Elements of Style (on the web and elsewhere)

One of the chief issues with creating better looking and more professional documents for any workplace environment is the writer's belief in and commitment to a quality of style.

Many writers of workplace documents spend so much effort explaining that they are not natural writers and could never spell very well that they miss the main point about style in workplace documents:  it matters and the excuses we make about our perceived weaknesses don't improve the quality of the style or make the reader care more.

The reader has to read, and whether the writer of the document wants to admit it or not, style choices and stylistic mistakes can stop a reader from reading.  It's that simple.

The antidote?  Admit what your real weakness is:  you don't believe you can take charge of your style.

That's not true.  You can.  Good workplace style is not brain surgery.  With all of the tools inherent in word processing, you can solve many of your style issues by simply paying attention to what you consistently do wrong.

After that it's a matter of building your vocabulary the way you believe in building your wardrobe and developing a workplace voice on the page that makes you sound the way you want to be heard:  competent, reasonable, friendly and open to discussion.

Workplace writing is different than other kinds of writing.  It is logic based, and people in  business tend to be logical.  Test that theory the next time you have a workplace document to create.  For content, ask yourself if it fulfills the three primary objectives:  fulfill its purpose, meet its audience's needs and does it situate itself into the occasion?  When you consider that last one, you are thinking about style, too.

When you do, you have taken a major step away from needing to announce your weaknesses and toward your necessary destination where, as a confident writer,  you let your document do its job:  speak confidently and persuasively for you.

Daphne Simpkins' most recent book is Christmas in Fountain City

An Exercise In Logic and Summary (with vocabulary building thrown in for fun and profit)

I saw the car key on the black asphalt of the walking trail in the park where I exercise most mornings.  Stooping, I picked it up, knowing ahead before I actually touched the lone large key that it would be a recent loss for someone.  No rust; no caked mud--none of the other elements of the weather attached to it.  Besides, it was my second lap around the park, and I would have seen it the first time around.  I pay attention to my surroundings.

A novice about cars I let my forefinger graze over the car maker's insignia on the rubbery tip of the key, wondering which make and model of car it represented.  It looked familiar--thought it was a Chevrolet, but a Honda owner, I wasn't sure. I thought about circling the cars parked in the lot looking for a match, but chose a different option instead.  I walked over to a man who was getting into his car and about to crank it up--he had his key!--waved to him and asked, "Do you know what kind of car this key would fit?"

"Chevrolet," he said, eyeing me as if surely I couldn't be that ignorant.  Could be, too.  Was.  I am not embarrassed by my ignorance, however.  I'm too old to assign value to myself in terms of what I know or don't know.  I am old enough to ask questions, and find answers:  this is what this blog entry is about, and it's an exercise in logic and it's for my business and professional writing students, so if you are a different reader, just ignore us or jump in.

You have just seen me use two essential characteristics of logic: an admission of ignorance; a request for help.  (I didn't know if he could help me. I was prepared to ask the next person who came along.  I am not shy about asking for help.  This park is pretty public, and I sort of knew the man I asked--we pass each other often in the park-- and I am aware of the faces and schedules of other people. The danger felt minimal.)

Now, how did I find owner of the Chevrolet without handing the key over to a stranger who would not be loathe to steal someone's car, because that could have happened?

I did find the owner and without making a whole lap around the walking path.  How did I know that I would find the owner?  I walked counterclockwise holding the key in the air.  She recognized it and said, looking angry, "You found that key?  My son is supposed to have that key. That's him over there--he's probably looking for it right now."

Job done, I waved good bye.

Still walking counterclockwise, I encountered the son next.   He was walking with headphones and didn't hear me when I spoke.  I greeted him two more times.  He scowled.  Took off his head phones. 

"Whaddya want?" he asked irritably.

I didn't say, "Your mama's going to let you have it shortly."  Instead, I inquired brightly, "Looking for a key?" 

He shook his head abruptly, no and put his head phones back on.

"I just returned a lost car key to that woman over there. She said it was yours and that you lost it."

