Slashdot Mirror
The Illiteracy of Corporate American E-Mail
Dave writes "There is a pretty amusing/sad article about functional illiteracy when it comes to professional e-mails. Some of the samples are just ridiculous."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
My spelling's pretty good, too, but not perfect, so no flames please!
The CB App. What's your 20?
It seems like there are two separate possible problems here: people are coming into a company without the writing skills they need, and/or employees are not treating email communication with the same professionalism as other company documents.
:)
For the first problem, either a) don't hire people who can't write, or b) provide on-the job training to bring writing skills up to an acceptable level.
For the second, I think the company needs to make a clear set of standards for both internal and external communication, and enforce them. External communication - to customers, etc. - is particularly important. Anything as badly written as those examples would be deleted from my inbox before I got to the end of the first sentence.
I used to work as a technical writer for a large company, and they kept us busy. It's fine to hire engineers who are good at what they do, even if they don't have great writing skills - as log as you also hire someone to decipher and rewrite everything that comes out of the engineering dept.
PS. I respectfully submit that the headline should read either "The illegibility of email" or "The illiteracy of corporate america"... I might try to make my email literary, but not literate (and my slashdot posts are probably neither...)
You are too hard on yourselves.
;)
Trust me, I am British. "Yank Bashing" is something of a national sport since the empire fell apart
Bad email is not in any way an America only thing (neither are falling standards in education!). I have seen emails sent to customers which make me cringe. I know people for whom English is a 4th of 5th language who can compose better emails than some born and bred Brits.
A letter would be passed to a workmate to "have a quick look at", or typed by a secretary. Email is seen as being in some way less important. Wrongly so!
Newsflash: In corporate AMERICA, English is required learning.
Newsflash 2: People who speak English as a second language are often better at correct grammar then native English-speakers.
Most people who learn English as a second language tend to have a very good command of its written form; this is because in most schools abroad English is taught following a grammar-first/speech-later approach.
My spoken English, and especially my understanding of it, has improved by leaps and bounds since I started living in an English speaking country (Canada). I wish I could say the same about my writing: due to being constantly exposed to your/you're and similar constructs, I feel its quality has definitely decreased.
-- the cake is a lie
I honesty can't stand to even deal with someone who uses shorthand such as "u" or "ur". I think that one of the causes of this is poor typing skills. If you can't type fast enough, "u" or "ur" is easier than typing "you" or "your". These people must just assume people don't mind reading that garbage.
Spend some of that $3.1B on typing skills as well as language skills!
Many resumes aren't actually "read" for grammatical correctness, they're scanned for keywords either electronically or by people. Even when someone tries to read them, most resume books say "short and sweet" which precludes a lot of paragraph-type writing. Furthermore, the people reading them are often as weak at writing skills as the submitters, so any standard being applied is low to begin with.
And then there are the people who have professional services do their resumes, CVs and cover letters -- either once for manual submission, or as part of a headhunter type operation where fixing their clients weaknesses is part of the job.
And let's face it, when YOU were in college, what was the general intellectual orientation of most business/marketing school types, anyway? I found they nearly all fit the stereotype -- frat/sorority members with more interest in their personal appearance and social standing. Grades (and not necessarily *learning*) merely being important if they had some kind of status-oriented grad school plans or a cash payback plan from Mom and Dad for not flunking out.
To be fair, there were people that fit that description who were real smart, too, but most of them really weren't. College was something they were expected to do, like wear Polo-brand clothes, and join the right Greek house, and get a corporate job.
Is it any surprise that once this anti-intellectual group is in a position where they have to represent their ideas in writing that they fall apart? I think half the problem with them isn't just a lack of writing skills, it's also the quality of the ideas. It's hard to write well about a bad idea.
When I was teaching econ, I several times made the mistake of setting an essay test. It showed that the American students couldn't write. When I marked them down for incomprehensiblity, they were shocked! ``You should grade the econ, not the grammer.'' they said. Unfortunately, the grammer and organization was bad enough that there wasn't any coherent content to grade.
Some of them did know the material, but it doesn't matter what you know, if you can't communicate it clearly to others. If you can't communicate, you might as well know nothing, because that's what everyone will assume.
By contrast, some students for whom English was a second language had grammer problems, but their writing was coherent enough that I could figure out what they meant.
