Write Better At Work

Bad writing costs money; writing feedback boosts productivity

by

Josh Bernoff would say “Bad writing costs money” is an understatement. In his view, “bad writing is destroying your company’s productivity.”

What’s the basis for this claim? Bernoff surveyed 547 people who write at least two hours a week (in addition to email) on the job. On the average, they reported reading job-related materials 25.5 hours a week (including emails).

“A majority say that what they read is frequently ineffective because it’s too long, poorly organized, unclear, filled with jargon, and imprecise.”

Eighty-one percent of those surveyed identified bad writing as a significant waste of their time.

However, Bernoff also found that bad writers can improve with targeted feedback.
The Federal Bank of Philadelphia offered bank examiners a chance to participate in a voluntary writing program. After receiving detailed feedback on one or two pieces of writing, participants’ revisions showed a

  • 56% improvement in organization
  • 48% improvement in clarity

The bank didn’t quantify how much time and effort these improvements would save readers. But one or two half-hour sessions of feedback improved writing quality in two areas that reduced the amount of time readers needed to spend rereading or following up with queries.

How much time could cutting down on rereading or follow-up queries save you?

(For more ideas on providing feedback to business writers, see this free 21-page whitepaper, available at https://writebetteratwork.com/free-guide-whitepaper/)

Sources: Bernoff, Josh. (2016, September 6). Bad writing is destroying your company’s productivity. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/09/bad-writing-is-destroying-your-companys-productivity

Bernoff, Josh. (2017, February 21). Why your organization needs a writing center. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/02/why-your-organization-needs-a-writing-center

Plain Language: Writing simply saves money and gets better results

by

Plain Language means no bull

Plain Talk is language your audience can understand the first time they read or hear it.

It’s the difference between “exercise your visual faculties prior to executing a jump” and “look before you leap.”

People often believe using pretentious language makes them seem intelligent. In reality, if you want to look smart, you should write simply, says Dr. Daniel Oppenheimer.

Plain English makes it easier for people to follow rules, fill out forms correctly, and understand medical advice.

Clear language also saves money. The Federal Communications Commission once needed five people to answer questions about its rules for citizen band radios. Putting the regulations into plain English freed all five staffers to take on other duties.

According to PlainLanguage.gov, “No one technique defines plain language. Rather, plain language is defined by results—it is easy to read, understand, and use.”

How can you make your writing easy for readers to understand? Use short sentences and simple words. Prefer active verbs to passive ones. Speak to the reader as “you.” Check out various guidelines to plain language to learn other techniques. Then test your writing with actual readers to be sure your message is clear.

Want to look smart? Write simply, says Ig Nobel winner Oppenheimer

by

Puffer Fish

The puffer fish is a slow swimmer in a sea of bigger, faster predators. When chased by a large hungry fish, a puffer rapidly inflates its stomach. This doubles its size and makes its spines stick out. Many pursuers are warned off by this display, but it is not the puffer’s only defense. Even predators with large teeth will have a hard time getting a grip on a tough-skinned, spiny sphere. Puffers are also among the most toxic species on Earth.

Inflation works for the puffer fish. Writers often assume it will work for them too. They think that using big words will make their ideas seem bigger. They also hope that stringing polysyllables together will make them look smarter.

The effect is likely to be just the opposite. A 2006 study by Daniel Oppenheimer found that the more writers inflated their language, the less likely they were to be seen as intelligent.

Judge for yourself. Here are two acceptance speeches. Which writer seems smarter?

Writer 1: “Formal studies conducted under controlled conditions have led to the inescapable conclusion that composers of written materials who avoid proliferation of words, needless digressions, and polysyllabic words are perceived to be more intelligent than writers who indulge in prolixity and eschew concision. So I wish to express my gratitude for your recognition of my research endeavors.”

Writer 2: “My research shows that conciseness is interpreted as intelligence. So thank you.”

The second example is Daniel Oppenheimer’s acceptance speech for the 2006 Ig Nobel Prize for Literature. The Ig Nobels, awarded by Annals of Improbable Research, recognize research that first makes people laugh and then makes them think.

