Communication at Work

By Jefferson Flanders

From: At Work Newswire

Writers who look to persuade, explain, analyze, or inform need to be understood. They fail if their readers don’t comprehend, or understand, what they have written. While in theory clear thinking should translate into clear writing, in practice that transformation doesn’t always happen. Writing to be understood can prove difficult even for experienced, organized writers who have carefully thought through—in advance—what they plan to communicate.

And what about the less prepared: those who employ the writing process to help get their thoughts in order? Some approach the blank page with a relatively blank mind, trusting that the discipline of writing will clarify and organize their thinking. This can be a successful, although risky, strategy. William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White note in their classic The Elements of Style that “writing is one way to go about thinking, and the practice and habit of writing not only drain the mind but supply it, too.”

Whether you “think and then write,” or “write to think,” the goal is the same: to be understood. In either case, the best measure of clarity in writing is simple: does the reader get it? Does the reader understand your message or argument as you meant it to be understood?

If the reader cannot follow your writing, or finds it confusing, or difficult to decipher, you are not writing clearly. (This imaginary reader should be representative of your broader audience). You may believe your argument makes sense, or that you have captured its essence on paper, but if the reader doesn’t get it, then you have missed the mark. Clarity in writing should lead to comprehension.

Some writers are mystified that what seems crystal clear to them on the page somehow gets “lost in translation” for the reader. (This is why it is always a good idea to ask a colleague or friend to read and review your work with a critical eye before exposing it to a wider audience). Yet this disconnect is understandable, even natural. As Joseph M. Williams has observed: “Our own writing always seems clearer to us than it does to our readers, because we read into it what we wanted to mean when we wrote it, an advantage our readers lack.” The writer, perhaps too close to the work, can suffer from what can be called author’s myopia and lose perspective.

One practical way to bridge this gap is to imagine writing for your reader as a conversation—albeit a one-way conversation. Unlike a real dialog, you don’t have the opportunity to clarify and elaborate as you go along. Since you are restricted to one-way communication, you must anticipate the reader’s likely questions. Mentally construct a list of potential Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), and then make sure they are answered in your writing.

Remember that the reader’s primary concern is: “What am I being told? And why should I care?” It’s up to the writer to understand and clearly state the purpose of his or her writing (for example, a request for a revised budget, an appeal for new legislation, an analysis of a short story), to relate his or her central message, and to explain why it matters.

Emphasizing a central message helps provide structure. In persuasive writing of any kind, explaining your important ideas will require sharing your reasoning and your supporting evidence with the reader. This is where clear thinking can help inform your writing. By evaluating sources, weighing evidence, developing a hypothesis, and fashioning a logical and effective argument—in advance—there’s a coherent train of thought ready to transfer to paper. The order and flow of ideas will follow a logical progression, which makes it easier for the reader to comprehend.

In practice, clear writing will be simple, but not simplistic. Clear writers follow a few basic principles. They look to inform, and engage, the reader. They explain complex concepts in a step-by-step fashion. Their writing—the paragraphs, phrases, and words—reflect a reader-focused approach. They make sentences and paragraphs no longer than absolutely necessary. Whenever possible they write in the active voice, and select the concrete word or phrase, as opposed to the abstract, to illustrate their point. They write to be understood. Their reward: a reader who gets it.

Jefferson Flanders is an author, educator and independent journalist. He blogs on issues of the day at Neither Red nor Blue.

For information on MindEdge’s online self-paced “Make Your Business Writing More Effective” course, please click here.

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

By Jefferson Flanders

From: At Work Newswire

Writers differ in the way they move from outlining, whether formal or informal in nature, to composing. In creating their initial draft, some writers find they are most comfortable writing sequentially: they prefer composing, and polishing, their opening paragraph before moving on the second paragraph, their second before their third, and so on, until they reach their concluding paragraph. This step-by-step writing approach consequently matches the sequence of their outline.

In contrast to this ordered approach, some writers gravitate to block-writing—composing stand-alone paragraphs or blocks of prose and then connecting them together. I am a block writer, a reflection, in part, of lessons learned working for a wire service and for newspapers. Block-writing is common in journalism—often made necessary by deadline coverage of breaking news. Writing unconnected segments can build most of a news story in advance of filing, with the opening paragraphs saved for last (”topping” the story, in wire service parlance).

One benefit of block-writing is that it can help those who from suffer writer’s block. Writers who struggle to fashion the “perfect lead” and find themselves creatively blocked can be liberated by skipping ahead to compose other parts of their essay, report or article. Many times writing these blocks will help to surface ideas for that troublesome opening.

While the process of composition may differ from writer to writer, those who seek greater clarity in their prose know that the initial draft represents only the first of probably several drafts before completion. And the first step in this iterative process is rethinking and revising what you have written.

The great American writer Mark Twain, who advocated a clear and direct prose style, noted: “The time to begin writing an article is when you have finished it to your satisfaction. By that time you begin to clearly and logically perceive what it is you really want to say.” Revision involves looking at the piece of writing in its entirety. It asks the writer to rethink sequence and shape. It is what Jon Franklin, author of Writing for Story, calls “contemplating the structure.” Franklin advocates rereading your draft “as though you had never seen it before, as a reader would read it.”