See what I've been reading.
The problem I run into at my job is not so much spelling and grammar. I fortunately run into very few problems with that. What sets my teeth on edge is lack of basic netiquette skills.
For instance, I cringe when I see someone reply to a long email outlining multiple points in a discussion, only to see the person head the message with "My comments below IN CAPS". This person then proceeds to do just that, namely give all her comments in all uppercase. Ugh. There is no need for this. It is very clear what is quoted text and what is not quoted text.
Another one that is rampant at my company is top-posting. Everyone insists on quoting a message in a reply and proceeding to post their comments at the top. When I try to lead by example and properly bottom-post, people complain my emails are not clear. Argh.
At least I no longer have a boss like I did on my last job. She wrote her emails in all lowercase and used HTML blink tags.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
As evidence the article cites the following quote: ... However after verifying controls on JBL - JBL has the indicator as B ???? - I wanted to make sure with the recent changes - I processed today - before Murray make the changes again on the mainframe to 'C'."
"I updated the Status report for the four discrepancies Lennie forward us via e-mail (they in Barry file).. to make sure my logic was correct It seems we provide Murray with incorrect information
The reason why that message seems so "incomprehensible" is not because of the poor writing but rather because we, the not-intended readers, do not have knowledge of the systems discussed in the email.
Actually the quote looks like it would be quite understandable if I knew
(1) what the status reports were,
(2) what the Barry file is
(3) who Murray is
(4) what "information" they provided
(5) the details of the technobable at the end of the email.
Clearly all of these are things the intended recipient would already know.
I could write an email about an advanced physics topic using perfect grammar and spelling and it would be no more comprehensible to the average reader than this email.
If that is the worst they can come up with than corporate America is in good shape.
After all, Outlook automatically corrects your spelling for you as you type.
"patience" is spelled correctly. In context, it's probably the wrong word, but it's still spelled correctly.
I've seen that happen quite a few times - people relying on the Outlook/Word spellchecked and it corrects their email by inserting correctly spelled, but irrelevant words.
The CxO drones don't even notice it.
let me fill in the blank: You send a message at noon to someone who is twelve hours ahead of you. They get the message at midnight. They come in to work at 8:00 AM their time, and read your message. They send a response, but it is already 8:00 PM your time, so you don't see the message for another 12 hours when you come in to work the next day at 8:00 AM.
Having to go through multiple iterations of the message to make sure your point is clearly presented can slow things down significantly.
Sloppy writing implies carelessness at best, ineptitude at worst. It's not okay to write badly in a business setting; at least not in inter-business communication.
Why is anything anything?
I worked as a secretarial temp in college, and let me tell you: executives have *never* been terribly literate (well, at least since the 80's; I assume it wasn't much different before that). It's only that they used to have secretaries type their correspondence, so nobody knew.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
There's an easy solution to your quoting problem: Don't quote.
Think about ehat you want to say and write a self-contained reply without the ugly point for point nit-picking style promoted by quoting.
This has the added benefit, that your receipients either take your interpretation of what was said before or have to work and dig through their own archive.
I had the experience, that this leads to calmer mail exchanges.
It seems like I see/hear 'prolly' frequently in British media, so maybe it's a perfectly normal slang term there?
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
It's not just corporate email. The "New York Times" now routinely spells "NASCAR" as "Nascar" as well as mangling other acronyms. I have written to them several times to find out what is going on but they haven't replied. I think it's the result of using MS Word which has a nasty tendency to downcase things.
Since we're on the subject, I'll bring up a related complaint: I think the program which checks your spelling is a "spelling checker" and not a "spell checker" (unless you're some sort of warlock or witch). I know, I need to relax and get used to it but it does bother me.
Everybody should care because the intended recipient may not be the only recipient as a matter is discussed. My emails get forwarded and (b)cc:'d to others all the time and I receive similiar correspondance every day. Concise, understandable emails mean I don't have to repeat myself.
They also stand the test of time. Ever have an email come up a few months or a year later and have to address it? Something well composed is easier to explain than a choppy stream of consciousness.
Sure, its only 20 seconds, but the only point in editing your message is to conform to implied social norms - an objective that has nothing to do with getting the job done. Thankfully those silly social norms have not yet been applied to emails yet.
