skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I'm not sure what, if any, meaning lies behind the Beatles song "Hello Goodbye," but its offbeat title and catchy lyrics could point to a significant problem facing many of us: We're just not communicating well. Not orally and certainly not in writing.
An article that appeared recently in the online version of the Akron [Ohio] Beacon Journal noted that "in many situations, people do not communicate (exchange intended meaning), but rather are merely taking turns talking." The author, Robert D. Smith, is spot-on with that observation. Have you ever been speaking to someone and noticed the person vacantly looking past you? Do you occasionally catch your "listener" woodenly uttering "uh-huh" at the appropriate moments? How many times have you been the guilty party? I know I have.
Smith notes that management consultant Peter Drucker has declared that "poor communication is responsible for more than 60 percent of all organization problems." Between 50 percent and 90 percent of a manager's time is spent in some form of communication and they often assume they're communicating effectively, but actually they're not, Smith says. Signs of faulty communication within an organization include missed deadlines, sagging productivity, low morale, high turnover and meetings that accomplish nothing. Sound familiar?
Smith recommends that we continually monitor our communications skills and ask for feedback from others. That's an idea that would work particularly well with written communications. Give your ego a time-out and invite a colleague to take a red pen and go over something you've authored.
Another sound suggestion for bettering communication is to become an attentive listener. "Look at the person speaking to you, ask questions, don't change the subject, don't interrupt, empathize, and respond verbally as well as non-verbally," Smith advises. Those rules for behavior are good in any oral exchange and they're especially helpful when the communication setting is an interview that's being conducted by a writer who's gathering information. Interview subjects tend to open up when they believe they're being closely listened to.
Humans have always had difficulty communicating effectively (otherwise, we'd have fewer wars) and we are likely to continue doing so. But we don't have to give up. Those who polish their communication skills – oral and written – are often highly prized in any business or organization. Make up your mind to focus on communicating effectively and you're already further ahead than most. "I say go, go, go."
If, in the near future, you can read your credit card statement, thank the Federal Reserve. The regulatory agency is proposing new rules that would require credit card companies to make several changes in credit card bills and solicitations, including making them easier to read.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is calling for "greater clarity" in these documents, which are typically loaded with minuscule print and language so dense you need a machete to chop through to its real meaning. The new regs will force companies to say what they really mean by using simple language and straightforward sentence structure.
I wish all business communications focused on that aim. One of the benchmarks of effective communications is simplicity, yet it's one of the most ignored principles in business writing, which is too often jammed with jargon, with complex, meandering sentences that lead no where and with a style that seems as if the writer is not trying to communicate but to confound.
What good is a piece of writing that is so confusing that no one can understand what it's trying to say? The time of everyone involved in such a communication is wasted, yet you see it every day.
In the wonderful movie Philadelphia, Denzel Washington played a street-savvy lawyer who would often tell people who were trying to convey some complicated information to him to "explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader." I often remember that line and have even used it when I'm interviewing a subject about a complex topic. It usually helps the subject understand the need to break things down into simple terms, though occasionally it exposes the fact that the subject doesn't fully understand what he or she is trying to say and is using bloated, confusing language to hide the fact. The person might even resent or resist your effort to get them to simplify. So be it. It's more important to work that out through the writing process than to parrot the gobbledygook the subject is using and spread the confusion around.
Though in the case of credit card companies it's taking a law to compel them to simplify their communications, your business or organization shouldn't wait to be similarly prodded.
You'll get little argument to the proposition that the rules for English grammar and usage are confusing and contradictory. There are plenty of reasons for this, and one is that even the experts can't always agree on what's right.
Take the issue of since and because, which I blogged about on 4.25.07. "When Words Collide," the textbook that I use in my university level writing class, says the two words have different uses and shouldn't be freely swapped. That is, don't use since to mean because. The rule makes sense to me and it's not a hard one to remember. Each semester, I teach it to my students.
But in her popular volume on grammar, "Woe Is I," author Patricia T. O'Conner dismisses the since/because issue as the sort of nitpicking that only "an extremely conservative grammarian" would engage in. She goes on to advise her readers to forget that they ever heard the rule, which she trashes in a chapter entitled "The Living Dead."
I have O'Conner's book, and I find it a fun, helpful read. But I'll probably stick with what "When Words Collide," another worthy reference, decrees about since and because, and continue teaching it to my classes. Why? Because as e-mail, texting and instant messaging become popular, grammar and usage rules are being increasingly trashed. I hate to subscribe to slippery slope arguments, but in some instances – this being one – they're fitting. In another generation, our written language may be unrecognizable and incomprehensible, reduced to sporting the cryptic communication value of graffiti.
