> Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away. Right, I think the examples aren't the best

> Look at the actual examples they give of what you should say. Everything but the bald assertion is stripped away. Right, I think the examples aren't the best. But, around the examples, look at what the author is advocating for: > to skip social cushioning > "your feelings about how I might receive this..." > bears responsibility for their own emotional reaction to its content > When you spend the first third of your message establishing that you are a nice person who means well ...etc. They're pretty clearly emphasizing the emotional content of messages, rather than informational content. Then they explicitly say that the intent is to provide relevant information: > You can document contributing factors if they are actually actionable, meaning if there is something structural that needs to change, name it specifically and attach a proposed fix to it. ...and then separate that from emotions: > But confessing your emotional state and your reasoning process and your extenuating circumstances is not documentation, it is self-absolution Yes, I agree that the author probably should have been a bit more clear, because people can get upset when it comes to workplace politics/communication, and clarity never hurts. But I'm pretty sure that the intent is what you'd want it to be.