Oppenheimer hopes his results will help writers avoid inflated language . “I think it’s important to point out that this study is not about problems with using long words, it’s about problems with using long words needlessly. If the best way to say something involves using a complex word, then by all means do so. But if there are several equally valid ways of expressing your ideas, you should go with the simpler one.”

Do you tend to use inflated language? Two online tools can help you simplify your language. Take the Writer’s Diet Test at http://writersdiet.com/WT.php or get suggestions for shortening your sentences from this online readability checker: www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp

Notes:

Picture of puffer fish is a public domain image from http://a-z-animals.com/animals/puffer-fish/pictures/2909/

Oppenheimer’s acceptance speech was quoted in “The Ig Nobel Winners’ Circle,” Nature, October 12, 2006, p. 617. His Ig Nobel-winning paper,”Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly,” was published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2): 139–156.

Oppenheimer’s comment on his results is from Jody Bruner’s July 25, 2009, post, “How to Impress Your Boss”: http://brunerbiz.com/tag/daniel-oppenheimer/

The official Ig Nobel site is http://www.improbable.com/ig/

Putting the “how” in how-to

by

I just wasted 10 minutes listening to a guru talk about the importance of having a professional-looking cover on a self-published book. Throughout the podcast, I kept waiting for substance:

      • What makes a cover professional?
      • How can I make my book cover stand out?
      • How can I find someone to help me create a great book cover?

The speaker shared general principles I already knew. However, he provided no guidelines or recommendations that would help me translate general principles into specific actions. Without those specifics, his advice was simply empty platitudes.

Granted, it’s possible to provide too much information. If you’re writing a recipe, you generally don’t need to define salt or explain how to beat an egg. However, you should anticipate questions or problems a typical reader might have: for example, Scrambled eggs are done when they are firm and the sheen disappears.

How can you judge how much information your reader needs? One of the best ways is to test your writing with actual readers. What questions do they have? Where do they have trouble following instructions? In most situations, however, that’s overkill. Generally it’s more practical to imagine a typical reader and write for that person.

Writing with a specific person in mind works for Warren Buffett, who is renowned for his ability to write about finance in simple, direct language: “When writing Berkshire Hathaway’s annual report, I pretend that I’m talking to my sisters. I have no trouble picturing them: Though highly intelligent, they are not experts in accounting or finance. They will understand plain English, but jargon may puzzle them…..No siblings to write to? Borrow mine: Just begin with ‘Dear Doris and Bertie.'”

How would writing for a specific reader have helped the guru provide more substance? For one thing, he would have realized the need to define professional and provide criteria that distinguish professional covers from amateur designs. For another, he would have helped nonexperts find ways to use his expert insights.  He might have listed characteristics of effective covers and explained how to use the list to judge ideas for listeners’ own cover designs. He could have recommended resources to help people find good cover designers.

For an example of how to do how-to right, see Kenn Schroder’s article on the “Chicken Scratch Testimonial Model.” The Before-During-After structure is clear, the action steps are straightforward, and tips guide you through executing the steps correctly. You’ll find an example of the results you get when you follow the process, along with a gentle nudge to action. And if you think the title is funny, be sure to read the copyright line.

When you’re sharing how-t0 information, you’ll probably write first from an expert’s perspective. That’s fine, as long as you review what you’ve written from a readers’ perspective. Ask yourself

      • What terms might confuse Doris or Bertie (or my typical reader)?
      • What do I expect readers to do with this information?
      • Have I anticipated readers’ questions?
      • Have I given readers the information and resources they need to act on this information?

Keep revising until the answer to the last question is yes, readers have everything they need to understand and use what I have written. With this reader-centered approach, you can turn general principles into substantive, actionable advice.

Notes:
“Preface” to A Plain English Handbook (1996) by Warren Buffett: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whyPL/testimonials/buffet.cfm

For great how-to advice about book covers, visit Joel Friedlander’s site: http://www.thebookdesigner.com/

Kenn Schroder’s “Chicken Scratch Testimonial Method for Selling Coaching” is an October 5, 2012, post to CoachingSitesThatWork: http://www.coachingsitesthatwork.com/chicken-scratch-testimonial-model-for-selling-coaching/

Image: Hen staring at camera bHen staring at cameray Pufferfish4 (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons