to flee southward. Lincoln ordered Major General Meade to attack and defeat Lee’s army. Meade disobeyed the order and Lee’s army eventually escaped south of the Potomac. Furious, Lincoln knew that Meade had the opportunity to potentially end the war, and he wrote this scathing letter to Meade. Lincoln ultimately recognized that the letter was driven by extreme emotion and set it aside. Upon reflection, he did not send the letter. He admitted that it would only have relieved his feelings about the situation and had learned “by bitter experience that sharp criticism and rebukes almost invariably end in futility”.[4]
I too, have found myself in situations where my selfishness took place of my good judgement. As a platoon leader, I had an attached squad leader that was well-known as one of the best in the battalion, physically fit, and tactically outstanding. However, I noticed his moral compass floundered when dealing with difficult Soldier challenges. I gave him a pass, failed to step in, and give him correction. I now recognize my choice to do nothing was made out of selfishness, because my team was benefiting from the results of this squad leader produced. Why should I do anything about it? This approach came full circle back to me when that squad leader made a poor off-duty decision that almost wrecked his career. In Scott’s approach to this dilemma, leaders give consistent praise and criticism to employees (in this case a subordinate leader). Maybe consistent criticism and counseling to that squad leader would have enabled me to better guide that squad leader.
The 5ws of delivering feedback. The two previous examples demonstrate how the role of humility interacts with the philosophies. The chart below outlines the differences in how feedback and criticism should be delivered given different contexts.
| “How to Win Friends and Influence People” | “Radical Candor” | |
| Who are leaders delivering feedback to? | Subordinates – Emphasis on restraint. | Subordinates – Consistent “guidance” – praise and criticism |
| What type of feedback are leaders delivering? | Positive feedback – sincere appreciationNegative feedback – exercise restraint, only when utterly necessary – ask questions, let the other person save face, | Positive feedback – care personallyNegative feedback – challenge directly |
| When are leaders delivering the feedback? | Routine – Be genuinely interested in other people. Begin with praise and honest appreciation.Talk about leader’s own mistakes before giving criticism.Use encouragement, make the fault seem easy to correctWhen there is a problem – Call attention to the mistakes indirectly. Let the other person save face. Use encouragement, make the fault seem easy to correct | Routine – Make consistent time for real conversations, bring leaders whole self to work. When there is a problem – Being emotionally connected to the person is foundational to being able to deliver criticism. |
| Where are leaders delivering the feedback? | Private – leaders can utilize all of Carnegie’s principles! Public – Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise” | Private – Converse on growth management: life story, their dreams, and career action plan. Show vulnerability through stories of your own.Public – Lavish praise but must present genuine details. Solicit feedback on yourself and the organizational performance. |
| Why are leaders delivering the feedback? | Poor performance – Use encouragement, make the fault seem easy to correct, Good performance – Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers, get the other person saying “yes, yes” immediately | Poor performance – care personally, must address performance only after leaders have established a relationship. Good performance – Avoid ruinous empathy. Need to apply sincere appreciation, this requires being self-aware and culturally aware. |
Points of Convergence:
Talking. One of the most prominent similarities is how the authors encourage the leader to ensure that the subordinate is the one “talking”. Carnegie articulates this as simply “talking” whereas Scott articulates it as the feedback loop – where the leader creates an opportunity for the subordinate to deliver feedback to the leader. Carnegie encourages this via a myriad of different principles: be a good listener, let the other person do a great deal of the talking, and ask questions instead of giving orders. Kim describes the feedback loop as a multi-step process that encourages feedback sharing through a well-structured culture. For example, Kim wants to “encourage people to talk directly. “This means that one has an issue with a peer, the best way to handle it is to directly approach the individual.
Goals. Another Scott principle is the leader’s ability to foster talent, as demonstrated through the previously mentioned means. By fostering talent, the organization will be able to meet challenging goals. Scott highlights that leaders should directly confront subordinates on their ability to help the organization incrementally achieve its goals, and she does this by recommending the leader give direct feedback on the progress. Carnegie also underscores organizational results through the principle of “throw down a challenge”.[5] Here, Carnegie understands that people want to feel important and that sometimes people want to contribute in a big way. Leaders have a premium opportunity to capitalize on this opportunity to subordinates.
How to apply the approaches:
To this day, I am still disappointed by the various leadership errors and judgements I made many years ago as a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet. At one point, as the land navigation course officer in charge, I failed to ensure many of the coordinating instructions for the event were resourced. I knew I could not account for all the details myself, but I got overwhelmed with briefing requirements and as a result, disregarded peer leadership. Further complicating my position, in this case, my peers were my subordinates. It was very easy to do as a cadet because we were often given a lot of responsibility with practically no experience in execution. To improve peer leadership abilities, one can utilize the principles that Carnegie and Scott describe. Both recommend a strong demonstration of humility and saying “I don’t know” is not a bad way to start! This humility is a foundational step a leader of peers must make to start the confidence building process.
While almost everything is a steep learning curve as a Lieutenant, there is one practical attribute that, when applied as Carnegie and Scott describe, will enable the leader to maneuver through challenges: communication and the ability to network. As a platoon leader, one must assume a talent management role with very little experience in doing so. Leaders are thrust in the position to take a stake on junior leaders’ future careers when the Lieutenant has just begun theirs. It is of course daunting, but fortunately Lieutenants have a lot of leaders in the circle to communicate with and ask questions. Scott would encourage the leader to have genuine “career conversations” with junior leaders; Carnegie would encourage the leader to “be a good listener and encourage the other to talk about themselves.”[6] There is also a wide network within the organization of experienced non-commissioned and commissioned officers to help leaders navigate the nuances of leadership.
I hope leaders find that there is no one formula for successful leadership in challenging situations. The tools Carnegie and Scott provide are means to shape the leader’s ability to maneuver through challenging situations and to maintain the integrity of positional and social bonds.
Evan Bruccoleri is an active duty Army Infantry officer serving as a Joint Chiefs of Staff Intern at Georgetown University.
Endnotes:
[1] Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rev. ed., 10. print. ed. New York: Pocket Books, 1982.
[2] Scott, Kim. Radical Candor. New York: St Martens Press, 2017.
[3] Puckett, Ralph. Words for Warriors. Tucson, AZ: Wheatmark, 2007. Ralph Puckett leadership lessons and how he practiced Radical Candor– “Words for Warriors: A Professional Soldier’s Notebook” pp. 29-33.
[4] Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rev. ed., 10. print. ed. New York: Pocket Books, 1982. P. 11.
[5] Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rev. ed., 10. print. ed. New York: Pocket Books, 1982. P. 189.
[6] Carnegie, Dale. How to Win Friends and Influence People. Rev. ed., 10. print. ed. New York: Pocket Books, 1982. P. 80.