Now let's talk about WHAT: the actual content of the correspondence.
Most face-to-face meetings and telephone calls will have preliminary small-talk: how are you, how’s your family, do you have plans for the weekend, etc. This is the social “grease” to maintain a smooth relationship with people. In contrast, business writing is more brief. Effective correspondence in a business setting gets to the point right away, and makes clear the call to action to get efficient results. This is different from a lot of the typical writing models taught in school, and different from how one would correspond with friends and family. Teaching the difference is critical to promote writing that gets results.
Essays written in school assume that one must convince the reader of the writer’s authority on the subject. The five paragraph essay is a classic example of this: an opening statement introducing an argument, three points to support that argument, and a concluding statement confirming the argument. All of this is superfluous in a business setting, because the writer’s authority is already established in advance. The writer is a general contractor who has built many buildings like this before, or a structural engineer licensed in 20 states, or an architect who has built for this client three times in the past. The relationship between writer and reader is established with contracts and business relationships - the engineer speaking as the consulting expert, the contractor speaking as the means and methods expert, the architect speaking as the design expert. Even in something like a cold call, the authority is established with a simple statement of fact; “I am an architect in Chicago and have been in practice for 12 years.” “I am calling from General Contractors Inc.” “I am the mechanical engineer on the project.” Business writing does not spend time arguing authority - it cuts right to the chase.
What does cutting to the chase look like? It gets to the point immediately, and makes a call to action, or explicitly states that no action is required. Ideally the call to action also indicates a deadline or other tasks awaiting this action. The people you are writing to don’t have the time or inclination to read the next American Novel - your correspondence needs to stay as brief possible while still including the point, and the call to action. The following examples could all be taken from my email account:
"Please find attached the revised electrical plans with the updates you requested. Please review and let us know if this is approved or if you need more information. Once approved, we will submit these drawings for permit."
“Due to an existing condition the south wall framing will need to shift into the room by 4 ½”. Please confirm that this is acceptable. A response is requested by June 22.”
“Please find attached the proposal for the vibration observation services you requested. If approved, please return a signed copy to my attention.”
“The finish you selected eight months ago is now discontinued. We suggest the following two alternatives. Please advise how you would like to proceed.”
“Please find attached the elevator shop drawing record set. No further action is required.”
Note that there are no questions in the previous examples. All of these “calls to action” are framed as polite commands - please review, please confirm, please return, please advise. The polite commands could just as easily be worded as questions - Could you review? Is this confirmed? Do you approve? How would you like to proceed? - but if the question is not worded carefully this can read as too open-ended. Open-ended questions breed ineffectual responses, which in turn multiply the amount of correspondence needed to resolve a given situation. The polite command indicates the kind of response that is being requested. A poorly written question does not make the expected response explicit, which leads to frustration and wasted time.
Women in particular fall victim to the “command disguised as question” trap, in no small part because of the cultural norms that women are taught in the United States. Deborah Tannen covers this in her 1995 Harvard Business Review article “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why,” when she discusses indirectness. While I’m more conscious of my speech and writing at work, I tend fall into this trap when I’m at home - I’ll say “could you take out the trash?” when I really mean “I want you to take the trash out now.” That open-ended question, taken at face value, could be answered with “Sure, I’ll get to it later.” This frustrates me because what I meant was “I want you to take the trash out now,” and now I’m annoyed that it’s not happening immediately - but that’s not what I said! There was no polite command, there was no call to action, and there was no deadline! Teach all of your colleagues, not just the people who do this, to be cognizant of this culturally-learned speech pattern.
Another common trap is undermining language. Undermining language introduces doubt in the minds of the audience, and erodes the authority of the writer. You know undermining language when you hear it: Bonnie Marcus covers it all in just one sentence in her 2011 Forbes article “Do You Sabotage Yourself by Using Weak Language?”
I would just like to say that I may not know as much as some of the communications experts out there, but I feel that women undermine their credibility time and time again by using minimizing language.
“I would just like to say,” stating a lack of expertise in comparison to others, “I feel” (and one she missed “..., don’t you agree?”) are all language cues that create doubt and squashes the strength of the message and the authority of the writer. They hesitate, ask for confirmation, and project a lack of self-confidence. A call to action is not going to be effective if the reader doubts the veracity of the message or the authority of the writer. Even if there is uncertainty in the message, such as a prediction or forecast, using stronger language evokes confidence and maintains the authority of the writer. Instead of “I feel” or “We believe”, use “I am confident,” or “We expect.” As Jerry Weissman writes in his 2011 Harvard Business Review article “Replace Meaningless Words with Meaningful Ones,” “Meaningful words stated in the declarative mood, assertively, and positively are more likely to beget meaningful actions.”
The unnecessary apology has a similar minimizing effect on the message and the authority of the writer. Making an apology assumes fault - something that I wish my drivers’ ed teacher had explained more clearly. Apologies have their place in business writing when there is something to regret, but apologetic writing is unnecessary in everyday circumstances. “Sorry to bother you” or “Sorry I took so long” or “Sorry for the technical difficulties” - these apologies are unnecessary. One trick I’ve adopted in my writing is replacing a “sorry” with a “thank you.” Instead of “Sorry to bother you,” write “Thank you for taking the time to review this with me.” “Sorry I took so long,” becomes “Thank you for waiting.” “Sorry for the technical difficulties” can be “Thank you for bearing with us while we get this working.” This thanks-not-sorry maneuver eliminates the needless apology, shows gratitude for the reader’s virtuous behavior, and leaves both sides of the exchange feeling positive.
We’ve covered the two things business writing needs to do: come to the point immediately, and make a call to action. We’ve talked about what to avoid in business writing: language choices that muddle the requested response, undermine the message, and erode the authority of the writer. Now to put these into practice. How do you help your colleagues shift the tone in their writing to this more brief and direct style, especially when they may be more used to a softer or more gradual voice? Business writing can feel aggressive to those who are used to a more gradual argument or culturally expected “small talk” preamble. Teach the difference, and the purpose behind a brief and direct writing style in business.
For example, I recently had to schedule a meeting with my client and the kitchen designer to review the kitchen shop drawings for approval. My email to the client stated the purpose of the meeting, who would attend, where it would take place, and my own availability, and asked if the two times I offered (more on this in a moment) would work for him. I had pre-vetted the times I offered with the kitchen designer in a phone call, avoiding a long back-and-forth email chain. All the client had to do was say “yes, Wednesday at 3pm works for me” or “I’m not available then,” and suggest another time.
In the same circumstances with a group of friends planning to meet for drinks, this process could involve a long group chat with many side tangents, phone calls to determine who was available and when, commentary on which venue had the best cocktails, all as part of the casual and informal communication.
Both are appropriate for their settings, and both are wildly inappropriate in each other’s settings. Teaching your colleagues the distinction is easy when you reverse the scenarios: Imagine emailing your friend that you were going to meet for three gin cocktails at the Ace Hotel with Jamie, Alex, and Pat, and you were available at 7pm on Wednesday or 4:30pm on Friday, which works for you? You might get quick results, but more likely your friends would be taken aback - it’s too aggressive for casual interaction, and doesn’t allow for that natural back-and-forth in a personal relationship.
I mentioned offering two times in my email. Choices in business correspondence must be offered carefully. If you don’t want to get mired in dithering between options, offer just a few choices to your reader that are all acceptable to you. Scheduling a meeting should read: “I am available after 4pm on Wednesday or any time before 2pm on Friday. Please let me know if either of these times will work for you and I’ll send out a meeting invite,” instead of “What’s your schedule?”
Again, this gets back to the polite command versus the open-ended question. The first example is likely to get a single response that will resolve the situation, while the second example is inviting at least two more volleys of emails before the meeting time is confirmed. In the same vein, making a recommendation for an option clear is also key to efficient business correspondence.
All options need to be acceptable to even be offered - don’t offer one acceptable option and one option you are confident will be turned down in the hopes of forcing a response you want - that client may surprise you by picking the Pepto-Bismol pink cladding.
The parents reading this may see the parallels between this choice offering approach and managing a toddler, and indeed there are similarities. You are leading your reader to make a decision, and using your own expertise to narrow down the options to help them make that decision quickly and easily. Just because General Mills offers 15 different flavors of Cheerios doesn’t mean your toddler needs to be offered all 15 flavors. In effect, there is little difference between “Paint colors available are white, black, or gray. Since the window frames are anodized bronze, we recommend the black.” And “You can wear the dinosaurs, the ponies, or the sharks sweatshirt. I bet when we visit SUE at the Field Museum they would love to see your dinosaur sweatshirt.”
Sometimes, despite your best efforts, the response you get is not what you expected. Worse, it’s incomprehensible. Maybe the contractor responded from their phone and autocorrect intervened, or your boss is dictating a text message while driving and eating a sandwich, and the message got garbled. Whatever the case, if the response needs clarification, the same rules of polite command and call to action apply.
I don't understand what you mean by "select the ends in the backs for the window crank is denied." Please clarify what finish and model you would like for the roto-operator cranks on the casement windows.
In some cases, the unexpected response is an emotionally charged one. There are lots of reasons why a negative emotional response may occur - there could be a misunderstanding due to a jargon translation problem, or parties may feel frustrated, fatigued, or unheard. This emotional content is signalling a problem in the business relationship that needs urgent attention. Knowing what your reader is looking for when they send an emotional message is critical to reacting in a constructive way.
Teaching how to defuse a tense emotional situation starts with standing back and assessing the source of the emotional message. It is easy to escalate if the message contains attacks or accusations. Whether these attacks and accusations are valid or not, it is destructive to address them in kind. Addressing the source of the attack, rather than the face-value message of the attack, means having the empathy to understand another person’s point of view, and the self-confidence to remain calm and clear-headed. An attack is rarely personal, though it may be phrased in a personal way. Step back and ask “What does this attack stem from?”
If the client has been taken advantage of in the past, that experience will drive a lot of their concerns and will make them more sensitive to construction delays and change orders. If the contractor has been getting requests for pricing on potential changes that come to nothing, that concern of souring their subcontractor relationships will make them more likely to push back on the next request. If the specialty consultant has been providing their expert recommendations and those recommendations have been routinely ignored, that frustration will make them more resistant to offering further consultations.
Knowing the source of the attack - fear of failure, fear of being taken advantage of, frustration at being ignored, frustration at wasting time and resources, fear of ruining other relationships - you can address it in a constructive way by acknowledging the person’s feelings and expressing how the situation that brought that emotional response about will be resolved. Highlighting the shared goals will help reinforce the message that the project’s success depends on the group working together.
There are some cases where the attack is so virulent or egregious that the question of responding at all needs to be considered. Taking the conversation offline with a face to face meeting is a more constructive response than perpetuating a vicious spiral of nasty emails.
I’ve been on the receiving end of just such an email mushroom cloud. This client was furious about some unexpected and extremely urgent change orders, and went on for three pages of invective about the project team’s incompetence, deviousness, negligence, and general lack of intelligence. It included a lot of all caps, a lot of vulgarity, descriptions of the client’s feelings of betrayal and indifference to the project outcome, accusations of malfeasance, and my favorite postscript of all: “Sent from my iPhone.”
And how did the project team reply? There were mixed responses. One party was furious in turn at the accusations of incompetence and misconduct, and threatened to walk off the job. While I admired this person’s defense of the team, pursuing this line of response could have terminated the project on the spot. In some cases it is necessary if the relationship cannot be salvaged, but in this case we calmed the client’s fury with competence.
My office did not respond directly to the mushroom cloud email. Instead the project team scheduled a face-to-face meeting with the client for a few days later, giving this client a chance to cool off a little and giving us the time to marshall our forces. During this meeting we acknowledged the client’s fears - of being ignored, of being taken advantage of - and discussed paths forward that directly addressed those fears while being couched in terms related to the project. Fears of being ignored were resolved with an email listserv that the whole project team would be using for all project-related correspondence. Fears of being taken advantage of were addressed with explanations of some of the complexities that the client did not understand, and reviewing the process for resolving these complexities. Maintaining a calm and confident “face” went a long way with this client, who was also looking for assurance that the team was trustworthy and experienced. We killed this client’s fears with competence, and while there were still some flare-ups later on, that calm and confident demeanor resolved them long before they went nuclear.
I don’t subscribe to the “client is always right” school of thought. In my experience, the client is frequently dead wrong. But as a member of a construction project team, particularly as an architect, my role is not to prove my client wrong but to help bring a project to completion. Return to this common goal, and make sure this common goal is also the common message with the project team.
Emotional messages are frequently negative. Teach your colleagues to take a proactive stance and provide positive emotional messages when the situation arises. Congratulate the team on a tough drawing issuance, when the municipality finally approves a submission, when the building structure tops out, when someone has a great idea that solves a difficult problem, or after a difficult week. These positive emotional messages keep morale up, and indicate that you are not just financially and professionally invested in a project, but also emotionally invested. This applies not only during the span of a given project, but can also serve as a transitioning tool after the project is complete.
Sometimes you need to send the negative message. A colleague failed to meet a deadline, or an installation was lacking, or a consultant was unresponsive. Knowing that the project needs to come to a successful completion means addressing these issues in a constructive and unambiguous way. Sometimes the direct approach is expected, and there is no need to soften the blow. A punch list, for example, is a list of criticisms and flaws that need to be addressed before the project is complete. It is a dry document, and is not accusatory; simply a statement of bald facts. Other times a more nuanced approach is in order, such as critiquing a colleague’s performance.
Providing unambiguous feedback to a colleague is important, but can be demoralizing and shut people down. Anyone in this room with an architecture degree knows just how harrowing critiques can be - you’re standing in front of a display of your work and listening to people tear it to shreds to your face, and you’re expected to take this stoically and not burst into tears. Coupling that negative focus on weaknesses and challenges with positive focus on goals and opportunities helps keep the communication open and constructive. Last year I updated my office’s performance self-review forms to include a section that evaluated projects with a SWOT analysis - SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Strengths and Weaknesses are internal, such as personnel and resources, and Opportunities and Threats are external, such as regulations and competitors. This opens up the dialogue to discuss the problems as well as the solutions, and keeps people engaged instead of shutting them down. Again, messages with negative emotional content are best expressed face to face - it’s all too easy to hide in the relative anonymity of a nasty email, and much more difficult to maintain that nasty tone in person.
This SWOT analysis strategy is different from another more commonly-used strategy for delivering bad news: the shit sandwich. This strategy is to bracket the bad news or criticism with good news or praise, to soften the blow of the negative with something more palatable. The problem with the sandwich approach is that the message is no longer unambiguous. The negative message can get lost in the positive, or the sincerity of the positive messages is undermined by the negative message. Either way, the strategy introduces uncertainty - just what you don’t want in a discussion about a problem that needs to be resolved.
Learn more about "HOW" in Part 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment