> The reason you fluff up feedback to your subordinates is because lower down the chain they tend to be insecure and don't yet have the experience to distinguish between actionable impartial feedback, and threats to their job security.
Rather than fluff it up, just make it explicit whichever you are doing.
If you actually like their work and are making an actionable suggestion, just say that, and don't forget to praise them for the work that you like. Far too often I see managers only give the suggestion and then it ends up looking like a threat.
> The reason you don't fluff feedback, or any information for that matter to your superiors, is described in basically every handbook on highly effective communication in organizations.
The reason you do fluff feedback to your superiors is that you're on an H1B visa, are at risk of getting deported from the country and having to find a new home for your partner and new school for your kids (possibly in an unfamiliar language and environment for them), just for upsetting one superior.
The reality is most people in large companies do not care about "highly effective communication". They are just trying to survive and not get deported. Once we can get rid of this stupid 60 day rule and insane housing and child-raising costs maybe people will start caring about their work. The most basic of Maslow's needs are not being met, hence the fluffing up to the authorities (bosses) who are in control of your livelihood.
Well yes, it’s a higher variance approach. If you can’t afford to look for a new job then by all means keep your head down and avoid all controversy. I would do the same in that situation. That doesn’t apply to everyone however, so for those people it would make sense to try to make things better and potentially advance their careers.
If most people in your company are on s, your management is probably breaking the laws and is not the sort of person who appreciates honest communication.