Infernal Comms

Does Your Business Writing Pass the Personality Test?

If you want to take a small but invaluable step towards corporate communication that might actually engage people rather than bore the pants off them, put all your comms through this simple personality test. You need 4 out of 4 otherwise it's rewrite time: 

• is it saying something of interest to the reader

if this is a no, stop straight away ...

• is there any sign of emotion (other than the inane jolliness or relentless falseness that many corporate communicators mistake for humanity)? 

relief, fatigue, anxiety and delirium are all valid emotions in business. Don't pretend; be real

• is there any empathy with the reader?

show some real understanding of issues, concerns or the environment people are in

• could it be read out loud without embarrassment?

too much business writing would never be said out loud by a human being. If it sounds wrong, it is wrong

Building relationships is easier with a bit of personality. It's worth the effort.

The executive blog: show, don't tell

The leader's blog is spreading like Japanese Knotweed as company bosses look for (but more often than not are dragged into) new ways of communicating with employees. It sounds like a good idea but the results are often miserable.

A company I've worked with has a number of executive bloggers (and it gets very competitive when it comes to readership stats); each has their own style, but the blogs are not as varied as the authors themselves. There's a little too much holding back; not enough risk-taking. One exec's journey is interesting though.

In the beginning his weekly posting was a barely disguised "it's been good so far, now do better" missive. While this is an easy place to start it gets dull pretty quickly, which readers know but writers often don't. With some help he had the confidence to talk more about himself and his job, giving readers an insight into what it is to be him. Not surprisingly it became a much more engaging read.

In fiction and drama this is known as show, don't tell. By sharing his thoughts and actions, rather than telling people what to do, he led by example. 

Try these other tips for a successful leader's blog:

• shed some light on your non-work life - it makes you human (which is a good thing, whatever you may think). Talk about the things that are important to you, that have meant something; it will come through in what you write

• don't shoe-horn tedious domesticity into your blog in order to make some simplistic analogy. The following is NOT good: "I was doing the dishes last night and it made me think about the importance of keeping on top of governance every day, rather than saving it up for a periodic spring clean ..."

• show people what it's like to do your job. They'll respect you for it and will be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. And don't forget to include the stuff you don't like doing - nobody believes "I love every minute" fairytales

• be predictable in your timing but not in your content. If people know when to expect something from you, they're likely to form a reading habit. If they already know what they're going to get, they won't.

If you're not blogging, start soon. And do it well.

Predictors of beaconicity- jargon is more than just a joke

The UK's Local Government Association has today published a list of 200 words and phrases that it wants banned from council communication. Their assertion is that this jargon makes what councils are trying to say difficult to understand. Judging from the list, they have a point.

Predictably there's a lot of coverage of this list: the media love a jargon laugh-in (and I particularly like the phrase that features as the title of this post). What's more interesting is why organisations use this language.

I don't believe councils are trying to confuse people; what would be the point? The following are more likely:

- they believe that it makes them sound sophisticated. Business schools have a lot to answer for here. Trying to impress with language is like using scent without washing. Getting the basics right is much more important.

- to cover up inactivity. This is an old corporate trick: filling up space in a progress report when nothing's actually happened demands real creativity in finding new, involved ways of saying very little.

- because it's what is expected. Well, this is for sheep only. It's very prevalent in big organisations and also in academic circles but that's no excuse. Business writing is for the reader and not the peer group or the ego.

We'll see what effect this jargon banning order has. In truth, only a change in attitude will really make a difference.

Redundancy does more than "affect staff"

I read earlier today about the sudden redundancies that have been announced at Budelpack COSi, a company based in Maesteg, Wales. The administrators (Grant Thornton) are in, and the job losses appear to be unavoidable. It's tough for these people, and there were tears.

Here's what the Grant Thornton rep said:

"We are working closely with workers' representatives and a number of public agencies to ensure that everything is done to support the affected staff at this difficult time."

It's a great example of how dumb-speak has taken over from human communication. It has the unmistakeable dull clank of the committee-scripted announcement. I have a particular problem with "affected staff"; it's the way you would refer to people who have been mildly inconvenienced by a change in the car parking arrangements.

When talking about redundancies, let's not try and mask the unpleasantness of what's being talked about by using neutered language. Rather than "affected staff", I'd like to hear about "the men and women who have lost their jobs today": it's truthful, strong, and more respectful.

Anti-business bias

On the radio this morning I heard as good a reason as any for big business to get much better at communicating on a human level.

One of the presenters of BBC Radio Five Live's Breakfast show was interviewing a couple of young people. They had just returned from overseas trips where they had each spent time with a multinational company to see how business worked abroad. When one of the interviewees enthused about his time at B&Q in Shanghai, the presenter suggested he'd been brainwashed.

If we are to avoid a generation of young people believing that a positive impression of big business can only come about as a result of mind control, we need to make sure that the language of business is real, relatable and human. Bias is a difficult enemy to fight, but the answer isn't spin: it's honesty.

And some retraining for prime-time broadcasters wouldn't go amiss either.

Synergy: Business School Gobbledegook?

Drafting a document for a client earlier today, I was faced with a choice: synergy - embrace it or avoid it?