Simple writing works
Barry Underwood insisted his NSW government department write in plain English. Picture by Bob Finlayson
Jargon and complex language are tiresome, confusing and impress no one, writes Sophie Toomey
For most people, writing is part of a working day. Lawyers, accountants, engineers, finance professionals, public servants and academics are among those who spend significant amounts of their working life writing documents and for many of them it is a dreaded chore.
Neil James, author of Writing at Work says education rarely prepares us for the kind of writing we have to do at work, and it is something with which many people struggle: "You might know how to write great essays or to pass exams, but once you get to the office you have no idea how to write for your job.''
James says it is not uncommon for people to carry the style they have used at university or school into the office.
James says people from middle management are definitely the worst offenders when it comes to writing in jargon and complex language.
"The troops want simplicity, the CEO is bogged down in paper and also craves simplicity, but middle management are often desperate to value-add to their writing; something they think they do by writing in what they see as the language of power."
James says the most common mistake is that the writer doesn't write for their reader.
"They write in the particular language of their profession: for their manager, who will read the document, or for their colleagues who speak the same jargon - but not for the person who will ultimately read it. It doesn't matter how much great research you've done, or how good your content is - if you are writing in jargon or in a style that your reader doesn't understand, then it's a failure."
James advises against the use of long words, or what he calls "tricky dressed up text".
"Use short, familiar words where they match your meaning and don't use long words just to sound impressive."
James says while many people think tricky, complex writing will impress, studies have shown in career terms the effects are negative.
"The US national commission on writing found that writing is a threshold skill: something that eight out of 10 companies assess when hiring, and 50 per cent assess before promotion. Not writing well makes you less likely to get the job or the promotion. US companies are spending $3.1 billion annually to bridge the gaps in effective writing at work."
Barry Underwood, executive officer for the NSW Auditor-General's Department, says lack of comprehension was his epiphany when it came to writing at work.
"My office had written an annual report in the style that our annual reports were always in, and I just didn't understand it. I went into the former auditor-general's office and asked him if he found it difficult to understand. He agreed that he didn't understand it either."
They decided the office writing style needed an overhaul.
"We write reports that go to Parliament, and to people outside our office who just didn't understand the language that we were using. People would have skimmed them, or, worse still, not read past the first few paragraphs. And I wouldn't blame them.''
Underwood admits that he had always struggled with writing and that for most of his career he had written in dense, often incomprehensible, language thick with passive verbs and technical terms.
"I would have four or five verbs in one sentence. I did it because everyone did and because I believed that I would impress people. I also thought I'd always be legally covered because I was getting all the information in."
Underwood admits he also secretly believed that not writing in dense English would make him look less intelligent among his peers.
James says lawyers are among the worst offenders, believing that to relinquish complex English and legalese will render their documents
less certain.
"They will argue that plain English documents won't stand up in court, or that they won't be legally effective. In fact, research shows that not only do clients prefer it but that judges prefer it, because plain English documents are clearer, more precise and more readable. All those things make them more effective and, ultimately, more persuasive.''
James cites the example of the Victorian Takeovers Code to illustrate the superior effectiveness of plain English legal documents.
"Two versions of the code were drafted: one in legalese and the other in plain English. Both were put in front of lawyers for assessment and translation. The plain English document took a third of the time to read and was more accurately translated. That is a good example of plain English creating clarity. You might sound more impressive using jargon and long words, but you reduce clarity and therefore precision."
Christopher Balmford, director of plain language training company, Cleardocs, says he has worked with thousands of lawyers, all of whom have expressed the fear of not fitting in or appearing unintelligent.
Such fears are unfounded: "I have never yet met a client who has said 'please write me a letter I don't understand because then I will think that you are smarter.' They actually feel annoyed and patronised."
James calls the use of complex jargon by lawyers and professionals "bully boy language".
"It isn't designed to inform but to intimidate, to make the person on the other end feel stupid or impressed by your intelligence. It is a way of convincing them to do what you want. I would question the ethics of using such language."
Underwood says that when he introduced his staff to the concept of using plain English they were horrified, and mostly unwilling.
"I tried to explain to them that we would be more effective if we used simpler language: that it was our job to inform and influence, and that the language we were using was holding us back."