There is a difference between rethinking/revising and rewriting. Rewriting follows the rethinking/revising stage and is narrower in scope. Rewriting focuses on words and phrases, sentence length and construction, and using language precisely. It’s when writer works on his or her style. Clear writers look to rewriting as an opportunity to prune and tighten their prose, communicating as much as possible in the fewest words necessary.

This distinction between revision and rewriting is somewhat artificial, of course, because in practice they often overlap. As you rethink you may decide to reorder and rearrange, which can mean rewriting initial (or topic) sentences in paragraphs, or changing transitions, to make the writing flow sequentially.

The scope and direction of the rethinking/revision process will reflect the writer. If you “write long,” then rethinking your writing will mean identifying what is vital to your argument and/or story and eliminating the extraneous. If you “write short” (my tendency), then revision will involve fleshing out your argument, and identifying where a more comprehensive approach is called for. In either case, the writer needs to keep an eye on word count—recognizing and respecting the reader’s finite attention span.

The rethinking/revision process has often exposed flaws in my initial draft: a too-glib thesis, an argument without enough supporting evidence, an inviting opening sentence that doesn’t really fit the rest of the piece. Revision requires a certain toughness on the part of the writer, a willingness to go back for more research, or to sacrifice that well-crafted, but off-point, paragraph or tangential argument. In extreme cases it may mean starting over completely.

There’s no set way to rethink and revise. Some writers start by comparing their draft with their outline. Franklin advises: “If there are parts of the structure that seem wrong, and the problem isn’t immediately apparent, consult your outline.” Another technique involves listing all of your topic sentences and consider whether they offer a logical, and sequenced, argument.

I print a hard copy of my working draft so I can see the structure of my paragraphs and sentences on paper. I begin by reading the essay or report out loud and looking for the unanswered questions a reader might ask. Where are the holes? What is missing? Then I turn to the shape and structure of the writing. Does it flow logically? Is the sequence natural (does it move from the general to the specific, for example)? I may find that paragraphs need to be reordered, or combined, for a more logical presentation of my argument.

Taking the time to rethink your writing will make the final polishing of your piece in the rewriting phase all that much easier. You can concentrate on wordsmithing, confident that your essay or story’s logic and flow will hold up to scrutiny. A successful rethinking and revision process can mean a faster rewrite—the writer’s equivalent of “measure twice, cut once.”

Jefferson Flanders is an author, educator and independent journalist. He blogs on issues of the day at Neither Red nor Blue.

For information on MindEdge’s online self-paced “Make Your Business Writing More Effective” course, please click here.

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

Steve Adubato coaches and speaks on the subjects of communication and leadership and is the author of the book Speak from the Heart.

Here is his article (in PDF format), “Empathy is Essential to Effective Communication”, from his Stand & Deliver site

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

Patrick Winston, a professor at MIT, offers pertinent tips on how to give a more engaging lecture in this video from the Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning: “How to Speak: Lecture Tips from Patrick Winston.”

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

Carmine Gallo, a communications coach, writes for BusinessWeek.

Here is his article, “Deliver a Presentation like Steve Jobs.”.

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

Jamie Herzlich interviewed several communications coaches for Newsday.

Here is his article, “Strategies to master the art of public speaking.”.

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

Here are several insightful books on the role of active listening in effective communication. They can be purchased from Amazon.com or other online booksellers:

• Listening: The Forgotten Skill: A Self-Teaching Guide (Wiley Self-Teaching Guides), Madelyn Burley-Allen
• Active Listening: Improve Your Ability to Listen and Lead, Michael H. Hoppe

• The Lost Art of Listening: How Learning to Listen Can Improve Relationships, Michael Nichols
• The Handbook of Communication Skills, Owen Hargie
  

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

Comedian Don McMillan offers some humorous tips on how not to use PowerPoint in presentations.

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

The American workforce finds a lack of communication from managers more annoying than dealing with nosy colleagues, according to Opinion Research Corporation’s “Ouch Point” study, released in November.

Seventeen percent of respondents in the survey cited senior managers who fail to communicate company news as their chief complaint, versus six percent who considered meddling co-workers to be their greatest source of aggravation in the workplace. (SOURCE: Opinion Research news release).

For the entire news release, please click here: “Employees Most Frustrated by Lack of Communication in the Workplace, Opinion Research Corporation Study Finds.”

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.

By Jefferson Flanders

From: At Work Newswire

No discussion of clear thinking is complete without considering some of the more common fallacies—mistakes in reasoning or flaws in logic—encountered in many seemingly persuasive arguments.

Many of these fallacies were first identified centuries ago by teachers of classical Greek and Roman rhetoric, and there are good reasons for their persistence into the 21st century. These fallacies, despite their flaws, can be persuasive and on the surface can appear quite logical; some tap into primal emotions in a convincing (albeit irrational) way.

