Managers the nation overask, or have to answer —

What do you meanI can't write f

By ]ohn Fielden

What do businessmen answer wben they areasked, "What's the most troublesome problemyou bave to live with?" Frequently they reply,"People just can't write! What do they learn incollege now? When I was a boy . . . !"

There is no need to belabor tbis point; read-ers know well how true it is. HBR subscribers,for example, recently rated the "ability tocommunicate" as the prime requisite of a pro-motable executive (see EXHIBIT I).^ And, of allthe aspects of communication, the written formis the most troublesome, if only because of itsformal nature. It is received cold, without thecommunicator's tone of voice or gesture to help.It is rigid; it cannot be adjusted to the recipi-ents' reactions as it is being delivered. It stays"on the record," and cannot be undone. Further,the reason it is in fact committed to paper isusually that its subject is considered too crucialor significant to be entrusted to casual, short-lived verbal form.

Businessmen know that the ability to writewell is a highly valued asset in a top executive.Gonsequently, they become ever more consciousof their writing ability as they consider whatqualities they need in order to rise in theircompany.

They know that in big business today ideasare not excbanged exclusively by word of mouth(as they might be in smaller businesses). Andthey know that even if they get oral approvalfor something they wish to do, there will be theinevitable "give me a memo on it" concluding

' See also, C. Wilson Randle, "How to Identify Promot-able Executives," HBR May-June 1956, p. 122.

remark tbat will send them back to their officeto oversee the writing of a carefully documentedreport.

They know, too, that as they rise in theircompany, they will have to be able to supervisethe writing of subordinates — for so manyof the memos, reports, and letters written bysubordinates will go out over their signature,or be passed on to others in the company andthus reflect on the caliber of work done undertheir supervision.

Even the new data-processing machines willnot make business any less dependent on words.For while the new machines are fine for han-dling tabular or computative work, someonemust write up an eventual analysis of the find-ings in the common parlance of the everydayexecutive.

Time for Action

Complaints about the inability' of managersto write are a very common and justifiable re-frain. But the problem this article poses — andseeks to solve — is tbat it is of very little use tocomplain about something and stop right there.I think it is about time for managers to beginto do something about it. And the first step is(0 define what "it" — what good husiness writ-ing — really is.

Suppose you are a young managerial aspirantwho has recently been told: "You simply can'twrite!" What would this mean to you? Natural-ly, you would be hurt, disappointed, perhapseven alarmed to have your o^vn nagging doubtsabout your writing ability put uncomfortably onthe line. "Of course," you say, "I know I'm no

144

stylist. I don't even pretend to be a literariJy in-clined person. But how can I improve my writ-ing on the job? Where do I begin? Exactlywhat is wrong witb my writing?" But nobodytells you in specifie, meaningful terms.

Does this mean that you can't spell or punctu-ate or that your grammar is disastrous? Does itmean that you can't think or organize yourthoughts? Or does it mean that even thoughyou are scrupulously correct in grammar andtightly organized in your thinking, a report orletter from you is always completely unreadable;that reading it, in effect, is like trying to buttone's head through a brick wall? Or does itmean that you are so tactless and boorish in thehuman relations aspect of communication tbatyour messages actually build resentment andresistance? Do you talk "down" too much ordo you talk "over your reader's head"? Justwhat do you do wrong?

Merely being told that you can't write is sobasically meaningless and so damaging to yourmorale that you may end up writing more in-effectually than ever before. What you needto know is: "What are the elements of goodbusiness writing? And in which of these ele-ments am I proficient? In which do I fall down?"If only the boss could break his complaint downinto a more meaningful set of components, youcould begin to do something about them.

Now let's shift and assume that you are ahigh-ranking manager whose job it is to super-vise a staff of assistants. Whatcan you do about upgrading thewriting efforts of your men? Youthink of the time lost hy havingto do reports and letters overand over before they go out, thefeasibility reports which did notlook so feasible after having beenbefogged by an ineffectual writ-er, the letters presented foryour signature that would haveinfuriated the receiver had youlet them be mailed. But whereare you to start?