Let's take a stand on rules that make sense and are easily grasped, like the one for since and because. Sure, the conventions of grammar must change. They always have. But they should be careful and reasoned changes, not whimsical and convenient ones.
It's a problem that troubles both journalists and business writers – making the complex more understandable to a broader audience.
As the writer in such a scenario, your job often entails gathering information from sources through interviews. Often, particularly if the subject is a technical one, the source is going to sling at you the jargon he or she is accustomed to. They'll yammer on in the specialized lingo born of a thousand meetings and interdepartmental memos. If the intended audience of the piece understands that jargon and you – the writer – do also, then it's not too hard to transform the interview into readable copy.
The challenge, though, lies in those situations when the intended audience may not fully understand the terminology used by your interview subject and you, as the writer, don't either. Now is where you really earn your chops as a communicator. You must gently coax the subject into explaining:
-- What do you mean by that term?
-- How can we explain this in simpler language?
-- Pretend you're trying to tell this to a group of intelligent high school students.
Those are the sorts of questions you can ask to prompt the subject to simplify. Usually, the interviewee grasps the need to step away from the jargon he or she is accustomed to and will work with you. Sometimes, though, you can't pry a single, simple sentence from the subject. Maybe the person is more comfortable speaking this way, or perhaps they're afraid that by simplifying, meaning will be lost, though this is rarely the case.
These situations can be frustrating, but you must soldier on. Try harder. Once a source sees that you won't accept their vague, overly technical wording, then they'll usually cooperate. You owe it to your readers to at least try. Don't give up and merely parrot the gobbledygook that your sources mouth. There's too much of that already going on in the business world.
Copy that fails to communicate is a waste of time. Just like the biblical Tower of Babel, it may look impressive but it goes nowhere.
One of the points I try to make to my writing students is that to become a skilled writer you should have an affection for language and its uses and complexities. You need to care about the meanings and nuances of words, you must develop an appreciative ear for the sound and rhythm of a finely crafted sentence and you should always try to incorporate imagery, similes and metaphors into your writing.
Some people who are drawn to writing have a natural fondness for these things. If you don't, but it's still important for you to be able to write well, I suggest you acquire at least a familiarity with the things I listed above. Doing so will help you communicate better.
In some cases, exploring the intricacies of language can be fun, interesting and informative, too. Consider idioms. An idiom is an expression that has a meaning that's different from the meanings of its individual words. "It's raining cats and dogs" and "I heard it on the grapevine" are two examples of idioms. Idioms shouldn't be confused with clichés, which are commonplace, overused phrases such as "tried and true" or "on the other hand." You should avoid using clichés in your writing as much as possible. Idioms also should be shunned. The reason, in both instances, is that the use of clichés and idioms means a writer isn't trying to come up with his or her original, more precise way of saying things and is, instead, relying on stock phrases that may not even express exactly what the writer is trying to convey.
Idioms can be an interesting study for anyone (writers in particular) who want to understand language more deeply. We often use idioms, but we seldom ponder their origins. "Wait your turn," for example, refers to the days when farmers took their grain to the mill and waited in line for it to be placed under the turning mill wheel to be ground. "Your name is mud" is derived from the name of the doctor, Samuel Mudd, who attended John Wilkes Booth, who broke his leg when he jumped from the balcony at Ford's Theater after assassinating President Lincoln. The expression "break a leg" has its roots in the same historic event.
As you can see, the history behind many expressions is intriguing and informative. Look up a few yourself on phrases.org. But be careful, it can become addictive. Before long, you'll be able to put your best foot forward when it comes your understanding and appreciation of language.
A couple of posts ago I suggested using Word's synonym-finder as a handy tool for livening up your writing by varying your verbs and adjectives. Maybe now, though, is a good time to offer a bit of related advice. Go easy on the adjectives, which are words used to modify nouns and pronouns, as in the wide river or she's tall.
Some writers, particularly those who are still learning the craft, tend to sprinkle adjectives liberally into their copy, like a chef adding spices to a sauce. Certainly, like a spice, a carefully chosen, creative adjective can enhance the flavor of your prose. But too many adjectives, or sloppily chosen ones, can ruin your writing. The prudent writer uses adjectives sparingly, choosing, instead, to let verbs and nouns do the heavy lifting in a sentence. That's why Mark Twain is said to have declared, "If you catch an adjective, kill it." Sound advice. Learn to recognize adjectives and toss them into your initial draft. But when you revise, look at them with the critical eye of a drill sergeant inspecting a recruit's uniform for flaws. If the adjective is weak, inappropriate or simply unnecessary, take Twain's advice and kill it.
