I am staring at the waveform on my dual monitors, a jagged green mountain range representing a CEO’s voice talking about “bringing your whole self to work,” and my thumb is still vibrating from the accidental “end call” swipe I just committed against my manager, Marcus. 44 seconds ago. Maybe 54. My heart rate is currently 104 beats per minute. As a podcast transcript editor, I spend my days removing the “ums” and “ahs” and the inconvenient truths that slip out when people forget the red light is on. I make people sound smarter than they are, more empathetic than they feel, and more decisive than they deserve. But there is no edit button for the silence currently ringing in my ears. I just hung up on the man who controls my performance bonus and my access to the premium dental plan. It was a mistake-a literal slip of the finger while reaching for my lukewarm coffee-but in the high-stakes theater of our office, everything is a subtextual power move.

The Gospel of Candor

Marcus is a devotee of Radical Candor. He read the book 4 times. He bought 14 copies for the leadership team and placed them on our desks like Gideon Bibles in a haunted hotel. The framework, designed by Kim Scott, is supposed to be about “caring personally” while “challenging directly.” It sounds beautiful in a TED Talk, a utopian vision of a workplace where we all just tell the truth and grow together like a well-tended community garden. But in the actual ecosystem of our 44-person department, Radical Candor has been weaponized into a license for unchecked aggression. It is the “no offense” of the corporate world; a prefix that allows someone to punch you in the throat verbally while claiming they are doing it for your own benefit.

Power Dynamics and False Courage

I’m currently editing a segment where a guest speaker-some high-priced consultant who probably charges $474 an hour-is explaining that “psychological safety is the bedrock of innovation.” I want to reach into the digital audio file and shake him. He’s right, of course, but he’s missing the 364-pound gorilla in the room: power dynamics. You cannot have radical candor when one person has the power to take away the other person’s mortgage payments. When Marcus asks for “honest feedback” during our 360-degree reviews, he isn’t asking for a map of his flaws. He’s asking for a loyalty test. To be honest with someone who has a fragile ego and a high degree of structural power is not “courageous communication”; it is professional suicide.

Last quarter, I spent 234 minutes trying to draft a single paragraph for his peer review. I needed to say that his habit of changing project scopes at 4:44 PM on a Friday was destroying the team’s morale. I wrote, erased, and wrote again. If I was too direct, I was “aggressive” and “not a culture fit.” If I was too soft, I was “failing to engage in the framework.” I eventually settled on a string of corporate word-salad that sounded like it was generated by a malfunctioning AI: “Marcus has an incredible drive for excellence that presents opportunities for more streamlined temporal alignment regarding project finalization.” I felt like I was losing a piece of my soul with every syllable. It was institutional gaslighting. The company tells us to be vulnerable, to be open, to be raw, but the moment you expose a soft spot, it becomes a target for the next round of layoffs.

The Lie of the Corporate Family

This isn’t just about my boss being a difficult person; it’s about the fundamental dishonesty of forcing intimacy. We are told that we are a “family,” which is the first red flag in any employment contract. Families are supposed to have unconditional support, but employment is the most conditional relationship in modern life. The moment I stop producing 444 minutes of edited audio a day, the “family” will let me go. By demanding radical candor, the organization is asking me to give up my only defense mechanism: my professional mask. They want the intimacy of a friendship with the leverage of a master-servant relationship. It’s an extraction of emotional labor that isn’t listed in the job description.

“

They want the intimacy of a friendship with the leverage of a master-servant relationship. It’s an extraction of emotional labor that isn’t listed in the job description.

I think about this a lot when I go to my dentist at

Millrise Dental, because that is an environment where the stakes of communication are actually tangible. When I am in that chair, there is a profound necessity for trust. If the dentist says a procedure will be uncomfortable, they aren’t using “candor” to assert dominance; they are providing necessary data for my well-being. There is a mutual goal-my health-that transcends the ego of the practitioner. In that clinical setting, psychological safety isn’t a buzzword; it’s a prerequisite for the work. I can raise my hand to stop the procedure at any second. If I tried to “raise my hand” during one of Marcus’s 104-minute monologues about “synergy,” I would be labeled as “disruptive” in my next evaluation.