Much of the fallacious thinking resident in business and management circles appeals to our natural sense of optimism. Anthropologists and genetic scientists have identified a biological basis for optimism, and it appears that hopefulness about the future may very well be a hard-coded human trait. In his 1979 book Optimism: The Biology of Hope, Lionel Tiger argued that optimism developed to encourage early humans to persevere in the dangerous and risky task of hunting.

One modern form of optimism—expecting future returns on investment and effort—has become a vital part of any market-based economy. Entrepreneurs and innovators must embrace a risky future to succeed. Yet that trait also leads to the starry-eyed behavior of investors during market bubbles and the willingness of credulous managers to believe over-optimistic projections of growth. The management challenge is to bring the proper level of skepticism to judgments about the future, without missing opportunities because of risk-aversion or timidity.

The endless growth fallacy is often found in high technology and other fast-growing sectors of the economy. It assumes past performance (market penetration, unit volume growth, upward sales trends) can be seamlessly projected into the future (“There’s more where that came from!”). The key question to ask when considering such bullish arguments is this: how likely is it that growth can be sustained? Yes, there may still be an upside—but what is its likelihood? And how can we better forecast the inevitable slowdown? Seasoned venture capitalists and private equity investors will tell you that they mentally discount growth projections by a significant factor when making investment decisions.

The sunk cost fallacy—agreeing to commit additional funds for a project or investment in the hopes of recouping an original investment—is explicitly noted and taught in many accounting courses, yet it remains a common, and understandable trap. A successful entrepreneur once told me, “Thank God for sunk costs,” because he believed an early financial commitment made investors more psychologically likely to continue funding his ventures (“In for a penny, in for a pound.”) Indeed, there are enough cases where sustained investment yielded superior returns (think Amazon.com, or Yahoo) that the notion of backing a longshot, or of not abandoning a potential winner too quickly can be very seductive. However those making disciplined managerial decisions should focus on the immediate and likely prospects for the future success of a project, proposal or investment without factoring in prior commitments in corporate support or funding. The more independent that assessment can be, the better the outcome.

When analyzing proposals or projections for the future, too often managers fall prey to the false precision fallacy and are impressed by detailed financial estimates and painstakingly developed spreadsheets. Yet a projection of $109,975.25 is no more valid than one of $110,000, although the natural human tendency is to believe that something calculated to the second decimal point is somehow more accurate. Some analysts can be fooled into believing that extensive calculations and financial detail reflects careful planning and forecasting (which is one reason why swindlers and con men are eager to supply extensive projections)—this may or may not be true. Insisting on a range of projections, and isolating the underlying key variables and assumptions, represents one way to avoid falling into the false precision trap. Such a process also acts as a reminder of the uncertainty of forecasts.

The appeal to authority fallacy exists in business, but also in academic and political discourse. It is particularly effective in organizations that value hierarchy. One variation can be seen in the truism that “no purchasing manager ever was fired for selecting IBM.” Another example of an appeal to authority: when a given course of action is based on the advice of management consultants or because respected or feared competitors have adopted it. Again, making decisions on the merits of the situation is the wiser response—for there is no real safety in numbers (competitors can make mistakes), and consultants are fallible.

While hope (with perhaps a dash of greed) underlies many common logical fallacies in the world of business, other all-too-human traits—fear and suspicion—play a large part in fallacious political argument. Ad hominen (from the Latin: ”against the man”) attacks and appeals to emotion have become common in modern politics. They hold a special allure for the partisan.

Attacking a candidate or elected official on personal grounds, such as questioning their character, integrity, or motives, allows for a transfer of perceived wickedness from the target to his or her policies or proposals. If Candidate X is shifty, dishonest and immoral, then we are less likely to consider his or her tax plan on its merits. Ad hominem attacks often play on fear and suspicion; for example, the attempt to associate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama with deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein by referring to Obama by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama. Campaign managers and political consultants have long known that “going negative” is effective (especially in suppressing voter turnout), which is why negative personal attacks are so prevalent.

Appeals to emotion seek to replace a measured consideration of an argument or policy with a less rational response, drawing on both powerful positive feelings (hope, sympathy, piety, belonging, compassion) and negative ones (fear, resentment, anger). These emotional appeals often rely on evocative images (flags, smiling children, etc.) and loaded language designed to trigger those feelings. They employ words and phrases such as: God, country, patriotism, working people, terrorist threat, our way of life, etc. Loaded language often acts on us at a sub-conscious level, evoking emotions that can cloud our judgment.

What are effective antidotes to fallacious thinking? Some universities and business schools have added critical thinking courses as a way to arm their graduates with a better understanding of how arguments can be twisted or distorted. In the political arena, organizations like FactCheck.org now analyze candidates’ rhetoric and advertising claims and publicly warn of misleading or fallacious reasoning. All of these efforts share a common premise: identifying and analyzing logical faults and mistakes in reasoning—pointing out the fallacies—is crucial in achieving clarity in thought.

Jefferson Flanders is an author, educator and independent journalist. He blogs on issues of the day at Neither Red nor Blue.

Click a star to rate this:

(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)

 Loading …

You could rate this if you were registered or logged in.