> When an employee doesn't work out, it is virtually never because, had you used different words, the issue would have been fixed.

[citation needed]

I'm very curious what your experiences are that lead you to this conclusion. It just seems wrong to me. If someone is spending too much time coordinating and not enough time coding or vice versa, you should tell them that explicitly so that they can switch their priorities. If someone is spending too much time writing well factored code and not enough time shipping or vice versa, you should tell them that so that they can change their approach. If someone needs to up their level expertise on your toolset in order to be productive, you should tell them that and point them to the right literature so that they can learn.

In none of these situations is it better to ... what are you even suggesting doing? like winking at them or something? awkward shifting in your seat? the silent treatment? using obtuse jargon?

Just tell people how you think they're doing and how you think they could improve! It may be awkward but you'll get over it...

You can take things on/off someone's plate, but you cannot improve them into good judgment. If you are letting someone go, it is almost never the case that, had you given a different set of tasks, they would have been a good employee.

Again, I think this just isn't accurate. Many issues really are due to unclear expectations. Maybe because a lot of people have bad managers who are scared to just give clear feedback...

You expect something from me, tell me. I don't like to guess and I am no telepath, so withou you telling me there is no way for me to know. Left to my own devices, I do what I consider the "right" thing. And without contrary feedback, I will continue to consider this to be right thing. People usually do not do wrong things, or behave like a*holes, intentionally.

Not giving feedback is just lazy, and borderline cowardize because it is an easy way to avoid conflicts.

Not getting into pointless conflicts is not cowardice; it is prudence. I am not conflict avoidant, but I’m not going to hand hold someone - double checking their work and giving feedback takes a huge amount of effort. It can only really be done a few times, at the beginning of a person’s employment.

Ideally, the employee’s “right thing” and the manager’s “right thing” are already well-aligned and “feedback” is more like “finetuning”.

If there is a large gap between the “right thing”s - aka what is considered good judgment, this situation is incorrigible with verbal feedback.

None of this is to imply malice (behave like a-holes), just that there are so few hours in a day, and trying to get an employee to pick up on everything through individualized verbal feedback is very taxing.

You seem to be ignoring the importance of centuries of concern and acquired wisdom on how important good communication is, by emperors, CEOs, managers, ... etc., for maximizing the value of any relationship.

People are not interchangeable, with regard to any skill. This is even more so for communication which is a meta-skill over many skills.

The upside to greater communication effectiveness is higher performance with regard to skills downstream from communication (almost all of them, almost all the time).

Dismissing the job of adapting communication styles or substance to one side of any relationship just leaves upside potential on the table, or locks in unnecessary downside. This seems antithetical to what management is about - maximizing the value returned by those being managed.