James says that there are several tools writers can use to become more effective.
He suggests writers ask themselves, who am I writing this for? Who is my reader?
"That will, or should, dictate the language you use to write the document. You must always gear your language to the audience. You will write differently to your CEO than to your client with no knowledge of the law, for example."
James suggests using a formal but friendly tone that is not "too hip or too heavy". He says the ideal sentence length is between 15 and 20 words, and suggests the use of the active, not passive, voice where possible.
"Say 'I think you can finish' rather than 'it is suggested consideration be given to the finishing of'. Passive voice is often about not taking responsibility, but makes it difficult for the reader to identify what you are talking about."
The next vital thing is to be clear on why you are writing and to choose the best structure to get your point across.
"It is good to give the points early to get the point across straight up. That lets people know where you are going.''
The main message shouldn't be buried in detail.
James says stringent editing is another vital step in the process: "You must take out what's not necessary if you want to get your point across. Use less, not more. If you can do without something then take it out. People will always read a more concise document."
James says he forces people to go through their documents and weed out clutter, long sentences and excessively long words.
"Read through your documents and see what you are saying; make yourself read it as the reader would."
He says emails at work should be no exception to the rules, but often are.
"People get sloppy in emails. They don't tend to watch punctuation, or capitals. Remember, it's a professional document and the rules apply."
PLAIN SPEAKING
Corporate jargon, and what it really means:
Ticking the boxes: Working well
Run up the flagpole: Get feedback from others
Think outside the box or square: Think creatively
In the near future: Soon
In a timely manner: On time
Customers have the obligation to: You must
Together with the associated: With
In accordance with your request: You asked
Be evidenced in a written manner: In writing
Is of the considered opinion that: Thinks
It would be appreciated if you would ascertain: Please find out if
Officialese:
It should be noted that instances of discrimination are to be halted by implementation of policies with respect to our workplace environment, and in view of this if it is considered that the lodgment of a complaint is required the matter should be raised with the appropriate authorised anti-discrimination officer in the organisation.
Plain English:
Our policy is to have a workplace free from discrimination. If you have a complaint you should tell the discrimination officer.
The Weekend Australian, Saturday 17 2007
For most people, writing is part of a working day. Lawyers, accountants, engineers, finance professionals, public servants and academics are among those who spend significant amounts of their working life writing documents and for many of them it is a dreaded chore.
Neil James, author of Writing at Work says education rarely prepares us for the kind of writing we have to do at work, and it is something with which many people struggle: "You might know how to write great essays or to pass exams, but once you get to the office you have no idea how to write for your job.''
James says it is not uncommon for people to carry the style they have used at university or school into the office.
James says people from middle management are definitely the worst offenders when it comes to writing in jargon and complex language.
"The troops want simplicity, the CEO is bogged down in paper and also craves simplicity, but middle management are often desperate to value-add to their writing; something they think they do by writing in what they see as the language of power."
James says the most common mistake is that the writer doesn't write for their reader.
"They write in the particular language of their profession: for their manager, who will read the document, or for their colleagues who speak the same jargon - but not for the person who will ultimately read it. It doesn't matter how much great research you've done, or how good your content is - if you are writing in jargon or in a style that your reader doesn't understand, then it's a failure."
James advises against the use of long words, or what he calls "tricky dressed up text".
"Use short, familiar words where they match your meaning and don't use long words just to sound impressive."
James says while many people think tricky, complex writing will impress, studies have shown in career terms the effects are negative.
"The US national commission on writing found that writing is a threshold skill: something that eight out of 10 companies assess when hiring, and 50 per cent assess before promotion. Not writing well makes you less likely to get the job or the promotion. US companies are spending $3.1 billion annually to bridge the gaps in effective writing at work."
Barry Underwood, executive officer for the NSW Auditor-General's Department, says lack of comprehension was his epiphany when it came to writing at work.
"My office had written an annual report in the style that our annual reports were always in, and I just didn't understand it. I went into the former auditor-general's office and asked him if he found it difficult to understand. He agreed that he didn't understand it either."
They decided the office writing style needed an overhaul.
