> Everyone should take note of this person's excellent structure: he put the decision first.

Going by my twitter feed, they implemented the decision first, with people discovering they were locked out of their twitter accounts and RAS before the announcement was made.

It's a hard problem to solve, but given that many of the folks being dismissed are engineers with elevated access to Twitter's data and services, it makes sense from a security and privacy perspective to disable access first. There's no good way to lay off 300 people at once. Hopefully Twitter actually follows through on the separation package and job search assistance. That's far more important.

Do former twitter engineers really need that much assistance in finding a new job? I'd assume people will be clawing at them.

It may not show a lot of trust in their employees, but removing access is a prudent move considering the motive and opportunity for malfeasance. The timing should have been simultaneous however.

Legitimately asking: Do you have any evidence that this achieves certain goals better than how this email was phrased? Are you sure those goals are the same as those of the author of this email?

You're right that the CEO's goals may not be the idealistic goals I'm thinking of. The goals I had in mind were: be honest with your employees about something terrible and show them, don't tell them, that you valued their service to the company.

Judging by the contents of this email: the goal might be to confound or confuse counter-arguments to the decision, limit the damage PR-wise (and stock wise), and above all, insulate the new executive staff from a groundswell of anger/hatred from the bottom.

My instincts as a writer, and maybe a bit as a human being, is that you shouldn't try to fool the people who support you. If the author of the email (probably not Dorsey) was a stronger writer, and perhaps free of some pressures, I'd like to think he or she could have both been fair to those under him or her, and also protected from their wrath.

I too would be very interested in seeing historical examples of leaders forced to write messages explaining tough decisions. Would you happen to have any?

Let's be practical, and I don't mean this in a cynical way: The goal isn't to actually BE honest.

The goal is for the employees to feel as if you ARE being honest, and that they have something positive to focus on that is not just plain disappointment and insecurity.

Plenty of corporate drones take this too far and focus too much on the sugar-coating to the point that only other top corporate drones think the email is a good one.

But I think Dorsey's passes the b.s. test (Most people's reactions, even those being fired isn't going to be "what a load of b.s.")

Could he be more direct? Yes. But it would come at a risk of coming off as callous and incosiderate.

I had read a couple of books both of which said the sandwich technique is an out-of-date way of delivering bad news and it's significantly better to do it immediately to help not continue to build up to the bad news that the person on the other side knows it coming (because, let's face it, the sandwich is obvious from 100ft away).

Unfortunately I can't figure out what books I read and I'm having a hard time finding studies (just keep finding damn buzzfeed like article about using the sandwich). If someone else finds these sources or debunks them I would be greatly appreciated :)

While not scientific, the example I can think of is in How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie (published: 1936). In the section dealing with how people read your messages, he lists an actual letter from a company apologizing about a delay [which reads just like any corporate e-mail].

Then he rewrites it focusing on what the person reading it is concerned about: themselves. The key was to focus on the questions a reader will ask, "How will this effect me?" and "What should I do?"

That's exactly one of the examples I was thinking of! Thanks!

The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz specifically mentions it being terrible.

I agree the email overindulges in euphemisms ("streamline", "restructure", "nimble", "change how we work") and filler phrases ("working around the clock", "moving forward").

But for the most part it does lead with the decision being communicated, i.e. that there will be a "restructuring of our workforce", commonly understood to mean layoffs.

The euphemism "restructuring of our workforce" (versus more direct and explicit language) is the exact type of corporate speak he disclaims. It's dishonest.

People interpret things differently. It's better to err on the kinder side of language and minimize the possibility that someone will interpret your attempt to communicate efficiently as simple crass disregard for the lives affected by the significant decision announced.

I think Dorsey's email is pretty crap-free. I think to the extent that he employs long forms or euphemisms, it's intentionally intended to communicate compassion.

Management is hard, because people are going to read any interpretation that they want into your actions, and there's almost always the potential of reading in a negative interpretation. You truly can't please everyone. All you can do is try to do the best, most reasonable thing, and keep as many people on your side as possible while doing it. There's probably a lot more people that would see "we're cutting" as crass than there are people that see "we're reorganizing" as patronizing.

I agree it's corporate speak (to a degree; there are certainly worse examples). But the claim in this thread is that he didn't put the decision first. He at least did that.

I think it may be fair to expect that when a representative of a large corporation disclaims anything, that corporation is somehow engaging in the behavior that it is disclaiming.

There would be no reason to make disclaimers otherwise.

It's a form of the, "I'm not a racist, but...", style of argument.

No, giving people a free pass ("may be fair") to lie is not acceptable, even if lying is expected and commonplace. It's still dishonesty and is supremely unprofessional.

We can still recognize it as being dishonest and unprofessional. One must meet the criteria of being dishonest and unprofessional before we can label it as such.

The fairness is in the labeling (we do not want to unfairly label those who were not actually dishonest or unprofessional; sometimes mistakes do occur), not in the response to the behavior.

To me, this is the worst email i have ever read about layoff announcement.

It did not assure me that there will be no more cuts in the near future. It will put fear in all twitter employees and they will be looking for work elsewhere.

"and other departments will be cut in parallel" what other departments? layoff announcement should be complete. This is an incomplete email about an incomplete decision.

"336" wtf, this email should talk in percentage, like, We plan to cut up to 1.4% of our workforce.

Complete bull (IMO)

He was speaking more about the STRUCTURE and not the CONTENT, as you are pointing out.

I thought I was one of few who thought this way; this is a good thread. "Front-loading" messages, especially company-wide emails, give the reader confidence. And by getting to the point, ironically I want to read the whole thing instead of have my eyes glaze over after the second sentence.

Bravo, all!

> Everyone should take note of this person's excellent structure: he put the decision first. If you are writing a decisive message that can greatly impact many people's lives: write the decision first.

I'm sure the guys being laid off appreciate their boss' rhetorical prowess.

An honest "I'm sorry, you're being laid off" is a hell of a lot better than "we're making structural changes that may or may not impact you over the next six months".