He jammed a fist inside his pant pocket--came up empty.  He looked at me as if I were a pickpocket.

"You must have a hole in your pocket," I explained, as I saw that he irrationally wanted to blame anyone nearby for the loss of the key, including me.

"Your mother's waiting for you," I said, and started back on my walk.

By the time I made the next lap they were having a pretty loud conversation.

I avoided hearing it.   Then, I saw the mama hand the key back to her son and walk off. 

He looked at the key, looked at the car, didn't see me--and then ran after his mother and gave her the key back.

She pocketed the key, barely slowing down, and he returned in a relieved lope to the car and waited for his mother to finish her walk.

Now, the logic assignment for today: Which one of these people is the more logical?  The mother or the son?
Explain your reasoning in a comment on this blog.  Summarize as much of the story as you need to in order to make your point.  You might even want to imagine that the mother is the equivalent of a manager and the son, an employee who needs direction and mentoring.

Then, for vocabulary's sake, choose one of the following words as the right word that associates itself logically with this event:  delegate, logical, illogical, inconsequential, unavoidable mistake, avoidable mistake, trust, mistake, understandable mistake, or busybody.  If none of these words associates itself in your mind as a logical connection, add your own word at the end of your comment.  Just write:  Word of the day: your word.

So, today I am looking for a summary that asserts a thesis that the mother or the son was the more logical, followed by your explanation for your rationale, and culminating in the word for the day that attaches to this event.

Opinion or Analysis? Recognize the domain. Choose the stance. Then, write.

We have so many opportunities to offer our opinion now that we have almost forgotten that sometimes not only is our opinion not really desired, voicing it actually impedes fulfilling our purpose.  (Yes, your personality can get in the way of making your point.)

For no matter the medium or the situation, skilled writers remember their purpose while writing, work continuously to know the audience, and then choose which stance to take in order to make the case--intrigue the reader, fulfill the purpose and not offend the reader by making one's personal opinion a hurdle to jump.

Sometimes it is.  Too often writers axiomatically adopt a casual voice, a first-person opinionated position because that's the tenor of society, but it's not always the best choice or the strongest stance to take.  When you choose this stance, you are gambling that your readers already agree with you about some points.  You think this because you feel so strongly about it that you can't envision anyone disagreeing with you.

Just because you feel strongly about something doesn't mean that the passion or conviction you feel should be the dynamic you trust to make your case or that others share your convictions.  The problem is that we use our personal voice so often we forget that there are other stances to choose that could fit a situation better.

For instance, take a look at your opportunities to write today.  E-mail, Facebook, Linkedin.com .

In each instance, you need to choose to show up on the page as a personal voice or the voice of objectivity.  The more you write for the social media, the more your casual voice is cultivated--is brought to the surface of daily life and stays there.  But it's not an all-purpose voice.  You can be casual on Facebook if it's not the company's Facebook page and you may write personal e-mails, but that voice doesn't fit your company e-mail voice or your professional voice on Linkedin.com or sites like it that build professional contacts in a different way than your personal Facebook page.

Sometimes you need to use the voice of analysis, which is a very powerful choice if you are in charge.

• People who are self conscious about their own authority often choose the first-person colloquial voice and stance as a form of apology for being in charge.  When they do, they risk undermining their own authority when it will count and, along the way, weaken the team because a team needs a strong leader the way a family needs the discipline of parents.
• When writing for the company, you use a royal stance--a "we" approach, and your tone represents the trust that you company posits in you as the voice of the company.  It should be your friendly but firm voice--simultaneously approachable but with boundaries set. 
• Colloquial expressions that are so much a part of coming and going  in daily life don't belong in professional documents that need the boss's voice.  Excise:  see ya, well, yeah, hey, and any emoticon that brings up visions of you playing the sandbox with your playmates.

The workplace should be relaxed, but it is not a sandbox.  It is an environment where logic usually trumps emotion. The voice of authority should sound like someone who who understands that co-workers are not playmates but teammates.  On any team, there is a captain, and if that's you, use your captain's voice.