Twain's memorable suggestion, by the way, is the title of a new grammar book by Ben Yagoda. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it would be a helpful volume. The New York Times has excerpted its first chapter.
This fall, I'm considering tweaking Twain's advice and advising my university-level writing students, "If you catch a cliche, kill it." As I've written before, overuse of cliches is another practice that clutters and weakens writing. All this talk of killing. It makes writing seem more like a homicidal act than one of creation and inspiration.
Ever hear a speaker drone on in a monotone? It doesn't take long before you're stifling a yawn and are ready to interrupt his spiel, excuse yourself or simply grit your teeth and hope he'll tire soon.
In writing, there's an equivalent to the monotone speaker. It's writing using repetitious sentence structures. That can mean assembling a string of sentences like, "Acme is launching a new sales campaign. The campaign will start in June. Everyone is expected to participate." There's nothing grammatically wrong with these sentences, but they're repetitive in length and in their simple structure. Each starts with a subject (Acme, the campaign, Everyone) that's followed by a verb and an object. Hook enough of these subject-verb-object sentences together and you'll soon have readers eyes' going glassy.
The solution is to vary sentence length and structure. Combine short, simple sentences like those above with longer, more complex sentences that include introductory clauses (Given the need to boost sales, Acme is launching a new sales campaign.), and parenthetical clauses (Everyone, including middle managers and C-suite personnel, is expected to participate.).
Keeping this simple concept of sentence variety in mind will spice up your copy and help prevent your written work from resembling a grade-school reading book.
One of the features of lively writing is a varied use of verbs and adjectives. Verbs tackle the action of a sentence. Adjectives help describe and limit nouns: "a sweltering day," "four soldiers." Unfortunately, too many writers plod along with the same vocabulary they've always used and have grown comfortable with, rarely daring to stray beyond the narrow boundaries of their verbal back yard.
There's help for this timidity, and it's only a mouse click away, if you use the popular Microsoft Word for your writing tasks. Let's say you've composed this sentence: "It's important to rig heavy equipment properly before moving it." And let's also suppose that you want to add some sparkle to it. Good idea! Just move your cursor to the word "important," click on it, then, keeping the flashing vertical bar on the word, right click. That should bring up an options box that includes one for "synonyms" (words with similar meanings). Click on that option and a useful list of synonyms for "important" appears on your screen. There are several sound choices on this list: vital, essential, imperative. Let's choose "vital." Just point and click. Word swaps "important" with "vital." Congratulations, you've just replaced a good but overused word with a suitable synonym that possesses more snap.
After you get accustomed to using the synonym function, you're likely to return to it frequently. But beware. You can't choose just any word on the synonym list Word provides. Some of the choices may not precisely fit the meaning or connotation that you want in a sentence. Using the sample sentence above as an example, Word's synonym list for "important" included "chief," which doesn't work. If doubtful, consult a dictionary. If still doubtful, or pressed for time, stick with your first choice, as long as it's a correct one. You'll have countless other chances to dress up your copy with dynamic words.
There's another benefit to liberally consulting the synonym finder: It'll sharpen and broaden your vocabulary.
One of the handiest reference works available for writers is The Associated Press Stylebook. This invaluable volume has been used for decades, not only by reporters but people in PR, advertising and other professional writing settings. Though many usage and some grammar rules vary according to what style source you're consulting, an argument could be made that the AP stylebook is probably the most consulted.
If your job entails handling a lot of writing chores, get this respected reference work. Many book-store chains carry it, or you can order it directly from AP. Though a new edition comes out yearly, you don't have to buy a new copy that often. As helpful as the stylebook is for solving grammar and punctuation questions, its in-depth approach can make some information difficult to track down. That's why lists of common usages that have been extracted from the stylebook by a knowledgeable editor are particularly prized. Dan Santow, who pens the Word Wise blog, has assembled a practical list of AP style for various computer terms such as Web, URL and Internet. Dan's list gives you the AP take on this technical lingo without your having to burrow into the stylebook itself.
But you can't always rely on someone else's having gathered the information for you, so get your own copy of the book. You'll soon find it heavily annotated, dog-earred and bristling with sticky notes.
