Candor is both a "leadership" issue and a "follower" issue - and normally both play a role simultaneously.


If a leader has been in the role for some time, then the degree of candor will often be a product of the leader's track record. When the leader has a record of retaliating against the "messenger", then candor will be stifled. When the leader has taken the message and applied it productively and acknowledges the source of the information, then candor will be enhanced.

A leader who is insecure in the role will try (as most humans will) defend his/her decisions and perhaps attack the "accuser". Conversely, a leader with strong E.I. will embrace the information as a way to improve the leader's and the organisation's performance.

When a leader is new to the position, then the organisation will be tempted to accept the initial rhetoric, but will normally wait to see some "form" - i.e. is the leader a retaliatory type or an enhancing type (from a candor perspective.)

Followers will be tempted to shy away from high risk (to themselves) situations. But their tensions revolve around the balance between risk aversion versus self-optimisation. The follower will therefore attempt to understand the leader's likely response to a candid communication, and will act accordingly. Where risk is perceived to outweigh self-optimisation opportunity, then candor will be stifled. Where self-optimisation outweighs risk, then candor will prevail.

What the leader needs to be wary of is that there are two players in the candor process. In order for the leader to obtain quality feedback, then high-risk perceptions of followers need to be minimised.