Trust in a patient-practitioner relationship is built on a foundation of clear boundaries and the understanding that the person in power-the one with the drill or the scalpel-has a fiduciary duty to the one who is vulnerable. In the corporate world, that duty is often inverted. The vulnerable are expected to protect the feelings of the powerful. We are forced to cushion our critiques in layers of praise, creating a “shit sandwich” that Marcus sees right through, yet demands we serve him anyway. It is an exhausting dance.

The Paper Trail of Retaliation

I remember an incident about 124 days ago when a junior editor, a kid named Leo who hadn’t yet learned to speak in riddles, told Marcus that his latest podcast intro was “a bit repetitive and lacked a clear hook.” The room went so cold I thought the HVAC system had died. Marcus smiled-that thin, terrifying smile that doesn’t reach his eyes-and said, “Thank you for that radical candor, Leo. I appreciate your willingness to challenge the status quo.” Two weeks later, Leo was moved to the “archival project,” which is where careers go to die in the dark. He’s currently cataloging 44,000 hours of unedited raw footage from the early 2004 era. No one has mentioned his name since. This is the shadow side of the framework: it creates a paper trail for retaliation.

Silence is the only safe feedback in a burning building.

The Luxury of Honesty

As I sit here, staring at the missed call notification from Marcus that just popped up, I realize that the “radical” part of Radical Candor is often just a rebranding of old-fashioned bullying. When people talk about “transparency,” they usually mean they want a one-way mirror. They want to see everything you’re thinking, but they want to keep their own motivations opaque. I am an editor, so I see the cuts. I see where the narrative is being manipulated. I know that when a leader says, “My door is always open,” it’s often a trap-a way to see who is daring enough to walk through it and what grievances they are carrying so they can be managed out later.

I have spent 4 hours today thinking about how to apologize for hanging up. I could say it was a technical glitch. I could say my cat jumped on the desk. But if I were to use Radical Candor, I would say: “Marcus, I hung up because the sound of your voice was making my skin crawl and I realized I would rather spend the rest of my afternoon in total silence than listen to you explain your ‘vision’ for the fourth time this week.” If I said that, I would be free. I would also be unemployed. And that is the crux of the problem. Honesty is a luxury of the safe. For the rest of us, it’s a dangerous gamble.

There is a specific kind of fatigue that comes from being forced to perform authenticity. It’s like trying to run a marathon in a costume that is three sizes too small. You’re moving, but every joint is screaming. We have created a corporate culture that fetishizes vulnerability without providing the structural support to make it safe. It’s like asking someone to jump out of a plane and then telling them they have to knit their own parachute on the way down. If they fail, it wasn’t the lack of equipment; it was their “lack of commitment to the process.”

The Necessary Lie

I look at the clock. 4:44 PM. The irony is not lost on me. In a few minutes, I will call Marcus back. I will apologize. I will tell a lie-a small, professional, necessary lie. I will say that my phone died or the Wi-Fi dropped. He will accept it, not because he believes me, but because it maintains the equilibrium. We will go back to our roles. He will pretend to be a mentor, and I will pretend to be mentored. We will use all the right words-alignment, transparency, growth, and yes, radical candor-but we will both know that the real conversation is happening in the spaces between the sentences.

I’ll go back to my editing software. I’ll cut out another 44 milliseconds of silence to make a CEO sound more confident. I’ll smooth out the transitions. I’ll make the world look like the polished, honest place the frameworks say it should be. But inside, I’ll be holding on to the truth like a secret weapon, waiting for a day when I finally have enough safety to actually use it. Until then, I’ll just keep hitting the save button, 14 times a day, and hope that nobody notices the cracks in the waveform.