Enough Already With Pompous Business Writing

Management Speak: Our business is going through a paradigm shift. Translation: We have no idea what we’ve been doing, but in the future we shall do something completely different. ~anonymous Internet wag

  On occasion, I identify myself as a “communications consultant,” although I’ve been doing that less and less, preferring the more straightforward “trainer” (business writing, presentation skills and media relations). To me, the word consultant far too often equates with long meetings, dark suits and websites stuffed with phrases such as “paradigm shift.”

  It occurred to me some time ago that people who fancy themselves consultants are – deliberately or otherwise – using our mother tongue to exclude, when English can be a marvelous tool for including our readers in what we have to say. Have a look at this enticing paragraph from a management consulting site:

  “Projects are customized based on client needs. Due diligence services range from initial validation of targets to detailed on-site due diligence visits to the preparation of complete integration plans. Management consulting services, aimed at enhancing organizational effectiveness, are typically intensive studies that identify cost-saving opportunities and define appropriate actionable go-forward plans. Strict confidentiality is maintained for all engagements.”

  Really? That’s what you want me to pay for? My reaction:

• Where do I find the actual content you’ve so cleverly hidden behind mindless copycat phrases such as “due diligence?” Does deploying it twice in the same sentence mean you’re doubly due diligent?

• “…initial validation of targets”? What targets?

• Thank you for offering a “complete” integration plan. After all, so many other websites candidly warn me that their work is often incomplete.

• You’re going to “define appropriate actionable go-forward plans”? Yes, I hope they’re “appropriate.” In these tough times, I’d rather not spend my money on anything inappropriate. And the “actionable” part is particularly reassuring. I certainly don’t want a consultant who tells me to fold my business because I have absolutely no options. Thank you also for inventing words like actionable. The language is so much richer as a result.

  Then, defining your hoped-for plans as “go-forward” is just the sort of precision that makes me want to reach right out and hire you. It makes my choices so much clearer if I know that actually going back in time or staying right where I am in some sort of other-dimensional stasis won’t be included in your sage advice.

• Finally, your writing tells me that you’d be equally pompous and obtuse and unimaginative and just plain dull sitting across from me at a shiny conference table.

  I’m also seeing a word that ranks right down there with “due diligence” when it comes to shallow and rather stupid communicating. See if you can find it in this phrase from another website: “…to help formulate and deploy their business strategies and bring about transformational change to produce successful results.”

  Yes, of course, it’s “transformational,” isn’t it? Do you know of any other kind of change? Is there a change that falls short of transforming that which is being changed? If “change” and “transform” somehow differ in degree, who is the architect of such a shift, and why are the rest of us parroting him or her? More importantly, if “transformational” has more clout than “change,” aren’t we diluting its impact by repeating it every bloody time we have a chance to pose as thoughtful and authoritative?

  Reminds me of Jim Baker standing up right at the beginning of the protracted dispute over the 2000 presidential election results and telling us that the Bush side of the recount would be “transparent.” Ask yourself how many times you’ve heard that one. Then ask yourself how many times you’ve heard promises to be “opaque” in similarly sensitive investigations or analyses.

  That’s enough ranting. Just a couple more items.

  First, you can’t be the “most unique.” Unique is one of a kind. Making that distinction is the type of thing that separates scribblers from professional communicators who treat their readers with respect.

  Second:

Management: We have to leverage our resources. Translation: We’re working weekends.”

Technical Writing Should Adopt Business Communications Clarity

  “Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph.” ~Anonymous high school essay.

  It’s impossible to know whether that young man or woman will ever make a dime at the craft of writing, but you have to appreciate the precision, don’t you? Pithy analogies clearly aren’t his or her strength, but details matter a lot.

  Those are the sorts of young minds I had the pleasure of working with recently at the Energy Department in Washington, D.C. As brand-new hires, six scientists and engineers spent two days with me on the basics of clear, concise writing. Not a one of them had had a writing class in college, but along the way they reinforced a valuable lesson when it comes to putting pen to paper or fingers to keyboard.

  First, we had to get over a looming obstacle – what to write about. Writing skills exercises are most productive and least daunting when the topic is familiar to participants. At settings like the Energy Department’s Environmental Management Office, which supervised their business communications training, that would mean writing about cleaning up radioactive waste sites.

  The problem was that these recent college graduates knew virtually nothing about the specifics of the jobs that awaited them after leaving DC. All they had was a location, like Idaho Falls or Oak Ridge, Tennessee, or Cincinnati. So what, I asked myself, could I expect them to write about?

  My concerns were short-lived. College had filled their heads with so much useful knowledge that all I had to do was prompt them to view me, the reader, as a lay person (a congressional aide, perhaps) who’d asked a question about a matter with far-ranging policy implications. In other words, it was technical writing for a non-technical audience.

  As they began to develop that idea, I told them to fill in with details, following the “show don’t tell” precept that governs any worthwhile explanatory business writing: Don’t tell me that the groundwater has been contaminated by radioactive waste. Show me with details about type of waste, measurements that depict degree of damage, cause of damage – all of which set the stage for what environmental clean-up types love to call “remediation.”

  Framed by a four-stage organizational process – exploratory, draft(s), edit/revise and publish/send – the young professionals followed the three guidelines of successful writing, whether a project report, a technical writing evaluation, a follow-up sales pitch or a brief e-mail:

 • Writing is thinking. It should be viewed as an opportunity, a gift of time to show how smart you are.

 • Know and respect your readers. Good writers use inclusive language, not pompous, jargon-laden language that excludes. They write to edify, not to impress.

 • Edit/revise. The first two guidelines are meaningless if you don’t check your work carefully. Sloppy or nonexistent editing can make you look foolish.

  The result was a revelation to each of the students, who’d begun the first day telling each other that they found writing intimidating. Aided by one-on-one peer review, they came up with straightforward, concise, get-to-the-point-at-the-start writing that I, the lay person, understood.

  A Peruvian-born lady who had little faith in herself and her command of English did a bang-up job describing vitrification – turning nuclear waste into glass. A young engineer from Michigan wrote an unambiguous argument for an employee drug-testing program and described how a hypothetical small business dealing with potentially dangerous substances could put it in place. What lubricated the process for him was calling on details he’d picked up in a college class and putting himself in the place of the hypothetical reader – in this case a business owner who was skeptical about drug testing.

   ”The best style is the style you don’t notice.” That’s how the novelist Somerset Maugham described writing that works. The world of business communications is no different. Effective writers get their points across concisely without calling attention to the way they write. The reader understands what is being conveyed – questions, answers to questions, a call to action, a persuasive point – in one reading.

Language Hall of Shame, Part II

  I’ve gotten many comments on my inaugural entries in the Language Hall of Shame, for which I’m grateful. So herewith:

• Out of the box. I thought this sucker would be gone by now, consigned to some ash heap like “this particular point in time” subbing for “now,” but I’ve been hearing it far too often lately. If you’re really thinking outside the box, should you be using tired phrases like “outside the box?” And if everyone thinks outside that ubiquitous cardboard container, maybe the “most unique” course for you would be to climb back inside and hunker down in lonely, risk-free splendor.

• Taking it to the next level. Okay, I know this is a sports cliché, and I know we can blame it on a host of ex-jocks in broadcast booths across America. But I’ve been hearing it creep into consultantspeak and what passes for business communications. One thought: In the workplace, writing skills are most effective if they’re precise. So the “next level” doesn’t have to be a glorious ascension, does it? It could be a step downward, couldn’t it?

• Step up to the plate. Sports again. This one’s achieving critical mess (that’s not a typo). And it’s an absurd example of what occurs when copycat, mindless writing masquerades as effective business communication. Do you know what happens to the top 20 or 30 baseball hitters when they “step up to the plate?” Nearly seven times out of ten, they strike out, hit a grounder, a foul pop-up, an infield pop-up, a line drive to an infielder or a fly ball to an outfielder. In other words, they fail.

Presentation Skills And Ego Don’t Mix

“The brain can absorb only what the rear end can endure.” ~Mark Twain

   Think back to all the presentations or briefings you’ve attended. Have you ever heard anyone complain that they were too short? That they wanted the speaker to keep on going, piling PowerPoint slide on top of PowerPoint slide until nearly every head nodded in bored weariness or to look down at a watch without being too obvious? Not bloody likely.

   But then have you ever sat through a presentation that actually was too short? That left you thirsting for more information? I can’t think of one, and the reason is compellingly simple: A concise, pithy briefing works because those presenters care about informing and entertaining their audience, about getting to the point with a minimum of technological back-up and a few key points jotted on a whiteboard or flip chart.

   Just as importantly – as I keep insisting to participants in my business communications seminars — they want to turn the event into a conversation, not a lecture. They want to stimulate a lively Q&A where, if things really get revved up, the presenter pivots off the back-and-forth to bring out the best in the audience. The ones most adept at presentation skills leave room for what should be the high point of their time up there – you and your ideas and questions. Isn’t that more stimulating than a speaker viewing you as a passive receptacle for a look-at-me lecture?

  It’s a matter of respect. The best briefers don’t act as if they hold a monopoly on all the relevant wisdom in the room. At the same time, they keep ideas or information in reserve because they know at least some of you will ask the questions or make the points that transform one speaker and 30 or 40 listeners into a lively learning experience.

 One last thing, calling on Mark Twain above: pretend your audience is sitting on hard wooden pews. The best sermons, I’ve been told, rarely exceed 15 minutes.

News Media: Helpmates or Irritants

“Had there been a reporter along with Lieutenant Calley when he massacred those people in Vietnam, I think that probably wouldn’t have happened.” ~Bob Schieffer, CBS News

  Greetings once again. Coming across that quote about “Rusty” Calley struck a chord – actually a couple chords – for me. First, I too was an Army lieutenant in Vietnam. As executive officer of a battery of self-propelled 155mm howitzers, I had ultimate responsibility for the deaths of more than 100 Vietnamese, all of whom (I fervently hope) were enemy combatants.

  Second, Calley emerged just a couple weeks ago from whatever quiet existence he was leading to admit his own guilt in the My Lai massacre in an extraordinary speech before a service club somewhere in mid-America. Calley actually watched as his men dealt out more than 300 deaths. Most were women, children and the elderly, none of them armed. It was mass murder.

  Schieffer was right on the money, particularly when you think about My Lai’s place in America’s tragic Vietnam story. But the veteran CBS newsman’s remark also made me think about what it means to have a reporter hanging around. The sort of free publicity inherent in a journalist’s presence – far less dramatic than My Lai to be sure, but still relevant day to day — can be both a blessing and an impediment.

  What I’m referring to is a two-sided personal phenomenom. First, as a journalist (Kansas City Star, Business Week, Penn State faculty), I believed in full disclosure pushed as far as the law allowed: No secret meetings or hearings; couching “no comments” as an admission of malfeasance at worst, passive ignorance at the least; protection of confidential sources without whom investigative journalism would be well-nigh impossible (sounds a bit hypocritical, doesn’t it?); and detailed probes into the background of anyone seeking high-profile public office.

  But now I’m the chair of a school board in Maine, and that changes everything. I want to control what appears in the local newspaper. I can’t get all the way there, of course, but I have tried to manipulate the beat reporter by warning her ahead of time when I have something “newsworthy” to say.

  By the same token, I’m amazed at how many times I’ve tried to direct the board’s conversation onto safe, noncontroversial ground when a reporter is in the audience. Worse, on way too many occasions I’ve uttered something to the effect of, “I wouldn’t be saying this if that reporter were sitting here.” So it depends on which master you serve.

  But how does that apply for someone – perhaps you – who hopes to get the most out of any press encounter? When I run media relations seminars for government agencies, nonprofits and companies, the first topic I address is “agenda.” There’s a misonception out there that reporters routinely pursue political or personal agendas in the way they cover stories.

  Well, yes, there is an agenda. But in nearly all cases, the agenda is themselves. They seek recognition from peers, promotion, higher pay, a steady climb up the professional ladder to top editor, a job in DC, an international posting, etc. They love the limelight, the front-row seat on history and the front-page byline or 30-second “on camera” time.

  The best of them are obsessively curious about their fellow human beings, politics, science, natural disasters, technology, sports, you name it. As columnist Anna Quindlen puts it, “Being a reporter is as much a diagnosis as a job description.”

  So please keep this in mind: Automatically distrusting reporters could be a lost opportunity. Welcoming them to your place of business or nonprofit and feeding their curiosity and professional pride by offering to act as a source (“on background,” perhaps) could be a lasting step in the right direction.

  Trust them until they give you a reason not to. If that happens, by all means fight back. Go directly to their editors or producers and tell them you’ve been wronged. That way, you’re going after their only real agenda – themselves and their future.

The Business Communications Hall of Shame

“From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you’re on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30.” ~anonymous high school essay

   Greetings. Thank you for indulging me in an example of analogies collected by high school English teachers. I do so because the language we all share is a treasure chest of words that in the odd combination can make us smile, chuckle, even laugh out loud. And, like Larry the Cat — whose house we share and whose antics are just plain goofy — the best humor is unintentional humor.

   Anyway, the gaffe above resulted from a sincere, albeit immature, effort to be original and evocative. Good for him or her, I say. At least the brain has been engaged. But what about the way us adults fall into shallow “copycatism” when we practice business communications in a professional setting? And how does that reflect on you and your business when you mindlessly insert those phrases in your website text or emails or any other business writing? Do you really want to sound like a faceless, unimaginative bureaucrat?

   Herewith some inaugural entries in my Language Hall of Shame:

• Negatively impact, as in “Our failure to fabricate even one paper clip that actually holds two sheets of paper together is negatively impacting our sales performance.” First of all, “impact” became a verb only about 30 years ago, even though the verbs “affect” or “influence” did the job quite nicely.

  But now that it’s here, as I tell my business writing skills students, why compound the damage by adding an awkward adverb (fellow Mainer Stephen King said in his book on writing, “The adverb is not your friend.”)? Why not rely instead on unambiguous, active, space-saving standbys such as “harm” or “hurt?” 

• Core competencies, as in “Our core competencies include a flexible attitude about quality control and a collective tendency to stretch the lunch hour beyond normal parameters because we adhere to the principle of saving personal energy.” Does anyone realize that by using the adjective “core” to define “competencies,” you’re implying that you have other “competencies” that might not be so “core?” And that a careful reader could deduce that those other competencies might actually be subpar, or at least rather pedestrian? Here’s a solution in plain English that makes business communications work: “What we do best is…” or “Our reputation rests on the way we…” or “We are known for…”

  I bring this up because I don’t doubt that your readers are critical thinkers (at least that’s what I tell my writing seminar students to expect), which means they will view phrases like “core competencies” as lazy, unproductive thinking.

• Skill sets, as in “Our employees can bring the most unique set of skill sets to finding a solution to your problem, which is why we consider ourselves a high-end firm that can justify overcharging you for our services.” First of all, you can’t be “most unique” because “unique” means one of a kind. I used to think that foolishness was restricted to the sports broadcast booth, but now I’m seeing it on websites, which was probably inevitable.

  Anyway, I ask you: What’s wrong with just using “skills?” How can adding “sets” possibly add anything beyond the useless appendage of another four-letter word? If you use “skills sets,” ask yourself: “Why? What have I gained beyond the obvious tendency to imitate others unthinkingly?”

 

 

Want To Run Your Marketing Message Past A Skeptical Eye? How About A Nosy Reporter?

   In the business communication training I’ve conducted over the years, I’ve found that communication skills don’t have to be limited to the obvious focus on writing training and presentation skills (public speaking) training. There’s more to getting your message out there, and it involves reporters, editors and producers and their never-ending quest for “the story.”

  When I run media relations training seminars, whether for groups — like senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials (Department of Homeland Security) or a Maine boatbuilders alliance – or one-on-one with nonprofit and private-sector executives, we talk a lot about AIM, which stands for audience, intent and message. For the Homeland Security types, that means role-playing in situations that evolve from a press release about a new initiative to a “crisis” over, say, a riot in an immigration holding facility.

   That’s the way many of us think about the news media – a bunch of reporters asking questions about a potentially explosive situation. But there’s more, as I saw with the boatbuilders. Preparing for a big show in New York, they wanted to know what questions they might encounter from the press. I put them through a series of one-on-one interviews and press conferences. Out of that exercise they shaped some new marketing messages, points that I told them would appeal to a journalist looking for a “news hook” or fresh ideas that would make a story or broadcast something more than routine coverage of a boat show.

  The same goes for a media relations training session with a nurse who had come up with a combination of aromatic oils that eased the nausea of chemotherapy and pregnancy. Her marketing pitch was straightforward – or so she thought until I started asking questions that any reporter, whose professional toolkit always includes skepticism, would ask. The result: She walked away from the media relations training with a more focused picture of sales-oriented business communication.

   Remember: Most reporters (myself included) don’t get into the business to accumulate wealth. They do it because they’ve got a powerful curiosity about the world around them. That leads to questions, the sort of questions that could help you focus your marketing message.   

Dave Griffiths does freelance writing and freelance editing, as well as training in media relations, business writing, communications skills, presentation skills and business communication. His website is http://www.davegriffithscommunications.com

 

 

Scared To Death Of Public Speaking? Try Conversing

“According to most studies, people’s Number One fear is public speaking. Number Two is death. That means to the average person, if you go to a funeral, you’re better off in the casket than doing the eulogy.” ~John Steinbeck, novelist

  Was Steinbeck talking about you? Is that an accurate reflection of your self-confidence when it comes to presentation skills or public speaking? If he was, I’ve got some advice: Think about a speech as a conversation between two intelligent people who care about effective communication. I find that when I take that approach, I’m not an actor all alone up there on a stage. Instead, I’m more of a partner in a dialogue that takes on energy and depth thanks to partners who listen and work with me.

 

  In a conversation, avoiding eye contact would be rude, wouldn’t it? So why would you lower the lights and keep turning away from your partner to look at a PowerPoint presentation on a screen behind you?

 

  I’ve already ranted about PowerPoint (see the July 13 posting below), so there’s no need to be so negative again. Any good conversation is two-way, a give-and-take, a natural form of communication skills that benefits both parties. Of course, with a speech, you have to start out by doing most of the talking. But everything you say should be directed at encouraging questions from audience members and a conversation among them. If you start by standing up and speaking, then find yourself facilitating a lively discussion, congratulate yourself. You can add public speaking to your growing list of communication skills.

Dave Griffiths does freelance writing and freelance editing, as well as training in media relations, business writing, communications skills, presentation skills and business communication. His website is http://www.davegriffithscommunications.com

 

You Think; Therefore You Write.

 

“I write entirely to find out what I’m thinking, what I’m looking at, what I see and what it means.” Joan Didion, author

 

  You have to appreciate that insight. The third pillar of effective communication skills — along with audience awareness and editing/revising (quality control) — is the premise that writing is thinking. Once you grasp that advantage and put it to use, writing is no longer the intimidating exercise wherein you plaintively wonder, “How do I start?” or “What do I say next?” Now it becomes an opportunity to find out how smart you are and display that intelligence to your readers.

 

  Writing is the gift of time. Let me offer an example from the world of business communication. Suppose you work for a software company. You’re lingering at the coffee pot. Suddenly, your boss looms into view. She’s wrestling with a request from a difficult and demanding client (XYZ Inc.). She asks your opinion.

 

  “Uh-oh,” you think. The boss is pouring coffee. She doesn’t have all day. Don’t blow it. You blurt out something about having met one of XYZ’s senior managers at a reception and you think that approaching them about a new tweak in your firm’s latest software might answer their needs. Your boss stirs in a spoonful of sugar, nods and walks away. Knowing her, within the hour she’ll ask the same question of several of your colleagues.

 

  That all-too-brief encounter leaves you in a dither that lasts for days. Why didn’t I tell her about the solution that worked for another client six months ago? Why didn’t I mention that email I got from an old college buddy who just left XYZ? What was I thinking?

 

  Imagine the boss sending you an email detailing XYZ’s request and asking your opinion. Now you’ve got time to think it through, don’t you? Now you’ve got a chance to shine, a chance to display the communication skills of a consummate professional.

 

Take care,

Dave

Dave Griffiths does freelance writing and freelance editing, as well as media relations training, writing training, presentation skills training and business communication training. His website is http://www.davegriffithscommunications.com

Time To Throw Away The PowerPoint Crutch

 

Hello. That’s right. Down with PowerPoint and all such technology that gets between the speaker and the audience. Effective business communication – which I teach via writing training and presentation skills training and media relations training — begins and ends with a physical connection.

  Sure, these days you can learn virtually anything over the Internet, but if you want to really embrace a subject and get all you can out of an experienced instructor or speaker or presenter, wouldn’t you rather watch him or her as you listen? Wouldn’t you appreciate the chance to raise your hands and ask questions? Isn’t it much more stimulating to build from that one-on-one into a host of questions and ideas shared with the rest of the audience? Live spontaneity can seed some creative collective thinking. 

  So what does PowerPoint do to that on-site physical connection? All too often, it dampens the effect of your message. The lights go down, diminishing eye contact. The speaker turns away from you to read from the screen, which is often filled with deadly boring charts and print too small to read unless you’re sitting close to the front.

  There’s much more when it comes to presentation skills training and effective communications skills, but I do want to say one more thing. My distaste for PowerPoint doesn’t extend to all props. If you move from the podium to a whiteboard or flip chart to jot down salient points as you make them, your listeners follow you with their eyes. You’ve involved them in your message. They get the point.

 

Take care,

Dave

 

Dave Griffiths is a professional writer and editor, and he does freelance writing and freelance editing, as well as media relations training, writing training, presentation skills training and business communication training. His website is http://www.davegriffithscommunications.com