> If your superiors are unable to process no-fluff information, regardless of whether it's feedback or updates, they have no business lording over anyone and will sink whatever function they have oversight of. If you find yourself working under such people, don't bother giving feedback, start polishing your resume.

Sounds good on paper. Maybe true, oh 5 years ago. In this job market, polishing the resume is nice but you might have to deal with irrational superiors for a little longer. That's what the article is about.

> 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.

It would all be nice and good if "subordinates" and "superiors" were some completely different, disjoint sets. Yesterday's insecure peers and your subordinates will tomorrow become your superiors. People who can - do, those who can't - manage. Their personalities and other qualities likely wouldn't change in the meantime. In a perfect world, everyone who is promoted to be anyone's superior will go through a strong leadership vetting process and they will take un-fluffed honest feedback from subordinates, without retribution. But I have yet to work for such an organization. Maybe you're luckier...