Write Better At Work

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

Three Tech Tools for Writers

by

Forgotten passwords, mangled links, corrupted files, and spinning beachballs of death—misbehaving technology can drive the mildest-mannered writer to fury. Tempting as it may be to pound your computer into its component atoms, resist. Technology can also lighten the burden of a writer’s most onerous tasks.

Write or Die
Many writers find that motivation is their greatest challenge. Anyone who has expressed a desire to be a writer has received the standard counsel: ” The best advice I can offer if you want to be a writer is … write.  A lot.” That’s easy for Stan Nicholls to say. But how do you make yourself write when you don’t feel like it or  you can find dozens of more entertaining or more pressing things to do? Let Dr. Wicked motivate you.

Dr. Wicked, also known as Jeff Printy, understands how easy it is to put off writing because any negative effects of delay seem far in the future. His application makes sluggards feel the negative consequences of procrastination as soon as they stop typing. Users set a goal and choose their level of consequences. Gentle mode delivers a “mom-like reminder”; kamikaze mode eats your words as soon as you stop typing. Sounds harsh? You should have been warned by the name: Write or Die.

Readability Calculators
Write or Die is designed to spur writers to create drafts. A readability checker helps writers revise drafts to make them easier for readers to understand. If you use Microsoft Word, you can get a readability score each time you check spelling or grammar. Several checkers are available online. I prefer the calculator available at Online-Utility.org. It applies several formulas to calculate the difficulty of a writing sample. The Flesch-Kincaid score indicates how many months and years of education a person would need to read a sample easily. For example, understanding a passage with a Flesch-Kincaid score of 7.2 would require 7 years and 2 months of schooling. Many newspapers and popular novels are written at  about a seventh-grade reading level. Less commonly used, the Coleman-Liau index is a good choice for analyzing technical materials.

Although readability scores seem precise, they are based on algorithms that calculate sentence and word length. One formula scores E = MC^2 at a fifth-grade reading level, which ignores the complexity of Einstein’s theory of mass-energy equivalence. However, if your document scores higher than 10.0, readers will probably find it easier to understand if you shorten some sentences and prefer simple words to polysyllables. Online-Utility.org’s calculator suggests ways to make your writing simpler and more understandable.

Writer’sDiet Test
Another way to make your writing understandable is to avoid unnecessary words. However, once you’ve labored to create a draft, stripping out nonessentials can be painful. Experienced writers have developed strategies such as targeting sentences beginning with It is or tightening redundant phrases such as now at this present time. Beginners may have no clue about how they could tighten their writing. Writers at any level of experience can find out whether their writing is fit or flabby by taking the Writer’sDiet Test, developed by Helen Sword. Enter a sample of 100 to 1,000 words, run the test, and get writing results based on your “diagnosis.”

This entry scored “lean,” as shown below. After submitting a sample,  you can get editing suggestions by selecting How can the Writers’Diet Test help me improve my writing?

 

Notes

Stan Nicholls’ advice is found on his home page, stannicholls.com

Write or Die, available for several platforms, can be found at writeordie.com. Printy explains how he puts the “prod” in productivity in this video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdLLo08cJKY

To check readability in Microsoft Word, choose your version’s Help menu or visit http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/test-your-document-s-readability-HP010148506.aspx

Online-Utility.org’s readability calculator is available at http://www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp

The use and limits of using readability formulas are well explained in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Toolkit for Making Written Material Clear and Effective: https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Outreach/WrittenMaterialsToolkit/Downloads/ToolkitPart07.pdf

Take the Writer’sDiet Test at http://writersdiet.com/WT.php?home

How much could you save by reducing email overload?

by

Dr. Ian M. Paul was suffering from email fatigue. As a good physician, he wanted to understand what was causing his symptoms. So, for a year, the pediatrician tracked the number of mass distribution emails he received from the medical center where he works. The total: 2,035.

How much did this email overload cost, Dr. Paul wondered. He estimated that reading each email took 30 seconds. Based on the average salary of a doctor at his institution, the yearly cost of reading mass emails comes to about $1,641 per physician. Multiply that by 629 employed doctors and the cost exceeds $1 million.

And that’s not counting the costs of distraction or the consequences of important information missed amid the inbox clutter.

How many of the mass emails your organization sends are really necessary? Can employees trust that leaders’ emails will be clear and to the point? Would improving leaders’ writing skills reduce email fatigue?

You can download free tools to Develop Leaders’ Writing Skills here. This free 22-page whitepaper includes a job aid on writing emails that get action and resources for calculating the ROI on writing training or coaching.

Source: Paul, I. M., & Levi, B. H. (2014, March). Metastasis of e-mail at an academic medical center. Journal of the American Medical Association. Retrieved from http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1812612

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