Do we really need to soften everything? Are our egos so fragile that we can't take a little bluntness - as long as it's genuine and well-intentioned?
I find your version to be much, much weaker than the original. In many parts, the motivation of the writer is so obfuscated as to make the list little more than a vague and friendly pep talk.
Note taking - friendly productivity tip, or career-defining moment?
Interrupting a meeting the boss is in - does he really want me to do that, or was he just trying to sound friendly and approachable?
I think the biggest difference is that the original expects excellence, and implies penalties for not living up to it - while your rewritten version expects mediocrity, and implies rewards for rising above.
To each his own - I prefer the original, I find your version to be more patronizing, and somewhat hypocritical in claiming to "cut the bullshit". Many others will prefer your version. I guess the real trick is coming up with a version that will make everyone happy, while keeping the impact of the original.
My goal in writing that was to illustrate the opposite of the original. The correct approach is probably somewhere in the middle.
> Do we really need to soften everything?
It sounds like you're trying to create a strawman. No, we needn't soften everything. But we should probably soften some things. One could just as well ask, do we really need to be brusque 100% of the time?
> Are our egos so fragile that we can't take a little bluntness
Again, I'm not talking about "a little" -- reading between the lines, I can't help but wonder if the boss is like this all the time, if his reign is so brittle that he can't suffer a dash of kindness even in the memo that provides his first impression to new employees.
One of the hardest parts of leadership is knowing when to be harsh and when to let up.
No, we don't need to soften everything. We don't need to be rude about everything, either. What, specifically, so "much, much weaker than the original?
Note taking - friendly productivity tip, or career-defining moment?
Implying you'll be unimpressed if they make you repeat yourself is plenty forceful.
Interrupting a meeting the boss is in - does he really want me to do that, or was he just trying to sound friendly and approachable?
There's nothing more forceful about the way that was phrased in the original list, the only reason it doesn't sound friendly and approachable there is because the rest of the list is the opposite of friendly and approachable. (In fact, I have no problem with the way that was phrased in the original and might well have kept that.)
The original does not expect excellence, the original sounds like it's raising all these penalties because it's expecting you to be full of all the listed bullshit. I agree that the rewritten version expects mediocrity, but I would argue that that makes it sound reasonable, and that the author would be duly impressed by excellence.
I don't believe it sounds patronizing, it merely sounds reasonable.
How is it hypocritical in claiming to "cut the bullshit"? Keep in mind it's shorter than the original.
The impact of the original is to make a significant portion of readers not want to work with him.
In my humble opinion, he should take heed of his own #12: "...Check your ego at the door: I'm only interested in reaching the best, most elegant solution — I don't care if it's your idea or mine." The best solution for increasing productivity and effectiveness by cutting bullshit is to make reasonable requests to cut bullshit in a friendly way that people will listen to, not make people want to avoid working with you and decrease bullshit as a side-effect.
I find your version to be much, much weaker than the original. In many parts, the motivation of the writer is so obfuscated as to make the list little more than a vague and friendly pep talk.
Note taking - friendly productivity tip, or career-defining moment?
Interrupting a meeting the boss is in - does he really want me to do that, or was he just trying to sound friendly and approachable?
I think the biggest difference is that the original expects excellence, and implies penalties for not living up to it - while your rewritten version expects mediocrity, and implies rewards for rising above.
To each his own - I prefer the original, I find your version to be more patronizing, and somewhat hypocritical in claiming to "cut the bullshit". Many others will prefer your version. I guess the real trick is coming up with a version that will make everyone happy, while keeping the impact of the original.