Your version is nice. You missed a point. The original sets the tone. The tone is blunt and to the point. The boss wants everyone to speak like that.
Conditional clauses are harder to parse. Sentence fragments are easy. Write like a Neandathal, people will read every word.
Instructions are simple. Anyone can guess the context. Explaining context forces readers to visualize, detracting from the message.
Your one is nicer. People won't every word. That's the point.
Now, I would never advise doing this if you didn't have the authority to do so. And it would pay to be extra-super-nice when you weren't in a "decision making" meeting, so people didn't think you were an evil robot. But the rule list does drive in some important points in a very effective way.
I like to read things written by people with mental disorders. Schizophrenic writing is particularly fun. This style reminds me of quite a few disorders. That isn't really a good thing.
If you talk to people like they're morons who can't process more complex sentences, I don't think that really sets a good tone - the original list to me sounds very much like "here is a list of shit that I expect you to pull, which I'm committing to paper so I can yell at you the first time you do any of it". Note that I hold this belief to be true regardless of whether or not they are actually morons who can't process more complex sentences.
> Now, I would never advise doing this if you didn't have the authority to do so.
If a communication style is only acceptable if you have the "authority to do so" then I think that is a good indicator that it is rude.
Short fragments are fine (if brusque) for instructions, but can be maddening to read if it's trying to put forward a complex argument. It's a bunch of disconnected arguments, all being barked out at once; which is fine if you can easily follow the thread (in the case of simple instructions). But otherwise you have to wonder if and how they are connected in the speaker's head.
As for being rude, telling people what to do and how to do it is something I find rude. But that's something that a boss can get away with.
I like the original more than the polite version, though. It gets the point across loud and clear. I guess that's not really important if everyone is already on the same page, but if they aren't then it's essential in a workplace.
Conditional clauses are harder to parse. Sentence fragments are easy. Write like a Neandathal, people will read every word.
Instructions are simple. Anyone can guess the context. Explaining context forces readers to visualize, detracting from the message.
Your one is nicer. People won't every word. That's the point.
Now, I would never advise doing this if you didn't have the authority to do so. And it would pay to be extra-super-nice when you weren't in a "decision making" meeting, so people didn't think you were an evil robot. But the rule list does drive in some important points in a very effective way.