Every now and then I pick up a "leadership" book that I've seen recommended. I'm usually disappointed. My latest read is Radical Candor by Kim Scott. Scott is an entrepreneur and Silicon Valley veteran having worked at Google, where she lead YouTube, and Apple, where she was part of Apple University. The subtitle of her book is "Be a kick-ass boss without losing your humanity."
So, first things first, I've only read half and not sure I'll read the rest. I'd say it is about on par with other leadership books---you get the main point pretty quickly and the rest is just a rehash. The other drawback, for me, is that many of the ideas she presents are not easily transferable to the academic world. For instance, I can't fire tenured faculty for poor performance.
What did I get out of the book? Relationships matter and you have to find ways to give negative feedback (criticism). Her main argument is that by not giving honest feedback a boss does not give a person the chance to improve. Why would you change if you thought things were going well?
I'm fascinated, though, by her assumption (which she later adjusts) that everyone wants to be a superstar. It took her many years to realize that not everyone was driven by the same motivations she was, that some people liked doing their job and didn't envision anything more. I think it highlights the ways in which the tech/start up atmosphere is so different from other work environments. I'm not sure I would enjoy working in a place where the competition was fierce and everyone was gunning for the top. Hierarchies are pyramid shaped, not everyone will be at the top. I would say that is a true benefit of academia. We have hierarchies, but it is widely accepted to stop at the "full professor" level and be seen as successful, happy, and a true contributor. We do have those who want titles and prestige, but there is much more room, and acceptance, for the "solid contributor."
I'm not sure what I'll do with what I learned from the book, or the half I read.
