Discussion: View Thread

David Clarke <reynard@SIU.EDU> wrote:

>> I looked at several "writing" sources and my conclusion is that writing
is no more than the physical trace of thinking. If you can do one you can do
the other--it's only a modal difference--but that most writers come out of a
literature tradition where things like metaphor and simile are respectable forms
of logic.<<

I take issue with the assertion that writing and thinking are the same. My
experience is that thinking and writing are very much different. Clear thinking
is a necessary condition for clear writing, but it is in no way a sufficient
condition. College seems to teach, (by example?) students to write using a
style characterized by long sentences, big words, jargon that makes sense only
to those in a specific field, and passive voice. This style is hard to write,
hard to read, and tends to confuse how one writes with what one writes. It also
lets writers substitute impressive writing for impressive thinking. No wonder
that graduates cannot write words that communicate.

For prime examples of very poor writing, try reading texts that come from
education departments. To me they are nearly meaningless. And I have degrees
in liberal arts, engineering, and business.

Descartes wrote, "I think, therefore I am." But that might be too
straightforward. Today's college professor might express the same thought as,
"The process of cognition presupposes the existence of the cognitive source." I
think you get my point.

Writers who write good expository, as opposed to literary, writing write much
like they speak. They use small words, short sentences, and use the active
voice. And they communicate well. They also have the added benefit that this
type of writing is easier and more natural that the academic style. Thus, they
tend to spend less time writing.

Something else to think about, readers have a finite amount of energy to devote
to reading. That energy gets split between understanding the writing, and
understanding the meaning. If most of their energy must go to understanding the
writing, little is left for the meaning. Therefore, communication suffers. "I
think, therefore I am," causes me to examine how thinking separates humans from
other species. The other form has me reaching for the dictionary. And
wondering how all those big words got stuck together.

Many of these thoughts come from Al Joseph of the International Writing
Institute, as interpreted by,

Don Kleist
kleist@gdls.com

Focusing on the clarity of text writing perhaps distracts us from the
fact that text is less important in the enriched media environment of
our time. Uses of media, image, and hyperlink selection and development
to efficiently communicate ideas might be a better focus.
Charlie Wankel
Kaunas University of Technology
Lithuania

I have spent many years teaching business communications, but from a
management perspective. English teachers focus on sentence structure and
all the other qualities associated with clear communication. Where my
approach differs is using writing strategies as mental discipline for good
management.

The most basic example is writer's block which occurs when the writer
doesn't know what to say. The solution to this problem is akin to MBO.
How can we expect our employees to be effective if we haven't taken the
time to work out with them the objectives of their work and an effective
plan of action. Thus when students experience blockage, I have failed in
large part as a teacher-manager to clarify the assignment. This
experience then leads to the importance of trust. I need to trust them to
let me know when they are stuck and they need to trust me as their
coach and mentor. Good writing in organizations is difficult to achieve
without trust: Good management in organizations is difficult to achieve
without trust.

Another parallel is reflected in many standard business communications
assignments. For instance, the positive sandwich approach to writing a
bad news communications is excellent training for approaching any employee
relations problem. Students (as future managers) who discipline
themselves to find a positive link to an employee, deliver a negative
message with clarity and firmness and then help that employee find a
positive way to deal with their situation will be much more successful in
creating a healthy work environment.

Another interesting communications concept is audience. What does the
"boss" need to know and how can we get that information to him or her as
effectively as possible. Key tricks are subheads, bullets, "to the point"
topic sentences and good executive summaries. However, the most important
element is learning to "think" management.

I tell my students that, as managers, they are going to spend much of
their careers being English teachers. Yes the commas are important, but
beyond the commas is an opportunity through communication skills to be a
better manager. I just wish more quality managers taught business
communications.

Terrell Manyak
manyak@polaris.ncs.nova.edu

On Tue, 6 May 1997, Donald E Kleist wrote:

> David Clarke <reynard@SIU.EDU> wrote:
>
> >> I looked at several "writing" sources and my conclusion is that writing
> is no more than the physical trace of thinking. If you can do one you can do
> the other--it's only a modal difference--but that most writers come out of a
> literature tradition where things like metaphor and simile are respectable forms
> of logic.<<
>
> I take issue with the assertion that writing and thinking are the same. My
> experience is that thinking and writing are very much different. Clear thinking
> is a necessary condition for clear writing, but it is in no way a sufficient
> condition. College seems to teach, (by example?) students to write using a
> style characterized by long sentences, big words, jargon that makes sense only
> to those in a specific field, and passive voice. This style is hard to write,
> hard to read, and tends to confuse how one writes with what one writes. It also
> lets writers substitute impressive writing for impressive thinking. No wonder
> that graduates cannot write words that communicate.
>
> For prime examples of very poor writing, try reading texts that come from
> education departments. To me they are nearly meaningless. And I have degrees
> in liberal arts, engineering, and business.
>
> Descartes wrote, "I think, therefore I am." But that might be too
> straightforward. Today's college professor might express the same thought as,
> "The process of cognition presupposes the existence of the cognitive source." I
> think you get my point.
>
> Writers who write good expository, as opposed to literary, writing write much
> like they speak. They use small words, short sentences, and use the active
> voice. And they communicate well. They also have the added benefit that this
> type of writing is easier and more natural that the academic style. Thus, they
> tend to spend less time writing.
>
> Something else to think about, readers have a finite amount of energy to devote
> to reading. That energy gets split between understanding the writing, and
> understanding the meaning. If most of their energy must go to understanding the
> writing, little is left for the meaning. Therefore, communication suffers. "I
> think, therefore I am," causes me to examine how thinking separates humans from
> other species. The other form has me reaching for the dictionary. And
> wondering how all those big words got stuck together.
>
> Many of these thoughts come from Al Joseph of the International Writing
> Institute, as interpreted by,
>
> Don Kleist
> kleist@gdls.com
>

Charlie Carroll wrote:
> Language may give us a window into someone's
mind. The problem is that some windows are not as clear as others.
>
<snip>
> In an era of information overload, it is advisable to guide the
> reader/viewer through a complex presentation so they know what they
> are supposed to be looking for. The bells and whistles of
> technological alternatives do not free us from the need to develop
> and use language skills.
>
> Charlie Carroll.
>
And to set priorities to guide our listeners & readers through the
message--something technology takes us away from. Well said,
Charlie.

Craig Carroll

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Craig E Carroll
Visiting Lecturer of Mgt Communication
Dept. of Mgmt & Mktg
College of Commerce & Business Administration
The University of Alabama
P.O. Box 870225
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225
Phone: 205 348-8921 Fax: 205 348-6695
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I agree with Don Kleist comments:

> I take issue with the assertion that writing and thinking are the
> same... Clear thinking is a necessary condition for clear
> writing, but it is in no way a sufficient condition.

To shift the perspective a bit, the frustrating thing for teachers
who have to grade papers and exams is that it is often difficult to
distinguish sloppy writing from sloppy thinking. If the writing
skills are not there, it is very difficult to determine if the
thinking skills are. I want to grade students based on what is in
their heads, but I can only see what they put on paper.

Language may give us a window into someone's mind. The problem
is that some windows are not as clear as others.


I agree in part with Charlie Wankel regarding the use of
non-linguistic media along with the written (or spoken) word.

> Focusing on the clarity of text writing perhaps distracts us from the
> fact that text is less important in the enriched media environment of
> our time. Uses of media, image, and hyperlink selection and development
> to efficiently communicate ideas might be a better focus.

I recently had a student submit a thesis in which two chapters were
nothing but figures and tables--no text at all. The student made
excellent use of user-friendly statistics and graphics packages, and
the figures and tables did look very professional. However, my
comment to him is the same as my comment regarding multi-media: A
picture may be worth a thousand words, but you still have to say
something!

In an era of information overload, it is advisable to guide the
reader/viewer through a complex presentation so they know what they
are supposed to be looking for. The bells and whistles of
technological alternatives do not free us from the need to develop
and use language skills.

Charlie Carroll.

********************************************
Charles Carroll, Ph.D.
Universitair Docent (Assist. Prof.)
Faculty of Management and Organization
University of Groningen
Landleven 5
Postbus 800
9700 AV Groningen
The Netherlands
Fax: +31 50 363 2174
tel: +31 50 363 3626 / 3839
prive: +31 50 542 0583
e-mail: c.carroll@bdk.rug.nl