Here is where the interests ofsuperior and subordinate meet.Unless both arrive at a commonunderstanding, a shared vocabu-lary that enables them to com-municate with one another aboutthe writing jobs that need to bedone, nobody is going to get very

Can't Write? 145

far. No oversimplified, gimmicky slogans (suchas, "Every letter is a sales letter"; "Accentuatethe positive, eliminate the negative"; or "Writeas you speak") are going to serve this purpose.No partial view is either — whether that of theEnglish teacher, the logician, or the social sci-entist — since good business writing is not justgrammar, or clear thinking, or winning friends

I. QUALITIES THAT CHABACTERIZE PRO-MOTABLE EXECUTIVES

SOURCE: Taken from EXHIBIT HI, Garda W. Bowman, "What Helps orHarms Promotability?" (Problems in Review), HBR January-February 1964,p. 14.

146 Harvard Business Review

and influencing people. It is some of each, theproportion depending on the purpose.

Total Inventory

To know what effective business writing is,we need a total inventory of all its aspects, sothat:

• Top managers can say to their training people,"Are you sure our training efforts in written eom-munications are not taekling just part of the prob-lem? Are we covering all aspects of businesswriting?"

• A superior can say to an assistant, "Here, look;this is where you are weak. See? It is one thingwhen you write letters that you sign, another whenyou write letters that I sign. The position andpower of the person we are writing to make a lotof difference in what we say and how we say it."

• The young manager can use the inventory asa guide to self-improvement (perhaps even ask hissuperior to go over his writing with him, using thewriting inventory as a means of assuring a eom-mon critical vocabulary).

• The superior may himself get a few hintsabout how he might improve his own performance.

Such an inventory appears in EXHIBIT II.Notice that it contains four basic categories— readahility, correctness, appropriateness, andthought. Considerable eff'ort has gone into mak-ing these categories (and the subtopics underthem) as mutually exclusive as possible, al-tbougb some overlap is inevitable. But even ifthey are not completely exclusive, they are stillfar less general than an angry, critical remark,such as, "You cannot write."

Furthermore, you should understand thatthese four categories are not listed in order ofimportance, since their importance varies ac-cording to the abilities and the duties of eachindividual. The same thing is true of the sub-topics; I shall make no attempt to treat each ofthem equally, hut will simply try to do somepractical, commonsense highlighting. I will be-gin with readability, and discuss it most fully,because this is an area where half-truths aboundand need to be scotched before introducing theother topics.

Readability

What is readahility? Nothing more than aclear style of writing. It does not result abso-lutely (as some readability experts would have

you believe) from mathematical counts of syl-lables, of sentence length, or of abstract words.These inflexible approaches to readability as-sume that all writing is being addressed to agenera] audience. Consequently, their greatestuse is in forming judgments about the readabil-ity of such things as mass magazine editorialcopy, newspaper communications, and elemen-tary textbooks.

To prove this point, all you need do is to pickup a beautifully edited magazine like tbe NewEngland Journal of Medicine and try to readan article in it. You as a layman will probablyhave trouble. On tbe other hand, your physi-cian will tell you that the article is a master-piece of readable exposition. But, on secondlook, you will still find it completely unreadable.The reason, obviously, is that you do not havethe background or the vocabulary necessary tounderstand it. The same tiling would hold trueif you were to take an article from a manage-ment science quarterly, say, one dealing withreturn on investment or statistical decision mak-ing, and give it to the physician. Now he islikely to judge this one to be completely incom-prehensible, while you may find it the mostvaluable and clear discussion of the topic youhave ever seen.

In situations like this, it does not make muchdifference whether the sentences are long orshort; if the reader does not have the backgroundto understand the material, he just doesn't. Andwriting such specialized articles according tothe mathematical readability formulas is not go-ing to make them clearer.

Nevertheless, it is true that unnecessarilylong, rambling sentences are wearing to read.Hence you will find tbese stylistic shortcomingsmentioned in EXHIBIT II. The trick a writer hasto learn is to judge the complexity and the ab-stractness of the material he is dealing with,and to cut his sentences down in those areaswhere the going is especially difficult. It alsohelps to stick to a direct subject-verb-objectconstruction in sentences wherever it is impor-tant to communicate precisely. Flights of un-usually dashing style should be reserved forthose sections which are quite general in natureand concrete in subject matter.

What about paragraphs? The importance of"paragraph construction" is often overlooked inbusiness communication, but few things arcmore certain to make the heart sink than thesight of page after page of unbroken type. One

Can't Write? 147

EXHIBIT II. WHITTEN PBRFOJRMANCE INVENTORY

READER'S LEVEL

Q Too specialized in approach

r n Assumes too great a knowledge of•—' subject

r~| So underestimates the reader that it— beiabors the obvious

SENTENCE CONSTRUCTION

r~\ Unnecessarily long in difficult mate-'—' rial

I I Subject-verb-object word order too— rarely used

r~| Choppy, overly simple style (in sim-— pie material)

PARAGRAPH CONSTRUCTION

Q Lack of topic sentences

n Too many ideas in single paragraph

Q Too long

FAMILIARITY OF WORDS

• Inappropriate jargon

[^ Pretentious language

Q] Unnecessarily abstract

READER DIRECTION

I I Lack of "framing" (i.e., failure totell the reader about purpose anddirection of forthcoming discussion}

r~| Inadequate transitions between para-graphs

r~| Absence of subconclusions to sum-niarize reader's progress at end ofdivisions in the discussion

FOCUS

I I Unclear as to subject of communi-cation

n Unclear as to purpose of message

2. CORRECTNE

MECHANICS

Q Shaky grammar

• Faulty punctuation

FORMAT

I I Careless appearance of documents

I 1 Failure to use accepted companyform

COHERENCE

I I Sentences seem awkward owing toillogical and ungrammatical yokingof unrelated ideas

I I Failure to develop a logical pro-gression of ideas through coherent,logically juxtaposed paragraphs

PPROPRIATENE

A. UPWARD COMMUNICATIONS

TACT

r~| Failure to recognize differences in— position between writer and receiver

r n Impolitic tone — too brusk, argu-mentative, or insulting

SUPPORTING OETAIL

• Inadequate support for statements

I I Too niuch undigested detail for busy— superior

OPINION

r~| Adequate research but too great anintrusion of opinions

r n Too few facts (and too little re-search) to entitle drawing of con-clusions

r n Presence of unasked for but clearlyimplied recommendations

ATTITUDE

r~| Too obvious a desire to please su-perior

Q Too defensive in face of authority

p i Too fearful of superior to be able to— do best work

B. DOWNWARD COMMUNICATIONS

DIPLOMACY

I I Overbearing attitude toward subordi-' ^ nates

• Insulting and/or personal references

r~] Unmindfulness that messages arerepresentative of management groupor even of company

CLARIFICATION OF DESIRES

• Confused, vague instructions

r~\ Superior is not sure of what iswanted

I I Withholding of information neces-^-^ sary to job at hand

MOTIVATIONAL ASPECTS

Q Orders of superior seem arbitrary

I I Superior's communications are ma-— nipulative and seemingly insincere

4. THOUGHT

PREPARATION

Inadequate thought given to pur-pose of communication prior to itsfinal completion

Inadequate preparation or use ofdata known to be available

COMPETENCE

I I Subject beyond intellectual capa-bilities of writer

P ] Subject beyond experience of writer

FIDELITY TO ASSIGNMENT

[ ^ Failure to stick to job assigned

I I Too much made of routine assign-ment

n Too little made of assignment

ANALYSIS

r n Superficial examination of dataleading to unconscious overlookingof important pieces of evidence

[ 1 Failure to draw obvious conclusionsfrom data presented

r n Presentation of conclusions unjusti-fied by evidence

Q Failure to qualify tenuous assertions

[ I Failure to identify and justify as-sumptions used

[ I Bias, conscious or unconscious,which leads to distorted interpre-tation of data

PERSUASIVENESS

r~| Seems more convincing than factswarrant

r~l Seems less convincing than factswarrant

• Too obvious an attempt to sell ideas

r~] Lacks action-orientation and man-agerial viewpoint

r~| Too blunt an approach where^-' subtlety and finesse called for

148 Harvard Business Reviejv

old grammar book rule would be especially wiseto hark back to, and that is tbe topic sentence.Not only does placing a topic sentence at thebeginning of each paragraph make it easier forthe reader to grasp the content of the com-munication quickly; it also serves to disciplinethe writer into including only one main idea ineacb paragraph. Naturally, when a discussionof one idea means the expenditure of hundreds(or thousands) of words, paragraphs should bedivided according to subdivisions of the mainidea. In fact, an almost arbitrary division ofparagraphs into units of four or five sentences isusually welcomed by the reader.

As for jargon, the only people who complainabout it seriously are those who do not under-stand it. Moreover, it is fashionable for expertsin a particular field to complain about their col-leagues' use of jargon, but then to turn rightaround and use it themselves. The reason isthat jargon is no more than shop talk. Andwhen the person being addressed fully under-stands this private language, it is much moreeconomical to use it than to go through labori-ous explanations of every idea that could becommunicated in the shorthand of jargon. Nat-urally, when a writer knows that his messageis going to be read by persons who are not fa-miliar with the private language of his trade, heshould be sure to translate as much of the jargonas he can into common terms.

The same thing holds true for simplicity oflanguage. Simplicity is, I would think, alwaysa "good." True, there is something lost fromour language when interesting but unfamil-iar words are no longer used. But isn't it truethat the shrines in which these antiquitiesshould be preserved lie in the domain of poetryor the novel, and not in business communica-tions — which, after all, are not baroque cathe-drals hut functional edifices by which a joh canbe done?

The simplest way to say it, then, is invariablythe best in business writing. But tbis fact theyoung executive does not always understand.Often he is eager to parade his vocabulary be-fore his superiors, for fear his boss (who hasnever let him know that he admires simplicity,and may indeed adopt a pretentious and ponder-ous style himself) may think less of him.

Leading the Reader

But perhaps the most important aspect ofreadability is the one listed under the subtopic

"reader direction." The failure of writers toseize their reader by the nose and lead bim care-fully through the intricacies of his communica-tion is like an epidemic. The job tbat the writermust do is to develop the "skeleton" of the docu-ment that he is preparing. And, at the verybeginning of his communication, he shouldidentify the skeletal structure of his paper; heshould, in effect, frame the discussion whichis to follow.

You will see many of these frames at the be-ginning of articles publisbed in HBR, wberethe editors take great pains to tell the readerquickly what the article is abotit and what spe-cific areas will come under discussion during itsprogress. In every business document this in-itial frame, this statement of purpose and direc-tion, should appear. Furthermore, in lengthyreports there should be many such frames; in-deed, most major sections of business reportsshould begin with a new frame.

Tbere should also be clear transitions be-tween paragraphs. The goal sbould be tbat ofbaving each element in a written message beara close relationship to those elements whichhave preceded and those which follow it. Fre-quently a section should end with a hrief sum-mary, plus a sentence or two telling the readerthe new direction of the article. These rathermechanical signposts, while frequently the baneof literary stylists, are always of valuable as-sistance to readers.

The final aspect of readability is the categorythat I call "focus." This term refers to thefact that many communications seem diffuseand out of focus, much like a picture on atelevision screen when the antennas are notproperly directed. Sometimes in a report itseems as if one report has been superimposedon another, and that there are no clear and par-ticular points the writer is trying to make. Thusthe burden is put on the reader to ferret out thetruly important points from the chaos.

If a writer wants to improve the readabilityof his writing, he must make sure that he hasthought things through sufficiently, so that hecan focus his readers' attention on the salientpoints.

Correctness

The one thing that flies to a writer's mindwhen he is told be cannot write is correctness.He immediately starts looking for grammar and

punctuation mistakes in things that he haswritten.

But mistakes like these are hardly the mostimportant aspects of business writing. The ma-jority of executives are reasonably well educatedand can, with a minimum of effort, make them-selves adequately proficient in the "mechanics"of writing. Furthermore, as a man rises in hiscompany, his typing (at least) will be done by asecretary, who can (and should) take the blameif a report is poorly punctuated and incorrectin grammar, not to mention being presented inan improper "format."

Then what is the most important point? Fre-quently, the insecure writer allows small mis-takes in grammar and punctuation to becomegreatly magnified, and regards them as reflec-tions on his education and, indeed, his socialacceptability. A careless use of "he don't" mayseem to be as large a disgrace in his mind as ifhe attended the company banquet in his shorts.And in some cases this is true. But be shouldalso realize (as EXHIBIT II shows) that the abil-ity to write correctly is not synonymous with theability to write well. Hence, everyone shouldmake sure that he docs not become satisfied withthe rather trivial act of mastering punctuationand grammar.

It is true, of course, that, in some instances,the inability to write correctly will cause a lackof clarity. We can all think of examples wherea misplaced comma has caused serious confu-sion — although such instances, except in con-tracts and other legal documents, are fortunatelyrather rare.

A far more important aspect of correctnessis "coherence." Coherence means the properpositioning of elements within a piece of writ-ing so that it can be read clearly and sensibly.Take one example:

• Incoherent: "I think it will rain. However,no clouds are showing yet. Therefore, I will takemy umbrella."

• Coherent: "Although no clouds are showing,I tliink it will rain. Therefore, I will take myumbrella."

Once a person has mastered the art of plac-ing related words and sentences as close as pos-sible to each other, he will be amazed at howsmooth his formerly awkward writing becomes.But that is just the beginning. He will still haveto make sure that he has placed paragraphswhich are related in thought next to one an-

Can't Write? 151

other, so that the ideas presented do not have toleapfrog over any intervening digressions.

Appropriateness

I have divided the category appropriatenessinto two sections reflecting the two main typesof internal business communications •— thosegoing upward In the organization and those go-ing downward. This distinction is one thatcannot be found in textbooks on writing, al-though the ideas included here are common-place in tbe human relations area.

There is an obvious difl'erence between thetype of communication that a boss writes to hissubordinate and the type that the subordinatecan get away with \A'hen he writes to his boss(or even the type tbat he drafts for his boss'ssignature). I suspect that many managers whohave had their writing criticized had this un-pleasant experience simply because of their fail-ure to recognize tbe fact that messages are af-fected by the relative positions of the writer andthe recipient in the organizational hierarchy.

Upward Communications

Let us roughly follow the order of the sub-topics included under upward communicationsin FxiiiBiT II. "Tact" is Important. If a sub-ordinate fails to recognize bis role and writes inan argumentative or insulting tone, he is almostcertain to reap trouble for himself (or for hisboss if the document goes up under the boss'sactual or implied signature). One of the peren-nially difficult problems facing any subordinateis how to tell a superior he is wrong. If thesubordinate were the boss, most likely he couldcall a spade a spade; but since he is not, he hasproblems. And, in today's business world, boss-es themselves spend much time figurin<T out howto handle problem communications with discre-tion. Often tender topics arc best handled oral-ly rather than in writing.

Two other subtopics — "supporting detail"and "opinion" — also require a distinction ac-cording to the writer's role. Since the com-munication is going upward, the writer willprobably find it advisable to support his state-ments with considerable detail. On the otherhand, he may run afoul of superiors who willbe impatient if he gives too much detail and notenough generalization. Here is a classic in-stance where a word from above as to theamount of detail required in a particular assign-

152 Harvard Business Review

ment would be of inestimable value to the sub-ordinate.

The same holds true for "opinion." In somecases, the subordinate may be criticized for in-troducing too many of his personal opinions —in fact, often for giving any recommendationat all. If the superior wishes the subordinate tomake rcconuncndations and to offer his ownopinions, the burden is on the superior to tellbijii. If the superior fails to do so, the writercan at least try to make it dear where facts ceaseand opinions begin; then the superior can drawhis own conclusions.

The writer's "attitude" is another importantfactor in upward communications. When a sub-ordinate writes to his boss, it is almost impos-sible for him to communicate with the bland-ness that be might use if he were \vriting a letterto a friend. There may be many little thingsthat he is doing throughout his writing that in-dicate either too great a desire to impress theboss or an insecurity whicb imparts a feeling offearfulness, defensiveness, or truculence in theface of authority.

Downward Communications

While the subordinate who writes upward inthe organization must use "tact," the boss whowrites down to his subordinates must use "di-plomacy." If he is overbearing or insulting(even without meaning to be), he will find hiseffectiveness as a manager severely limited.Furthermore, it is the foolish manager who for-gets that, when he communicates downward,he speaks as a representative of management oreven of the entire eompany. Careless messageshave often played an important part in strikesand other corporate human relations problems.

It is also important for the superior to makesure that he has clarified in his own mind justwhat it is he wishes to accomplish. If he doesnot, he may give confused or vague instructions.(In this event, it is unfair for him to blame asubordinate for presenting a poorly focused doc-ument in return.) Another requirement is thatthe superior must make sure that he has .suppliedany information whieh the subordinate needsbut could not be expected to know, and that hehas sufficiently explained any points which maybe misleading.

Motivation is important, too. When a supe-rior gives orders, he will find that over the longrun he will not be able to rely on mere powerLo force compliance with his requests. It seems

typically American for a subordinate to resentand resist what he considers to be arbitrary de-cisions made for unknown reasons. If at allpossible, tlie superior not only should explainthe reasons why he gives an order but shouldpoint out (if he can) why his decision can beinterpreted as being in tbe best interests of thosewhom it affects.

I am not, however, suggesting farfetched ex-planations of future benefits. In the long run,those can bave a boomerang eflect. Straight talk,carefully and tactfully eouched, is the only sen-sible policy. If, for example, a subordinate'srequest for a new assignment bas been deniedbecause he needs further experience in his pres-ent assignment, he should be told the facts.Then, iC it is also true that getting more experi-ence may prepare him for a better position inthe future, there is no reason why this informa-tion should not be included to "bufl̂ er" the im-pact of the refusal of a new assignment.

Thought

Here — a most important area — the su-perior has a tremendous \ested interest inthe reporting done by his subordinates. Thereis no substitute for the thought content of acommunication. What good is accomplished ifa message is excellent in all the other respectswe have discussed — if it is readable, correct,and appropriate — yet the content is faulty?It can even do harm if tbe other aspects suc-ceed in disguising the fact that it is superficial,stupid, or biased. The superior receiving itmay send it up through the organization withhis signature, or, equally serious, he may makean important (and disastrous) decision basedon it.

Here is the real guts of business writing —intelligent content, something most purveyorsof business writing gimmicks conveniently for-get. It is also something that most training pro-grams shortchange. The discipline of translat-ing thoughts into words and organizing thesethoughts logically has no equal as intellectualtraining. For there is one slogan that is true:"Disorganized, illogical writing reflects a disor-ganized, illogical (and untrained) mind."

That is why the first topic in this section is"preparation." Much disorganized writing re-sults from insufficient preparation, from a fail-ure to think through and isolate the purpose andthe aim of the writing job. Most writers tend

154 Harvard Business Review

to think as they write; in fact, most of us do noteven know what it is we think until we haveactually written it down. The inescapabilityof making a well-thought-out outline beforedictating seems obvious.

A primary aspect of thought, consequently,is the intellectual "competence" of the writer.If a report is bad merely because the subjectis far beyond the experience of the writer, it isnot his fault. Thus his superior should be ableto reject the analysis and at the same time ac-cept the blame for having given his assistant ajob that he simply could not do. But what aboutthe many cases where the limiting factor isbasically the intellectual capacity of the writer?It is foolish to tell a man that he cannot writeif in eflect he simply does not have the intel-lectual ability to do the job that has been as-signed to him.

Another aspect of thought is "fidelity to theassignment." Obviously the finest performancein the world on a topic other than the one as-signed is fruitless, but such violent distortionsof the assignment fortunately are rare. Not sorare, unfortunately, are reports which subtlymiss the point, or wander away from it. Anyconsistent tendency on the part of the writer todrag in his pet remedies or favorite villainsshould be pointed out quickly, as should per-sistent efforts to grind personal axes.

Another lapse of "fidelity" is far more forgiv-able. Tbis occurs when an eager subordinatetends to make too much of a routine assignmentand consistently turns memos into 50-page re-ports. On the other hand, some subordinatesmay consistently make too little of an assign-ment and tend to do superficial and poorly re-searched pieces of work.

Perhaps the most important aspect of thoughtis the component "analysis." Here is where thehighly intelligent are separated from those lessgifted, and those who will dig from those whocontent themselves with superficial work. Oftensubordinates who have not had the benefit ofexperience under a strict taskmaster (either inschool or on the job) are at a loss to understandwhy their reports are considered less than high-ly efFective. Such writers, for example, may failto draw obvious conclusions from the data thatthey have presented. On the other hand, theymay offer conclusions which are seemingly un-justified by the evidence contained in theirreports.

Another difficulty is that many young man-

agers (and old ones, too) are unsophisticated intheir appreciation of just what constitutes evi-dence. For example, if they base an entire re-port on the fact that sales are going to go up thenext year simply because one assistant salesmanager thinks so, they should expect to havetheir conclusions thrown out of court. Theymay also find themselves in difficulty if theyfail to identify and justify assumptions whichhave been forced on them by the absence offactual data. Assumptions, of course, are ab-solutely necessary in this world of imperfectknowledge — especially when we deal withfuture developments — but it is the writer'sresponsibility to point out that certain assump-tions have been made and that the validity ofhis analysis depends on whether or not theseassumptions prove to be justified.

Another serious error in "analysis" is that ofbias. Few superiors will respect a communica-tion which is consciously or unconsciously bi-ased. A writer who is incapable of making anobjective analysis of all sides of a question, orof all alternatives to action, will certainly findhis path to the top to be a dead end. On theother hand, especially in many younger writers,bias enters unconsciously, and it is only by apatient identification of tbe bias that the supe-rior will be able to help the subordinate developa truly objective analytical ability.

Persuasiveness

This discussion of bias in reporting raises thequestion of "persuasiveness." "Every letter is asales letter of some sort," goes the refrain. Andit is true that persuasiveness in writing canrange from the "con man" type of presentationto that which results from a happy blending ofthe four elements of business writing I havedescribed. While it would be naive to suggestthat it is not often necessary for executives towrite things in manipulative ways to achievetheir ends in the short run, it would be foolishto imply that this type of writing will be veryeffective with the same people (if they are rea-sonably intelligent) over the long run. Under-standably, therefore, the "con man" approachwill not be particularly effective in the largebusiness organization.

On the other hand, persuasiveness is a neces-sary aspect of organizational writing. Yet it isdifficult to describe the qualities which serveto make a communication persuasive. It couldbe a certain ring of conviction about the way

156 Harvard Business Revieiv

recommendations are advanced; it could be en-tbusiasm, or an understanding of the reader'sdesires, and a playing up to them. One can per-suade by hitting with the blunt edge of the axeor by cutting finely with the sharp edge to pre-pare the way. Persuasion could result from afine sense of discretion, of hinting but not stat-in" overtiv things which are impolitic to men-tion; or it could result from an action-orien-tation that conveys top management's desire forresults rather than a more philosophical ap-proacb to a subject. In fact, it could be manythings.

In an organization, the best test to apply forthe propriety of persuasiveness is to ask your-self whether you would care to take action onthe basis of what your own communicationpresents. In the long run, it is dangerous to as-sume that everyone else is stupid and malleable;so, if you would be offended or damaged in theevent that you were persuaded to take the actionsuggested, you should restate the communica-tion. This test eliminates needless worry aboutslightly dishonest but well-meaning letters ofcongratulation, or routine progress reports writ-ten merely for a filing record, and the like. Butit does bring into sharp focus those messagesthat cross the line from persuasiveness to hias;

these are the ones that will injure others and soeventuaUy injure you.

Conckision

No one can honestly estimate the billions ofdoflars that are spent in U.S. industry on writ-ten communications, but the amount must bestaggering. By contrast, the amount of think-ing and effort that goes into improving the effec-tiveness of business writing is tiny — a mouseinvading a continent. A written performanceinventory (like EXHIBIT II) in itself is not theanswer. But a checklist of writing elementsshould enable executives to speak about writingin a common tongue and bence be a vehicle bywhicb individual and group improvement inwriting can take place.

By executives' own vote, no aspect of a man-ager's performance is of greater importance tohis success than communication, particularlywritten communication. By tbe facts, however,no part of business practice receives less formaland intelligent attention. Wbat this article as-serts is that when an individual asks, "Wbatdo you mean I can't write?" — and has everydesire to improve — his eompany owes him asensible and concrete answer.

nPHK purpose of communication is persuasion." I heard this aphorism in one ofthose management improvement sessions (at a resort hotel) that tlie contempo-

rary corporation uses so extensively, to "improve communications" among otherreasons. It has haunted me ever since. For what it says is that there is no pointin mere transfer of cognitive knowledge of information, no point in journalistic orscientific reporting. Communieation becomes a strategy of power, a model of"winning friends and influencing people." Its enemy is not misunderstanding orignorance but improper attitudes and values.

If this point is grasped, the managerial enthusiasm for "good communications"beeomcs more understandable if not more lovable. The goal is shared values, butperhaps not shared information. Indeed, completely shared information, ineiud-ing information on what the communicators aim to aecompUsh, might well defeattlie "appeals to reason" that are reafly appeals to sentiments.

Wilbert E. Moore, The Conduct of the CorporationNew York, Random House, 1962, pp. 72-73-

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009

Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for

the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material

in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may

not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any

other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on

learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning

management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content

available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.