What is it about officialdom in America that shies away from clear communications? Why do bureaucrats deliberately use words that shade or obstruct meaning instead of taking the direct path that honors the readers’ or listeners’ needs and intelligence?
We all know the blowout disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was about a huge oil slick and the damage it would inflict once it reached shore. Yep, it was oil plain and simple, just like the Exxon Valdez tragedy. But did you hear those early briefings from the Coast Guard rear admiral? She called oil “the product.”
I’ve done some media training with the Coast Guard, and I couldn’t believe my ears. The product?!?! What is this, “1984?” Are we back in Vietnam, where “pacification” was an antiseptic stand-in for torching villages. By using “product” to stand in for oil, was the admiral trying to soften the blow, hoping that we’d be less alarmed at harm to the environment and tourism? Was “product” her invention, or is that the sort of nonsense that uniformed PR people are now selling on a regular basis when they try to “help” high-ranking officers prepare for press encounters?
Sadly enough, It doesn’t get any better when it comes to less public communications between government officials and the rest of us. In a recent conversation with a contractor who does business in Washington, I complained that bid solicitations going out to industry are often couched in impenetrable jargon, acronyms and insidey phrasing – shot through with dense federal regulation citations in one LONG paragraph. Right, the contractor said, and that’s how the government keeps the number of respondents at a reasonably low number. In other words, the language is a deliberate choice.
So the solicitations are written to exclude, when the language we share should include as many readers as possble. The fallout, of course, is that taxpayers probably aren’t getting their money’s worth because the verbiage artificially limits the number of bidders, which in turn lowers prospects for the most economical outcome.
What I find most disturbing is that obfuscation by language is hardly a fresh issue. Twelve years ago, Vice President Al Gore, who led a government reform panel, had this to say about our “public servants” and language: “We are talking about more than a new approach to communications. We’re talking about enduring principles of self-government. Clarity helps advance understanding. Understanding can help advance trust. And trust — especially trust in the promise of our self-government — is essential if we are to come together to solve the problems we face as a nation.”
What’s happened since then? Not enough, but I am encouraged by recent developments at the Dept. of Energy, where I’ve been teaching writing classes. The department’s Office of Human Capital Management has come up with a “Leadership Transition Program” for mid-level officials singled out as having promise for senior positions.
Along the way, they will be exposed to “Executive Core Qualifications” that include 28 “leadership competencies.” I know, I know. It sounds like someone with a clipboard will mark off each “competency” as the trainees achieve them. But I looked into descriptions for each of the 28, and was gratified to see how communications – both written and presented – play a key role.
Take “conflict management” as an example. Nothing can ratchet up the tension in any office like overly emotional language (“Sorry, but I just had to vent!”) in emails. After all, it’s easy to display anger or frustration when all you have to do is hit the “send” button, as opposed to more traditional face-to-face or phone conversations. So perhaps effective leaders should set the tone for respectful email by example.
Then there’s the competency called “team building.” Any group could benefit from top-down expectation about email and use of plain English to avoid misunderstanding and morale-sapping editing delays up and down the line. That means greater productivity, which any private company or nonprofit is sure to value as we recover from this recession the way we recovered from the last one – adding jobs, but not as many as in the boom years.
Or how about “customer service?” This is where inclusive language comes in again because the customer (or for that matter, the vendor) may not share your understanding of more technical, bureaucratic or even scientific language. But there’s also the matter of tone. I’ve worked with federal agencies where the tone is official – and often officious – enough to please the lawyers, but leaves taxpayers and other constituents cold.
Another competency is “oral communication,” which is sure to improve as you sharpen your wrting skills. It’s a matter of confidence. Beyond that, I’ve ranted in several newsletter issues about the technological tyranny of PowerPoint, suggesting instead that use of flip charts or a whiteboard/blackboard is a more flexible and audience-friendly way to get through to people.
Just recently, the New York Times quoted an Army lieutenant in Iraq, “The one thing I spend more time on than anything else here in combat is making PowerPoint slides.” His boss, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, says sitting through PowerPoints is “just agony.”
Enough said.
Dave Griffiths, former national security correspondent for Business Week, does freelance writing and freelance editing, as well as media training and instruction in marketing messages, business writing, communications skills, presentation skills and business communication. His website is http://www.davegriffithscommunications.com
