4 min read

Feedback, the Law, and Mandated Manipulative Insincerity

Feedback, the Law, and Mandated Manipulative Insincerity

Table of Contents

I spend a lot of time these days showing people how to put the Radical Candor framework of “Care Personally + Challenge Directly” into practice by providing frequent feedback, and how to use the framework as a way to guide difficult conversations to avoid falling into Ruinous Empathy, Obnoxious Aggression, or Manipulative Insincerity. When it comes to difficult conversations, some of the most difficult are around gender.  I have found that gender politics and fear of tears push men away from being as radically candid with women as they are with other men. This is bad for men, women, and the truth.

Gender bias also pushes women away from being radically candid, which is bad for women, men, and the truth. I have, unfortunately, all too much experience with sexual harassment in the workplace, and with gender bias in general. So much experience I’m writing my next book on it! I also have a lot of experience with cross-cultural communication challenges and how things can easily get “Lost in Translation.”

Bill Murray sings karaoke in Japan in the movie “Lost In Translation.”

A few decades ago I was working in Russia. My alarm clock didn’t go off, I overslept, and was a little late for an early morning meeting. I rushed in a few minutes after it had begun, and apologized.

“I’m sorry. I overslept,” I said. At least that is what I thought I had said. I was speaking in Russian, and I could see from the amused looks on everyone’s face that was not what I had said at all.

One man explained, “Prospat is how you say oversleep.”

“What did what I say actually mean?” I asked, curious.

“Well, it sort of implies…” the man coughed and was silent.

Somebody else helped him out, “You said you were late because you were having sex over and over again this morning.”

We all burst out laughing and moved on. I never made that mistake again. More awkward than telling someone they had spinach in your teeth, but really not that big a deal.

It’s hard to imagine this simple exchange happening today. And yet now more than ever it’s important we find a way to give each other this kind of feedback, even when it’s awkward.

So I recently got this note from “John”:

In the ‘small world’ category, I met a friend yesterday and they told me that they’d been in a meeting recently where you presented.

You’ll get an email soon from him to address a language culture difference in your presentation that is very rude in the UK, but not at all in North America.

He is modeling Radical Candor, as he is one of the most caring leaders I’ve ever known…so he will be sharing out of care!”

Naturally, I was curious and more than a little nervous about what I had said. I wondered if it was my salty language. I sent the people who’d organized the talk a note asking if it had been a problem. No, they hadn’t heard any complaints. I wrote to “John” to ask what I’d said. He told me that the guy who wanted to give me feedback on my feedback presentation (very meta!) had to run the email through two layers of approval. What??? I now felt a sense of despair. How could this company build a culture of feedback if they had to run any feedback through several layers of approval before talking to someone?

A few weeks later, I still hadn’t heard anything. Evidently, compliance had put the kibosh on the idea of telling me what I’d done wrong in the presentation they’d paid me to give on how to tell people when they are making mistakes.

The irony was painful. And by now I was dying to know what I’d said wrong. So I scheduled a phone call with John to ask him. He said he couldn’t quite remember what it was I’d said. I told him I wouldn’t be able to rest until I knew. He promised to ask his friend, who was from the UK (not where the talk was held.)

A couple of days later I got the answer:

Checked back with my friend. You used the phrase ‘blowing someone off.’

In UK English, that is ‘brushing someone off,’ roots being brushed off the shoulder of your jacket, etc.

‘Blowing someone off’ means…umm…it is…umm…fellatious .”

 

DOH! I knew exactly when and how I’d used the term. I’d been describing the various reactions one gets when giving feedback. Sometimes, people will be grateful. Sometimes they’ll be sad, other times they’ll be mad — but most often they’ll “blow you off.” Er. Brush you off. Then you have to work harder to be clear.

I learned a couple of important things from this exchange. First, an important nuance about British English vs. American English. Especially since feedback is measured at the listener’s ears, not the speaker’s mouth, this was really helpful for me to learn! But I also learned how poorly feedback, the law, and sex mix these days. It became really clear to me why the person who had seen my presentation didn’t just come up to me afterward and tell me what I’d done wrong. Even the layers of approval, which I’d been dismissing as ludicrous — dare I say, brushing them off — made a little more sense.

In today’s climate, the use of sexually-charged language at work (like what I said, unknowingly, in my presentation) feels dangerous. So both the man who saw my talk on Radical Candor and the company that paid me to give it preferred to be “Manipulatively Insincere” with me when I made an embarrassing mistake. They didn’t tell me, leaving me to repeat it with other audiences. On the Radical Candor scale, this behavior falls under low “Care Personally,” low “Challenge Directly.”

