Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not about candor, it's about framing and respecting what kind of power people have, who is responsible for what. "Hey gang - I know I'm not Dear Leader anymore - and - I don't want to get in the way of your new Dear Leader, but I want to share with you a bad experience I had with this product. A, B, C, D. E .. was really bad. After thinking about it - I think much of this lays at my feet. In the Golden Era of…
> Hey gang “How do you do, fellow kids?” > After thinking about it Just say the thing. > kinds of outcomes What outcomes specifically? > nipped in the bud “stop” > I suggest this probably happened because “I think” > ball dropped “failure” > must be the responsibility at the VP/Executive What does this mean? Fire the VPs who failed to do their jobs? Say what you mean. > ensuring smooth handoff “doing their jobs” > re…
It feels like it was written by 'Dwight Schrute'.
---> First - the notes about language are completely glib.
It's perfectly acceptable for someone to use personal tone.
"> After thinking about it
Just say the thing."
"> nipped in the bud
“stop”"
... would be ridiculous feedback to give anyone.
It's perfectly acceptable for any writer to have some personalized inflection in their prose.
There's no misunderstanding or lost context.
The fact that you would even try to pick apart language at level is just weird.
---> Second - "Nothing about this mealy mouthed corporate jargon"
There is nothing 'mealy mouthed' about that prose, and there is no 'corporate jargon' in the note.
None.
The writer in that scenario mean exactly what they said - with some allowance for personal inflection.
That's it.
---> Third - "> engender a culture of design
This is a meaningless phrase."
No - it's not a 'meaningless phrase' - it means exactly that, in so many words.
Obviously, I'm not going to write full follow up paragraph on that in HN, the implication is direct.
---> Fourth - and most importantly - you entirely missed the point by trying to nitpick on arbitrary language someone wrote crudely on a HN comment.
The 'point' is to illustrate in quick and rough terms how one could be 'candid' with the feedback about a broken feature - and to also to frame it responsibly, to direct some feedback and as to where the responsibility might lie and where the process might have broken down, and then to more broadly indicate strategic concerns over culture, because there clearly is, particularly around 'user centric concners'.
Gates barfed some 'things that were broken' - instead of providing any contextualization at all - it was totally absent anything a leader would nominally provide.
You're getting caught up literally in prose and notions of 'process' which is besides the point. This is not about 'process' - it's about a leader framing feedback.
And FYI it was Satya that finally did 'change the culture' (although on different terms) to generally widespread acclaim.