The Bottom Line: Good Writing Is Good Business
Mary Ann Donovan in her article “Poor Writing Costs Big Bucks” (http://www.articlesbase.com/article‐marketing‐articles/poor‐writing‐costs‐big‐buks‐ 273356.html) provides some compelling facts about writing in the workplace:
• One survey (200 Fortune 1000 companies) found that managers felt 34 %
of their subordinates writing was below standard and of poor quality.
• An incredible $225 billion is lost by business each year because of poor
reading, writing, and math skills.
• 71 % of surveyed executives reported that good writing is critical to
business success, yet just 26 percent offer any kind of writing training.
• Poorly written manuals can conceivably result in customer death or injury,
possibly bankrupting a company due to liability and court costs
• A contributing cause to the Challenger accident was a series of poorly
written and misunderstood memos
The National Commission on Writing estimates that states spend $221 million annually on remedial writing training. Yet, “one‐third of today’s employees do not have appropriate writing skills, according to the College Board’s National Commission on Writing (http://www.prleap.com/pr/6848). Despite these findings, companies are now cutting writing training from their budgets as they struggle to keep their bottom lines in the black.
Yet, what these surveys show is that
1. poor writing is prevalent in the workplace, and
2. despite training dollars spent on writing improvement, these programs are not delivering the expected results.
As a writing trainer who for more than 20 years has been delivering writing programs to organizations of all types and sizes, I find these results dismaying but not entirely surprising. What companies overlook is why poor writing is so prevalent in the workplace and why training programs fail to succeed. Let me offer a few insights:
• Workplace writing differs from the writing employees practiced in
college. Writing for a particular professor on a specific topic does not teach writers to think strategically about how to address an organization’s political agenda, mission, and expected outcomes.
• Writing skills are not a prerequisite for the job although new hires once
on the job will spend anywhere from 30% to 70% of their time writing.
• Writing improvement is departmentalized. Most requests for writing
training come from a specific department. The training is conducted in one or two days and may or may not cover the department’s specific writing
problems.
• Few companies have an organizational‐wide writing improvement
initiative that trains employees in the specific writing they will do on the job. These initiatives require that in‐house writing programs offer a range of programs, each focused on specific department documentation. These program are part of the organization’s overall process improvement. Costly, yes. But they do succeed in actually improving overall employee writing and, in the long run, can be less expensive than single‐day or week‐long training that costs as much as $400 per employee.
• Executives and managers are not skilled in “mentoring” their
employees’ writing. Often executives and managers resort to “rewriting” their employees’ documents, believing they are “instructing” employees in good writing practices. These good intentions result in demoralizing the employee, assuming authorship, and conditioning employees to believe that their writing will always be rewritten. It’s no wonder employees don’t try to
improve.
• Companies invest mainly in “quick fix” writing programs. “Quick‐fix”
programs are typically one or two days, cover anything from grammar to
email or memo writing and often do not address strategic writing—how to
analyze audiences (address their needs, concerns, and responses) and set up an organized argument using logic and persuasion—always in the context of the organization’s mission. These programs often focus on generic documents—how to organize these documents and adopt a generic style (that may not be appropriate for the reader or company strategy) and
practice grammar skills. Generic programs can give employees instruction in organization, style, and grammar. These programs, however, don’t help
employees think strategically, analyze the particular circumstance they face
on the job, and address the issue in a way that promotes client satisfaction,
offers realistic recommendations, and helps consumers use products through easy‐to‐follow instructions.
Companies can improve employee writing and increase the bottom line if they are willing to invest as much time and money as they invest in management training. Clear writing—as many surveys show—affect the bottom line as much as expert management.
Keep an eye out for our future blog: “How Companies—If Willing—Can Really Improve Employee Writing”
Write to the Point
How many times have you read an email or memo and by the second paragraph wondered, “Why am I reading this?” Sadly, this is a common problem. In fact, a major complaint about today’s business writing is that it doesn’t get to the point. Why? Because writers write without thinking. As a result, their writing lacks focus, and they lose their reader’s attention and the chance to communicate good ideas.
Getting to the point is the hallmark of effective communication and is especially important when considering that today’s business professionals read on average between 40 to 50 email or memo messages per day. That means you need to make your point in the very first paragraph and in a clear, brisk way. To communicate effectively, you must crystallize your message into one paragraph—a single paragraph that tells the reader what the message is about, why it is important to the reader, and what the reader should do with the information.
To write an effective opening paragraph requires strategic thinking and planning—two skills many writers ignore. And yet, taking time to think through the message can improve communication by 50%. This is not an easy task but a necessary one. To make the point, let’s look at some typical opening paragraphs:
“I am writing in response to your letter dated June 12.”
Fine, but I can’t remember what I wrote on June 12.