I am aware that the sandwich technique for giving out bad news to employees
was in vogue for several years but I'm now hearing that employees have been
conditioned to expecting bad news anytime that a favorable comment is made
to them and therefore they do not hear the good news because they are
waiting on the brick to fall on their head. What I'm hearing now is that it
is better to simply face the employee with the bad news or good news as the
case may be instead of sending mixed messages as the sandwich technique
does. Any thoughts on this?
At 12:07 PM 5/6/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I have spent many years teaching business communications, but from a
>management perspective. English teachers focus on sentence structure and
>all the other qualities associated with clear communication. Where my
>approach differs is using writing strategies as mental discipline for good
>management.
>
>The most basic example is writer's block which occurs when the writer
>doesn't know what to say. The solution to this problem is akin to MBO.
>How can we expect our employees to be effective if we haven't taken the
>time to work out with them the objectives of their work and an effective
>plan of action. Thus when students experience blockage, I have failed in
>large part as a teacher-manager to clarify the assignment. This
>experience then leads to the importance of trust. I need to trust them to
>let me know when they are stuck and they need to trust me as their
>coach and mentor. Good writing in organizations is difficult to achieve
>without trust: Good management in organizations is difficult to achieve
>without trust.
>
>Another parallel is reflected in many standard business communications
>assignments. For instance, the positive sandwich approach to writing a
>bad news communications is excellent training for approaching any employee
>relations problem. Students (as future managers) who discipline
>themselves to find a positive link to an employee, deliver a negative
>message with clarity and firmness and then help that employee find a
>positive way to deal with their situation will be much more successful in
>creating a healthy work environment.
>
>Another interesting communications concept is audience. What does the
>"boss" need to know and how can we get that information to him or her as
>effectively as possible. Key tricks are subheads, bullets, "to the point"
>topic sentences and good executive summaries. However, the most important
>element is learning to "think" management.
>
>I tell my students that, as managers, they are going to spend much of
>their careers being English teachers. Yes the commas are important, but
>beyond the commas is an opportunity through communication skills to be a
>better manager. I just wish more quality managers taught business
>communications.
>
>Terrell Manyak
>manyak@polaris.ncs.nova.edu
>
>On Tue, 6 May 1997, Donald E Kleist wrote:
>
>> David Clarke <reynard@SIU.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> >> I looked at several "writing" sources and my conclusion is that writing
>> is no more than the physical trace of thinking. If you can do one you can do
>> the other--it's only a modal difference--but that most writers come out of a
>> literature tradition where things like metaphor and simile are
respectable forms
>> of logic.<<
>>
>> I take issue with the assertion that writing and thinking are the same. My
>> experience is that thinking and writing are very much different. Clear
thinking
>> is a necessary condition for clear writing, but it is in no way a sufficient
>> condition. College seems to teach, (by example?) students to write using a
>> style characterized by long sentences, big words, jargon that makes sense
only
>> to those in a specific field, and passive voice. This style is hard to
write,
>> hard to read, and tends to confuse how one writes with what one writes.
It also
>> lets writers substitute impressive writing for impressive thinking. No
wonder
>> that graduates cannot write words that communicate.
>>
>> For prime examples of very poor writing, try reading texts that come from
>> education departments. To me they are nearly meaningless. And I have
degrees
>> in liberal arts, engineering, and business.
>>
>> Descartes wrote, "I think, therefore I am." But that might be too
>> straightforward. Today's college professor might express the same
thought as,
>> "The process of cognition presupposes the existence of the cognitive
source." I
>> think you get my point.
>>
>> Writers who write good expository, as opposed to literary, writing write much
>> like they speak. They use small words, short sentences, and use the active
>> voice. And they communicate well. They also have the added benefit that
this
>> type of writing is easier and more natural that the academic style.
Thus, they
>> tend to spend less time writing.
>>
>> Something else to think about, readers have a finite amount of energy to
devote
>> to reading. That energy gets split between understanding the writing, and
>> understanding the meaning. If most of their energy must go to
understanding the
>> writing, little is left for the meaning. Therefore, communication
suffers. "I
>> think, therefore I am," causes me to examine how thinking separates
humans from
>> other species. The other form has me reaching for the dictionary. And
>> wondering how all those big words got stuck together.
>>
>> Many of these thoughts come from Al Joseph of the International Writing
>> Institute, as interpreted by,
>>
>> Don Kleist
>> kleist@gdls.com
>>
>
>

Craig Carrol wrote:
>
And to set priorities to guide our listeners & readers through the
message--something technology takes us away from. Well said,
Charlie.

I'm wondering how technology takes us away from setting to guide our listeners
and readers?

Dan Dungan
Investors Business Daily
Web Leads Management
bass_stang@msn.com

Hubert Wood <hwood@C.ABAC.PEACHNET.EDU wrote (cut):
<<
What I'm hearing now is that it
is better to simply face the employee with the bad news or good news as the
case may be instead of sending mixed messages as the sandwich technique
does. Any thoughts on this?
>>

I agree fully - but then a different personality may prefer the "glitter
wrapped version". It seems to me the way bad news are said is very
important, this does not mean they need to be plastered with phony good
news. It is more a matter of avoiding to induce fear - be supportive to
the person as such - though not to the mess that may have been caused.
What went wrong, why, what was missed, etc. The hard question is: Was it
on purpose, negligence - or not. If it was due to stupidity, then who gave
the order to whom? I don't want to go on. Trust requires honesty, and
safety from undue punishment of any kind. This does not rule out accepting
consequences.

