Communication Structures in a Growing Organization

I about the process in this write up though. There is communication and there is discussion. The article is framed in a way that suggests top down communication process needed to change so that a larger company could be sure that everyone is on the same page and aware of what they need to be aware of. Both examples then however name check the idea that feedback is expected at the least, welcome at best.

How are we meant to read this paragraph:

> “Marketing says we’re an observability platform, not a tool.” It isn’t enough that our CMO said the words in All Hands. As a representative of Marketing, it’s important to me that our product, documentation, engineers who are speaking at conferences, and customer success people get the language consistent. That means I need to show up at department meetings and talk to people in their perspective. Next Monday I’ll talk to all of Engineering very briefly, and later to the docs team specifically.

It reads as if marketing has made a decision by fiat for the rest of the company to toe the line. No judgement there, that may well be how the company chooses to operate. What then is the need for "talk to people in their perspective"? Is various department perspectives going to change the marketing language, or is it just to placate everyone that they were heard? Why does the perspective taking not happen _before_ the decision as input on if the language should change?