In this case, this behavior is also self-protective and totally understandable. Given the state of the law around these things, I’d call it a case of Mandated Manipulative Insincerity. Of course I would not sue them for discussing this topic with me. But how could they know that? This is all the more reason why it’s so important that we give Radically Candid feedback (instead of falling into  Ruinous Empathy, Obnoxious Aggression, or Manipulative Insincerity) to help others avoid future mistakes, like the kind I made!

And this is why I’m writing this post, even though it feels risky. Because I think it’s a risk worth taking to make the point that we have to help each other out so we don’t continue saying, or doing, inappropriate things. Especially when we aren’t aware it’s inappropriate. How can we make it safer for people to have these conversations? I can imagine only too well the nightmare scenarios the people from HR compliance have not only imagined but actually lived through. So I don’t blame them for stopping feedback in its tracks.

But if we let our worst experiences dictate how we communicate in ordinary circumstances and fall into Mandated Manipulative Insincerity, we will basically quit talking to each other. Let’s not let this happen …

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Key Questions Covered

What is 'Mandated Manipulative Insincerity' in the Radical Candor framework?

Mandated Manipulative Insincerity is when fear of legal or HR consequences causes people to withhold honest feedback — not out of malice, but out of self-protection. In the Radical Candor framework, it scores low on both "Care Personally" and "Challenge Directly." Kim Scott coins the term to describe situations where compliance culture or legal risk effectively silences candid feedback, leaving people to repeat mistakes they could have easily corrected if someone had just spoken up.

How does gender bias prevent Radical Candor in the workplace?

Gender bias cuts both ways when it comes to candid feedback. Men often pull their punches with women due to gender politics or fear of emotional reactions, while women may self-censor to avoid being perceived negatively. Both patterns result in less honest feedback flowing across gender lines, which hurts individuals, teams, and organizational truth-telling. The Radical Candor framework — Care Personally + Challenge Directly — is meant to cut through these biases by grounding feedback in genuine care rather than social anxiety.

Why did the company refuse to tell Kim Scott about the mistake she made in her presentation?

After Kim used an American phrase that has a sexually explicit meaning in British English, the person who noticed it wanted to flag it — but the company's HR compliance team blocked the feedback. Sharing it required two layers of approval, and ultimately the feedback never came through official channels. The company was likely trying to avoid any legal liability around sexually charged language in the workplace, even though the conversation would have been entirely constructive and helpful.

How does fear of legal liability damage feedback culture?

When organizations let worst-case legal scenarios dictate everyday communication, they fall into what Kim Scott calls Mandated Manipulative Insincerity — a culture where no one says anything uncomfortable, even when it would genuinely help. The result is that people keep making avoidable mistakes, trust erodes, and honest dialogue disappears. Kim argues that while HR compliance concerns are understandable, allowing them to shut down all candid feedback creates a much bigger long-term problem for teams and organizations.

What does 'feedback is measured at the listener's ears, not the speaker's mouth' mean?

This principle, highlighted in the post, means that your intent doesn't determine whether your feedback lands — the listener's interpretation does. Kim's example of accidentally using a phrase with a very different meaning in British English illustrates this perfectly: she meant something entirely innocent, but her audience heard something embarrassing. Good feedback-givers take responsibility for how their words are received, not just what they intended to say, and stay open to correction when there's a gap between the two.

How should someone handle an awkward or embarrassing feedback moment at work?

Kim's post models exactly this: stay curious, not defensive. When she learned she'd accidentally used an inappropriate phrase, her reaction was to want to know immediately so she could stop repeating the mistake. She didn't spiral into shame or blame. The post argues that the best thing anyone can do — giver or receiver — is treat awkward feedback as useful information and move on, just as her Russian colleagues did when she made an accidental off-color remark in Moscow decades earlier.

Keep going.

Three ways to put this into practice.

Apply what you've learned Get personalized coaching with Compass
Your AI-powered Radical Candor coach. Free to try.
Used by managers at Apple, Dropbox, and Twitter Try Compass free
Stay sharp More like this, every week
Practical leadership tips in your inbox.
Join 25,000+ leaders Subscribe free
For your whole team Bring Radical Candor to your organization
Workshops, keynotes, and rollouts for teams of 50+.
Trusted by 100+ Fortune 500 leadership teams Talk to our team

EXPLORE MORE FROM RADICAL CANDOR

A Happy Marriage of Growth and Stability

A Happy Marriage of Growth and Stability

I recently learned that my great-grandfather Taylor Malone started a company with my husband’s great-great uncle, Joe Hyde, in Memphis, Tenn., my...

Read More
Criticism & Manipulative Insincerity

Criticism & Manipulative Insincerity

When you don’t Care Personally or Challenge Directly, criticism is Manipulatively Insincere.

Read More
Praise & Manipulative Insincerity — Kim's Story

Praise & Manipulative Insincerity — Kim's Story

Manipulatively Insincere praise is given not because it is genuine, but for another motive or agenda.

Read More