One example elaborated:

You _want_ most ICs to ignore a negative message that doesn't involve them, and you _want_ to give middle / lower managers the discretion to address an ICs "nonsynergistic" contributions on their own time. It's a signal not a prescription. This allows a public person to make a public statement and set direction without prescribing actions so lower management and ICs can do their thing.

Upper management becomes increasingly vibes-based, from what I can tell.

▲

contubernio 14 hours ago | parent [-]

It would be a hell of a lot more functional to simply say directly what you want and mean.

This sort of management is dysfunctional even in it's premises.

▲

jvanderbot 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In this example you're actually just being polite. You are not calling out a person publicly, you're transmitting a course-correction through their manager that allows the person who knows you best to communicate the correction the best way AND it allows the corpo to take the blame for being vague and uninformative.

Sure, direct, cold, concrete, public data is "best" in the objective sense, but people's feelings and pride matter, and any attempt to wave that away is just naive.

	▲	beardedetim 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Early in my career I tried very hard to "be concrete, cold, and direct" because that's what I thought a good communicator would do. It was seen as attacking to anyone below me and confusing to anyone above me. I was naive and I suffered for it. I definitely agree with what you're saying here where these words actually do mean something, but it's completely opaque to those outside the "know". I also have found that there's not any better way to express information to those in the group than in this coded language, even if it makes completely no sense to me. I wish younger me understood that the way I'm being perceived is the only important thing, not choosing the "best" words to technically describe a situation
	▲	stinkbeetle 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Schedule a meeting with the people you are directing it to then. Blathering vague garbage execu-speak in a large meeting, even if it is some hare brained attempt to send "coded messages", is usually just some self-important charlatan bloviating and trying to sound intelligent and important to everybody else. And it is never effective communication.

▲

Muromec 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Saying exactly what you mean is generating the paper trail and accountability, which is a liability.

▲

dsr_ 13 hours ago | parent [-]

In a sane system, it would not be a liability.

QED.

▲

Muromec 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Define sane

	▲	red-iron-pine 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		best possible outcome for most people or even best possible outcomes for the shareholders. cuz most of this coded BS is to make some executive's life easier, not to keep the board happy. if they had a concrete plan they'd say it, and coded signals are only for certain audiences, who in most cases may not be most people, most shareholders, or more employees.