Emil Zahner
Morphological Institute Canada
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm

The issue in delivering bad news from a teaching perspective is not an
either-or issue. What I am trying to create is a sense of mental
discipline to be an effective management communicator. Think before you
act.

An employee does something the manager thinks is wrong. The manager is
mad and wants the employee to 'get it right.' STOP! THINK! What is the
consequence? The manager may demonstrate his or her toughness, but will
probably alienate the employee and most of the employees who work with
that person.

Wouldn't a smarter approach be to reflect first on the positives that
person has contributed so the negative can be put into a broader, more
balanced perspective? Is the desired end result to show toughness or make
the employee more effective? If the latter, the manager should develop
ideas to help the employee find his or her own way to save face and take
corrective action.

Once the manager has gone through this mental exercise, then deviations
can be considered. Was the employee previously counselled? How serious
was the negative behavior? The manager may well conclude that this
situation requires a different tactic, but it is a decision based on
thought rather than emotion.

One fun thing I enjoy doing with American students is to provide them with
examples of how students from different cultures respond to the challenge
of delivering negative messages. For instance, my Chinese and Bahamian
students take great pains to deliver messages in a way that 'save face'
and avoid alienation. American students want to shoot from the hip. Can
American students learn something from their peers in other cultures? I
think so.

Terrell Manyak
manyak@polaris.ncs.nova.edu

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Emil Zahner wrote:

> Hubert Wood <hwood@C.ABAC.PEACHNET.EDU wrote (cut):
> <<
> What I'm hearing now is that it
> is better to simply face the employee with the bad news or good news as the
> case may be instead of sending mixed messages as the sandwich technique
> does. Any thoughts on this?
> >>
>
> I agree fully - but then a different personality may prefer the "glitter
> wrapped version". It seems to me the way bad news are said is very
> important, this does not mean they need to be plastered with phony good
> news. It is more a matter of avoiding to induce fear - be supportive to
> the person as such - though not to the mess that may have been caused.
> What went wrong, why, what was missed, etc. The hard question is: Was it
> on purpose, negligence - or not. If it was due to stupidity, then who gave
> the order to whom? I don't want to go on. Trust requires honesty, and
> safety from undue punishment of any kind. This does not rule out accepting
> consequences.
>
> Emil Zahner
> Morphological Institute Canada
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm
>

Charlie Wankel <cx@KAUNAS.OMNITEL.NET> wrote:

>Focusing on the clarity of text writing perhaps distracts us from the
fact that text is less important in the enriched media environment of
our time. Uses of media, image, and hyperlink selection and development
to efficiently communicate ideas might be a better focus.<

Yes and no. Where possible, today's multi-media communications potential places
less emphasis on pure text. But my experience tells me that most non-verbal
communication is still the written word. At least in my industry. There just
ins't the time or need for the extra bells and whistles that comprise multi-
media communication.

I suspect that same idea still holds true in the academic world. Reports,
theses, exams, are almost entirely written words, augmented by a few charts and
graphics. Multi-media just doesn't fit in.


Don Kleist
kleist@gdls.com

Donald Kleist wrote:
> ... my experience tells me that most non-verbal communication is still > the written word. At least in my industry. There just isn't the time > or need for the extra bells and whistles that comprise multi-media > communication.

The growth of the world-wide web has engendered a growth of the use of
hypertext and hypermedia. You click on something and you are in
something else. I really think that being a good hyperlink selecter is
becoming more important than being a good writer.
Charlie Wankel
Kaunas University of Technology--Lithuania

<<<The manager is mad -and- "save face" -and- "shoot from the hip."
Full text see below.
>>>

My experience may help, since I worked in various coutries, using the local
langauge - not my mother tongue. It is almost impossible to figure out what
people are saying who cannot say no. I learnt this first in England, had to
ask people straight for a yes or no, instead of a nebulous wordy
say-no-avoidance. Later I worked in Asia. I was lucky there was an Asian
person who was educated in England - so he was able to say NO the English
way - which I had learned meanwhile. The saving face problem was still
there, and I didn't at that time recognize how straight and open this
person was with me who otherwise wouldn't understand the meaning.

