Write Better At Work

Email etiquette in action: Facing down trolls

by

Troll Warning Sign by Gil Mnogueira

Author Josh Bernoff has lots of actionable writing advice, and he prides himself on Writing Without Bullshit.

Lately he’s been critiquing apologies by CEOs who’ve been outed (and even ousted) for sexist behavior. His July 6 post confronts a different offense: trolling. He calls out the Reddit user who posted a video of Donald Trump beating up on a figure identified as CNN and then apologized for being a troll.

As usual, Bernoff takes the apology apart paragraph-by-paragraph. First, he quotes a portion of the apology verbatim. Then he gives a succinct analysis:

Analysis: This is true: “Trolling is nothing more than bullying.” Now one troll has seen the light. There are only a few million left to reform.

Finally, he boils the verbiage down to what he thinks the author is really saying:

 Translation: Trolling is bad. Don’t be like me.

Then he asks, “What shall we do with trolls?” His answer: Expose them. “It’s a lot harder to be hateful if we know who you are.”

In response to those who take exception to his criticism, he asks, “Would you say it to their face?” He considers his comments fair if they critique “words and actions, not people or groups” and if he would deliver them directly to the person criticized.

His standards for fairness reflect a core principle of online etiquette, articulated by Virginia Shea in 1994: “Never mail or post anything you wouldn’t say to your reader’s face.”

Bernoff’s critiques are hard-hitting but civil. Taking on trolls without descending to their level requires a clear head and a stout heart. Thankfully, Bernoff has both, he’s willing to use them to expose self-serving apologists and trolls.

How to protect learners from the “curse of knowledge”

by

Philip Fernbach was well launched on his explanation of how to build a histogram by putting data into bins. Then a student apologized for asking a “stupid” question. “What’s a bin?” She wasn’t the only one who was confused. About half the students in the class didn’t understand the terminology Fernbach was using.

Actually the student’s question was very intelligent. She recognized a gap in her understanding. She also identified the information she needed to fill the gap. And she was brave enough to risk embarrassment by asking for the information she needed.

Fernbach was embarrassed, too, by his assumption that his students understood what he considered to be basic terminology. He used the opportunity to correct the gap in his students’ knowledge.

As Fernbach’s experience proves, knowing about the curse of knowledge is no guarantee we won’t fall victim to it. “When we know about something, we find it hard to imagine that someone else doesn’t know about it,” he and coauthor Steven Sloman write in The Knowledge Illusion.

How can we protect ourselves, and our learners, from the curse of knowledge?

We can

  • identify prerequisite knowledge and review it briefly (or provide online glossaries)
  • imagine we’re developing for a bright 9-year-old with no prior experience
  • pre-test fundamental terms and concepts
  • ask subject matter experts what “everybody already knows” about their field and assume many learners won’t know what SMEs take for granted
  • test materials with actual learners

None of these methods is perfect, which is why we’d be wise to do as Fernbach did and make it safe for learners to follow his advice: “If you find yourself with a stupid question, consider yourself lucky to have spotted a gap in understanding that others in the room might have missed, and have the courage to ask it. Your community will be wiser as a result.”

Fernbach, Philip. “We Should Be Asking More Stupid Questions.” 6 May 2017. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-should-asking-more-stupid-questions-philip-fernbach

“How to” is not enough; leaders need “know that” and “know to”

by

You might expect someone who scores well on a management test to be an excellent manager. However, a recent study found that managers who know principles and procedures often fail to put that knowledge into practice.

Lead researcher Timothy Baldwin and his colleagues identified three types of knowledge:

  • principles (know that)
  • ability to do something (know how)
  • recognizing when and where to use a skill (know to)

Tests can measure the first two types of knowledge (know that and know how). However, they are not as effective at assessing knowing to, which “means having access to one’s knowledge in the moment—knowing to do something when it is needed.”

Based on the study, how-to writers need to do more than explain basic principles and processes. They also need to provide cues that help readers recognize when to apply knowledge.

For example, one principle of email etiquette is that you should exchange no more than three rounds of emails. If you haven’t resolved the issue after three rounds, call or visit face-to-face instead of sending another email. But what if an exchange starts to turn hostile?

Don’t wait for the third round; instead, call or talk in person immediately. Only someone who knows to ignore the rule when exchanges turn hostile can defuse conflict before it escalates.

As you write how-to materials, keep know-that and know-to in mind. Give readers cues about when and where t0 use what they know. Explain the rationale for recommendations so readers can recognize opportunities to apply them. By building know-than and know-to into your how-to training, you’ll develop leaders who can put their knowledge into practice.

Notes: Catherine Lombardozzi describes a 2011 study by Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk in “Shocking Evidence of Managers’ Knowing-Doing Gap” in T+D (July 2012): http://www.astd.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2012/07/Shocking-Evidence-of-Managers-Knowing-Doing-Gap.aspx