“I am responding to your suggestions about the floor plans.”
Okay, but what is your response to my suggestions?
“Thank you for your suggestions about the floor plans. We have reviewed them and are certain we can accommodate your request.”
Better, but what exactly are you going to do?
These opening paragraphs—although they somewhat improve with each iteration—all fail to get to the point. They don’t tell the reader what he wants to know:
“We have revised the floor plans to accommodate DSL connections for all
offices.”
This, in essence, is the main message. However, this message is typically buried in the second, third, or final paragraphs, where the reader is likely to overlook it. As a result, you’ve lost the reader—and maybe the sale. It now may take a phone call to clarify exactly what you will do and another email to outline the project. In the process, however, you’ve lost time and credibility.
On the other hand, a thoughtfully written opening paragraph tells the reader what he needs to know upfront—concisely and graciously:
“Thank you for your floor plan suggestions. Based on these suggestions, we have revised the plans to accommodate DSL connections for all offices. For your review, we have attached the floor plans, and below we outline our renovation schedule and budget. If these meet with your approval, we can begin renovation on June 30.”
In four sentences the writer has given the reader all he needs to know: what the message is about, why it is important to the reader, what the reader needs to consider, and what actions the reader needs to take.
A brisk, to-the-point opening paragraph is like the elevator pitch; it communicates the key message in a few short sentences. To write effective openings requires thinking strategically about the message and planning what you want to say. When planning your message, start by focusing on your reader:
• Why should the reader be interested in this message?
• What information does the reader need to clearly understand the issues?
• How will the reader use this information?
• What actions, if any, do you want the reader to take?
International Email: The Business of Politeness
Americans scramble to get work done ASAP. Immediacy is the game, and “time is money.” This attitude dominates our workplaces, our transactions, and our email correspondences. English may be the lingua franca of international business, but our direct, to‐the‐point emails can often offend our global partners.
Because email is a quick, efficient way to communicate, we often ignore the nuances of politeness. Something as simple as a salutation can make a good or bad first impression. Addressing readers using only the person’s first (“Dear Reva,” for example) is considered in many cultures too informal and, in some cases, too intimate. And our friendly smiley “hi” certainly reduces our message to an informality that undermines our business stature. Formal greetings like “Dear Ms. Lund” express respect and set an appropriate tone. And yet there’s more to consider in a simple salutation.
Titles and positions are significantly more important in cultures in which authority and hierarchy predominate. Asian cultures, for example, pay deference to those in authority and so a person’s position (title) must be acknowledged—“Dr. Amin” or “Professor Lund”—in the salutation.
Making requests pose particular problems for American writers who pay homage to direct requests. “Please send me the figures for next quarter’s budget,” seems innocuous enough to an American reader, but to an Asian reader in which decorum requires indirectness, this request sounds like an insensitive command. The imperative mood in English (please do this) expresses a command although American readers “read” this as a request. Modal verbs (“could,” “would,” “should”) soften the tone, as in “I would be pleased if you could send me the figures for next quarter’s budget.” To an American writer, doubling the number of words seems inane. Americans, after all, are aught to write plainly and concisely. Yet these modal verbs are culturally significant.
Modal verbs express an option that allows the reader to cordially accept the request and, therefore, maintain a position of equality (one aspect of “face”) and formality with the writer. The phrase “I would be pleased,” allows the reader to “please” you by following through on the request, thereby establishing a cordial relationship. Modal statements that express politeness in other cultures (“may I ask you,” “would you consider,” “I would be most pleased if you could,” etc.) sound staid to the American ear, yet these expressions are equivalent to a cordial handshake that can bind the business transaction.
Consider your emails to American readers. The quick email to a vendor or an email request to the CEO, each must be crafted with the reader’s position, concerns, and circumstances in mind. The same is true for international readers, who may not understand colloquialisms, American business jargon and American business email etiquette. When writing to international emails, express politeness by
• Using a formal salutation, taking into account proper titles
• Making requests using modal expressions
• Avoiding colloquialisms, jargon, and slang that are hard to interpret
• Avoiding short (interpreted as curt) email messages
• Focusing on the reader’s concerns, not yours (“How can we help you vs. what we need you to do”)
• Including a cordial closing (“Thank you for your consideration,” “I am looking
forward to working with you”)
Writing international emails challenges American business professionals to balance clear writing with culturally sensitive expressions. Good writers adapt their writing to readers’ concerns, circumstances, and level of understanding. Adapting emails to international audiences’ concerns is good, polite business practice.
Join our blog and share your thoughts on and experiences with international email.
Rules are made to be broken
Bugbears. Arguments over grammar and style are often as fierce as those over Windows versus Mac, and as fruitless as Coke versus Pepsi and boxers versus briefs. Pedantic and vicious debates over knotty matters such as prepositions at the end of a sentence, beginning a sentence with however or therefore, or split Infinitives may be entertaining to those who enjoy cockfights, but do little to improve writing. Know as much as you can about the rules, but strive above all for clarity and grace.
Source: Jack Lynch’s Website: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/b.html#bugbears
Edit the following letter for errors in grammar.
To Who it May Concern
We recently received your proposal for the new schedule. Which was creative to say the least. Thank you, for suggesting 16 hour work days. Mr. Anderson and me were going to suggest something similar.
We felt badly about the recent lay-offs and know that you are already working very hard. But you are appearing good since your operation and we know you can handle anything. Having worked nights and weekends for the past twelve months, everyone at Busy Bee’s is showing their strong work ethic.
Attached is some minor adjustments. Reading them over you’ll notice the pay cut, removal of the coffee machine (energy costs these days!), and emilination of sick days. If you have any questions please contact Me rather than Mr. Anderson. These days, I am more available than him.
Warmest Regards,
Tim Tiredly
Writing Practice Python Letter
Read the letter below. Then, answer the questions for some writing and logic practice.
**********************************************************
Dear Mr Python
I attended your movie the Life of Brian and must write to say Shame On You. This scandalous satire on the christian religion is heretical, now I’m sure you were reared to be a good christian boy but you have fallen in with a bad breed whom are leading you down a contemptible path, you are losing your soul to comedy and I for one think there’s enough laughter in the world, as I told Mrs. Plimpton just yesterday while she was feeding the English sparrows. She does this so neatly. Encircling muffin and bread crumbs around her statue of St. Francis of Assisi for the English sparrows which are in danger of extinction, now that might make a good movie and you could slip in a few jokes if you must.
But in my opinion comedy is ruining our nation and undermining our national character. We are not joking people but people who get things done using cold logic. Consier what would have happened in world war2 if Churchill at Yalta had made jokes about Stalin’s moustache or Roosevelts gamey leg. We might be speaking that ugly guttural language and writing nouns with 20 letters! Did you ever think about the consequences of comedy for the sake of comedy? We are a people of the “stiff upper lip” and we didn’t get that by laughing but by exercising sharp judgments of other nations inferiority and we are certainly not entertained by scurrilous attacks on a religion that gave us Gothic Cathedrals, the Cruscades, the inquisition, and bans on birth control.
With warmest regards,
Mrs. Evelyn Mott of Hampstead
Help Mrs. Mott with Her Letter
This letter has plenty of mistakes in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. It also has major logic problems. Can you identify them?
1. What is Mrs. Mott’s main argument?
2. What examples does Mrs. Mott use to support her position?
3. What examples would you use to support Mrs. Mott’s position?
Comma Quiz Answers
1) According to Monty Python’s Flying Circus, the Montgolfier brothers were the first balloonists. (Introductory phrase is set off by a comma.)
2) Actually, the first balloonist was a chap from Cheapside, and he expired when his balloon collapsed over the Lady’s Auxillary Tea in Bennington. (Introductory word “actually” set off by comma; two independent clauses set off by comma.)
3) Mrs. Mott, not the apple heiress but a modest housewife from Hampstead, cried, “Oh my god, he has broken my favorite teapot.” (Parenthetical phrase set off by comma; before quote a comma is used; introductory exclamation set off by comma from the statement.)
4) Because the balloonist had broken Mrs. Mott’s favorite teapot, the Lady Auxillary dragged his body to the nearest creek. (Dependent clause at the beginning of sentence is set off by commas; however, if the sentence is reversed, no comma is necessary: “The Lady Auxillary dragged his body to the nearest creek because the balloonist had broken Mrs. Mott’s favorite teapot.”)
5) There, under the cover of darkness, they plunged the body in the creek, and they watched it slowly float like a summer leaf, bobbing up and down until it vanished. (Introductory word (there) set off by a comma; parenthetical phrase (under cover of darkness) set off by comma; two independent clauses separated by comma; final phrase (bobbing up…) set off by commas.)
6) The Ladies, however, salvaged tarp from the balloon, and they sewed large tents 10 feet by 10 feet for their next tea. (Set off transitional words (however) with commas: separate two independent phrases with commas.)
7) At the next tea held in Hampstead, the Ladies Auxillary erected these tents, and they served jam muffins with clotted cream, thick sticky buns, chocolate éclairs, and Cornish cookies. (Introductory phrase set off by commas; separate two independent clauses by commas; separate a series of items by commas.)
Tips for Using Commas
• Know the difference between dependent and independent clauses.
• Know what phrases are.
• Know what parenthetical phrases are.
Stayed tuned; we’ll define these terms and show you how to use them!