The approach we are using in the Morphological Institute is based on
knowledge about reactions to fear inducing messages, to loss of
appreciation, etc. The key is the behavior of the person delivering the
critique. Stop - relax - think. We show how to convert "being mad" into a
challenge for an innovative approach - a creative challenge.
We use this mainly in team formation. It works. Saying NO and pointing out
thinking errors in a development process is crucial. I am of the opinion
that the "save face" is a cause for lack of original ideas. Learning to
speak open and frank without injuring, and learning to accept thoughts that
challenge own believes are both of the same importance.
Emil Zahner
Innovation Coach
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm

Terrell Manyak wrote:
from May 7 clipped:
<<An employee does something the manager thinks is wrong. The manager is
mad and wants the employee to 'get it right.' STOP! THINK!
>>

from May 7 clipped:
<<my Chinese and Bahamian
students take great pains to deliver messages in a way that 'save face'
and avoid alienation. American students want to shoot from the hip. Can
American students learn something from their peers in other cultures? I
think so.

Terrell Manyak
manyak@polaris.ncs.nova.edu

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Emil Zahner wrote:

> Hubert Wood <hwood@C.ABAC.PEACHNET.EDU wrote (cut):
> <<
> What I'm hearing now is that it
> is better to simply face the employee with the bad news or good news as the
> case may be instead of sending mixed messages as the sandwich technique
> does. Any thoughts on this?
> >>
>
> I agree fully - but then a different personality may prefer the "glitter
> wrapped version".
>>

The issue in delivering bad news that I am trying to get us to discuss is
that we need to address the performance or lack thereof and not attack the
person in the process but be straightforward with the employee each and
every time. If we do that consistently, then the employee will learn that
we are concerned about performance and at the same time we value the
employee. To me its sorta like dealing with your children...I don't always
like their actions but I always love them.
Hubert
At 09:41 AM 5/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>The issue in delivering bad news from a teaching perspective is not an
>either-or issue. What I am trying to create is a sense of mental
>discipline to be an effective management communicator. Think before you
>act.
>
>An employee does something the manager thinks is wrong. The manager is
>mad and wants the employee to 'get it right.' STOP! THINK! What is the
>consequence? The manager may demonstrate his or her toughness, but will
>probably alienate the employee and most of the employees who work with
>that person.
>
>Wouldn't a smarter approach be to reflect first on the positives that
>person has contributed so the negative can be put into a broader, more
>balanced perspective? Is the desired end result to show toughness or make
>the employee more effective? If the latter, the manager should develop
>ideas to help the employee find his or her own way to save face and take
>corrective action.
>
>Once the manager has gone through this mental exercise, then deviations
>can be considered. Was the employee previously counselled? How serious
>was the negative behavior? The manager may well conclude that this
>situation requires a different tactic, but it is a decision based on
>thought rather than emotion.
>
>One fun thing I enjoy doing with American students is to provide them with
>examples of how students from different cultures respond to the challenge
>of delivering negative messages. For instance, my Chinese and Bahamian
>students take great pains to deliver messages in a way that 'save face'
>and avoid alienation. American students want to shoot from the hip. Can
>American students learn something from their peers in other cultures? I
>think so.
>
>Terrell Manyak
>manyak@polaris.ncs.nova.edu
>
>On Wed, 7 May 1997, Emil Zahner wrote:
>
>> Hubert Wood <hwood@C.ABAC.PEACHNET.EDU wrote (cut):
>> <<
>> What I'm hearing now is that it
>> is better to simply face the employee with the bad news or good news as the
>> case may be instead of sending mixed messages as the sandwich technique
>> does. Any thoughts on this?
>> >>
>>
>> I agree fully - but then a different personality may prefer the "glitter
>> wrapped version". It seems to me the way bad news are said is very
>> important, this does not mean they need to be plastered with phony good
>> news. It is more a matter of avoiding to induce fear - be supportive to
>> the person as such - though not to the mess that may have been caused.
>> What went wrong, why, what was missed, etc. The hard question is: Was it
>> on purpose, negligence - or not. If it was due to stupidity, then who gave
>> the order to whom? I don't want to go on. Trust requires honesty, and
>> safety from undue punishment of any kind. This does not rule out accepting
>> consequences.
>>
>> Emil Zahner
>> Morphological Institute Canada
>> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm
>>
>
>

On Thu, 8 May 1997, Hubert Wood wrote:

> The issue in delivering bad news that I am trying to get us to discuss is
> that we need to address the performance or lack thereof and not attack the
> person in the process but be straightforward with the employee each and
> every time. If we do that consistently, then the employee will learn that
> we are concerned about performance and at the same time we value the
> employee. To me its sorta like dealing with your children...I don't always
> like their actions but I always love them.

At my institution, this is characterized as "hating the sin while loving
the sinner." It is patterned behavior that is the focus for corrective
measures.

______________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Dept. of Communication
McMurry University
Abilene, TX
ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu