This thread prompts a potpourri of comments related to writing and
management...
First off, I got a chuckle out of comments bemoaning students' writing that
contained these jewels: "peak" was used in lieu of "peek" and "If there
was..." was used in lieu of "If there were..." Maybe we ought to clean up
our own act first.
Second, I was reminded of an incident at a large telecommunications firm in
which an exhaustive task analysis was conducted of its first and
second-level managers. One of its findings was that "they" (the first and
second-level managers couldn't write acceptably). So, millions were spent
on training them how to write. A follow-up study revealed that matters were
now worse. I was asked to look into the situation to see if I could
determine where matters had gone awry. I first ascertained how it had been
determined that the line managers could not write acceptably and it turned
out that the line managers' superiors had rendered that judgment. It also
turned out that these same managers viewed their subordinates' writing
abilities as worse after the training. I then looked into the occasions on
which the senior managers would have reason to look at and evaluate their
subordinates' writing. That, it turned out, was quite simple: the line
managers would often have to prepare reports and memos for their bosses to
sign. The senior managers all had stylistic and idiosyncratic preferences
as to what they would and wouldn't put their names on. So, instead of
advising the line managers to do the obvious - go to the files and examine
written materials their bosses had signed off on (and rejected) so as to get
a feel for what the boss did and didn't like - a lot of money was spent
"training" them to write better. My point here is be careful about what
kind of standards you impose.
Third, I was doing a general assessment of an operating division at a client
organization when the unit's general manager asked me to look into what he
viewed as the intransigent behavior of his direct reports. He said he had
been trying to get them to focus on new clients and new business, on
revenue, and instead they focused on costs and cost-cutting. He wanted to
know why. So, I went to his secretary and asked her to give me copies of
all the memos he had signed and sent out during the past six months. She
objected and went to her boss who was puzzled by the request but told her to
give me what I'd asked for. I then did a crude content analysis, which is
to say, I skimmed through six months' of memos to see what he had been
talking about. Guess what? He was focusing on costs and cost-cutting, not
revenue. In meetings, he talked about new clients and new revenue; in his
memos, he wrote about costs and cost cutting. Here's a rule for you: In
business, the written word trumps the spoken word every time. The corollary
is be darn careful what you put in writing, no matter how well it's written.
Fourth and last, here's something else to consider. Someone, and I don't
recall who, once said that the difference between a good writer and a poor
writer is a good editor. To be sure, as someone has already pointed out, it
helps if you go back over what you have written and edit it to the extent
you can. But you can't do as good a job of editing your own material as a
good editor can. So, in addition to encouraging students to edit what they
have written (which really amounts to a review), encourage them to have
others read and comment before they submit their papers. Oops! That's
probably going to run afoul of some academic practice, isn't it? Oh well,
so much for improving students' writing.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
www.nickols.us
nickols@att.net