"We write reports that go to Parliament, and to people outside our office who just didn't understand the language that we were using. People would have skimmed them, or, worse still, not read past the first few paragraphs. And I wouldn't blame them.''
Underwood admits that he had always struggled with writing and that for most of his career he had written in dense, often incomprehensible, language thick with passive verbs and technical terms.
"I would have four or five verbs in one sentence. I did it because everyone did and because I believed that I would impress people. I also thought I'd always be legally covered because I was getting all the information in."
Underwood admits he also secretly believed that not writing in dense English would make him look less intelligent among his peers.
James says lawyers are among the worst offenders, believing that to relinquish complex English and legalese will render their documents
less certain.
"They will argue that plain English documents won't stand up in court, or that they won't be legally effective. In fact, research shows that not only do clients prefer it but that judges prefer it, because plain English documents are clearer, more precise and more readable. All those things make them more effective and, ultimately, more persuasive.''
James cites the example of the Victorian Takeovers Code to illustrate the superior effectiveness of plain English legal documents.
"Two versions of the code were drafted: one in legalese and the other in plain English. Both were put in front of lawyers for assessment and translation. The plain English document took a third of the time to read and was more accurately translated. That is a good example of plain English creating clarity. You might sound more impressive using jargon and long words, but you reduce clarity and therefore precision."
Christopher Balmford, director of plain language training company, Cleardocs, says he has worked with thousands of lawyers, all of whom have expressed the fear of not fitting in or appearing unintelligent.
Such fears are unfounded: "I have never yet met a client who has said 'please write me a letter I don't understand because then I will think that you are smarter.' They actually feel annoyed and patronised."
James calls the use of complex jargon by lawyers and professionals "bully boy language".
"It isn't designed to inform but to intimidate, to make the person on the other end feel stupid or impressed by your intelligence. It is a way of convincing them to do what you want. I would question the ethics of using such language."
Underwood says that when he introduced his staff to the concept of using plain English they were horrified, and mostly unwilling.
"I tried to explain to them that we would be more effective if we used simpler language: that it was our job to inform and influence, and that the language we were using was holding us back."
James says that there are several tools writers can use to become more effective.
He suggests writers ask themselves, who am I writing this for? Who is my reader?
"That will, or should, dictate the language you use to write the document. You must always gear your language to the audience. You will write differently to your CEO than to your client with no knowledge of the law, for example."
James suggests using a formal but friendly tone that is not "too hip or too heavy". He says the ideal sentence length is between 15 and 20 words, and suggests the use of the active, not passive, voice where possible.
"Say 'I think you can finish' rather than 'it is suggested consideration be given to the finishing of'. Passive voice is often about not taking responsibility, but makes it difficult for the reader to identify what you are talking about."
The next vital thing is to be clear on why you are writing and to choose the best structure to get your point across.
"It is good to give the points early to get the point across straight up. That lets people know where you are going.''
The main message shouldn't be buried in detail.
James says stringent editing is another vital step in the process: "You must take out what's not necessary if you want to get your point across. Use less, not more. If you can do without something then take it out. People will always read a more concise document."
James says he forces people to go through their documents and weed out clutter, long sentences and excessively long words.
"Read through your documents and see what you are saying; make yourself read it as the reader would."
He says emails at work should be no exception to the rules, but often are.
"People get sloppy in emails. They don't tend to watch punctuation, or capitals. Remember, it's a professional document and the rules apply."
PLAIN SPEAKING
Corporate jargon, and what it really means:
Ticking the boxes: Working well
Run up the flagpole: Get feedback from others
Think outside the box or square: Think creatively
In the near future: Soon
In a timely manner: On time
Customers have the obligation to: You must
Together with the associated: With
In accordance with your request: You asked
Be evidenced in a written manner: In writing
Is of the considered opinion that: Thinks
It would be appreciated if you would ascertain: Please find out if
Officialese:
It should be noted that instances of discrimination are to be halted by implementation of policies with respect to our workplace environment, and in view of this if it is considered that the lodgment of a complaint is required the matter should be raised with the appropriate authorised anti-discrimination officer in the organisation.
Plain English:
Our policy is to have a workplace free from discrimination. If you have a complaint you should tell the discrimination officer.
The Weekend Australian, Saturday 17 2007
