I would spontaneously combust if I were responsible for a $364B company on a good day, never mind deciding how layoffs should be done. It's just surprising that parody-level corporate-speak still gets used despite having being derided for years in mainstream press and conversation.

A few people may express derision for the political apparatus, but the reality remains that this type of language is extremely effective.

I used to believe that if one were selective, he could find discerning groups of people where political shenanigans were of minimal effect. I've since learned that no matter what, politics is a matter of survival in any group of 5+ people, especially in cultural circumstances that emphasize individual independence and freedom.

We can't fault a corporate CEO for donning highly-sanitized corporate political speech. Like it or not, executives would be dead meat without it.

Political tap-dancing has been parodied for generations and that still happens.

Heck, Cheney all but quoted Reagan's "I don't recall"-defense as a 20th anniversary tribute and that had been lampooned specifically.

Or, for balance, Obama saying "I am acting alone on the border" and then at the border "Congress does not do its job."

That's not really "being political" since both statements are true. Congress didn't act on the immigration problem, so he acted on his own with the limited power of the Executive. This isn't a good example.

Well, one could argue "he is not acting" since thousands of kids keep flowing in, and one could argue "it's not the job of Congress to act."

Lies don't have to "sound political" to be untrue.

People are downvoting you because this quickly became blatantly off-topic and distracting from the subject at hand, not because of your political views.

/s/corporate\ speak/lawyer\ speak

Why do you feel the need to escape spaces?

Subject: Important Company-wide Announcement

Dear Employees,

For our business to continue running, we must reduce the number of staff. This is an unfortunate but also inevitable reality.

[insert details of layoff here]

[insert honest platitudes]

Senior management wishes all of you the best of luck, and has every confidence that you will be even more successful at your next job.

The only bit I would disagree with is, "For our business to continue running..."

Last year, Microsoft made over $20 billion profit on almost $80 billion in revenue. The truth is that Microsoft has accumulated many useless employees over the years, and they could be even more profitable by laying off those people.

"In order to maximize shareholder value in the long term..." I would hate to be fired, no matter the phrasing, but kudos to a CEO brave enough to say things just how they are.

Not bad for a corpse, seven years later: http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

"For our business to remain competitive... "

"For your convenience, 15% of positions will be removed."

Yes, but at that point it's not a "running business" but a charity.

Pruning all the carefully hidden useless employees is a massive effort, getting rid of a department that is longer relevant is a minor effort. Expecting them to undertake the massive effort for the appearance of fairness is unrealistic.

I don't know if you guys read the email in question - http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2014/jul14/07-17an...

it seems fine to me?

c.f.

Subject: good news and bad news

Hey team, got some good news and bad news. The bad news is not everyone can be part of some of the current transitions, you're more than welcome to re-apply to new positions that will be evolving in the future, for those of you who are still relevant. The good news is that for those of you who are staying - Microsoft is now a mobile-first company! We're making the productivity equivalent of Angry Birds. Also, we're keeping xbox, you guys are cool.

Peace yo.

Except, they're not laying off most of the staff. This email is, with 85% confidence, going to staff members who will not be fired.

This is a notification that it's happening, that you're not going to be affected, and that they're doing it because they think it will help the company grow and adapt.

Yup, in this day and age simplicity and clarity stand out and are appreciated by most people.

A great blog post on this topic:

http://www.bhorowitz.com/the_right_way_to_lay_people_off

Though it's advice aimed at much much smaller companies than Microsoft it still resonates. Also I bet HN readers are much more likely to have to one day lay off 18 people than 18,000.

In my opinion, this is a pretty good critique of his writing style along with some constructive suggestions on how to improve it:

http://www.mondaynote.com/2014/07/13/microsofts-new-ceo-need...

I agree (and even added some of my own commentary at http://www.mimiran.com/proposals/the-importance-of-writing-w...). Nadella is not yet at the level of Ballmer, but he's working on it. Which is too bad, they are both really smart guys running a really important company. I'd like to think that if they had a clear direction that they could communicate clearly, they would be more successful.

> you should consider posting an email as if you were the one newly responsible

For starters, I would not use the word "synthesized" in my email.

That's a thinly-veiled appeal to authority.