This shows such a lack of business savvy and professionalism it is actually depressing. You can't even invest half a minute into reviewing your work and making sure it's presentable because in your limited view it has nothing to do with your actual job. The simple fact is that in any organization you don't exist in a vacuum and being able to effectively communicate is a primary job function not some "silly social norm." Save those anarchist tendencies for IRC and /. Whether it is "fair" or not, in a business environment consistently poor writing is going to get you labeled as stupid and inept. The big problem with this is the judgement will many times come from upper management due to the simple fact that your email is the primary work product they see.
Soft skills count and as the job market gets tighter those skills will be the ones that differentiate you from the rest of the pack. It is actually called reality and not "silly social norm."
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I may be able to interpret poorly written English, but that's not to say it's enjoyable. Presentation errors not only make the individual committing them look bad, but also take away focus from the actual content.
I expect people communicating with me in a business context to make a reasonable effort to communicate clearly in much the same way that I would be offended if a coworker chose to give me messages scribbled in sloppily written crayon: Poor presentation distracts from the content. The scribbled memo would needlessly require extra time to read and interpret; likewise do poorly spelled messages.
Another aspect that falls out of the above is one of respect. Since comprehending sloppily-written messages takes more time and effort, writing well is nothing less than displaying respect for the value of the time of one's readers, whereas writing poorly is stating that your time and effort is more valuable than that of the individual to whom you send your message. I make a serious effort to do this when writing material for others' consumption; consequently, I find it only reasonable for others to respond in kind.
They should and do. People who send poorly written email (particularly mass mailings) are genuinely and rightly offensive, for all the reasons above.Once they get into the workforce, there is a prevailing myth among the plebes that spelling and grammar don't matter, as long as the message is right.
This myth prevails because it's what students are taught in school.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I think the issue isn't that all of these supposedly highly educated people can't write...I've worked with many people who were very articulate in print but always sent out emails that looked like they were written by a hyperactive 12-year-old. I think the issue is that it just doesn't register with a lot of people that their emails SHOULD be grammatically correct and have a good flow to them.
I totally disagree and always try and write decent email, but unfortunately a lot of people take the same attitude towards email that they take towards IM...as long as its just barely good enough to kinda sorta communicate whatever they were trying to communicate, then it's OK. They don't think about the impression it makes on other people.
We (technical types) tend to think email should be written with the same care as papers and snail mail, whereas to a lot of other people it's just a less responsive form of IMing. It's a peeve of mine, but there's not really anything anyone can do about it.
1) So the recipient doesn't have to spend 20 seconds trying to work out what your meant, or wasting both his and your time by replying asking for a clarification.
2) So people don't think you're a moron.
3) So people outside the company don't think you're all morons (if the message is forwarded, as often happens, sometimes inadvertently).
Anything you write, anywhere, can come back to haunt you.
Here's why correctness is important:
.
You work in a purchasing department, can you tell me what this person wanted?
"Onetwenty foot lenth of steel, 1/2 in thk, 3 in angle."
Here, we're not so much concerned about the spelling. Is this a twenty foot length of steel? Or is it a 120 length of steel? Either one could be wrong, (though one is far more likely than the other) so you have to call for clarification, which takes time, and instead of processing the purchase, you have to call this chap on the radio, phone, and/or e-mail and wait for him to get back, and god-forbid if it's a hot project, and he's now on vacation or hit by a beer truck. Time, by the cliched equasion, equals currancy, aka, business.
This is just metal, simple metal, hunks of steel, imagine something more complicated. Something electronic? Something computer-related? Imagine the confusion of a common omission of the final comma in a list, exemplified by this famous line:
"My parents, God and Ayn Rand."
Put a comma in between "God" and "And" and it's slightly more clear it's a list. Unless that person is claiming divine lineage or a chunk of an Objectivist trust fund . .
Okay, obviously, that's a purchase, we hope that person is specific as they are conveying a need (though I can tell you that often those folks expect you to know what they want). Critical stuff. So, what about e-mail then? What about normal stuff?
People judge you, rightly or wrongly, by the words that you use. Beyond the base level technical things, it's a game, where even ORDER on the TO: line can have something to do with how the item is read. ("Can" does not equal always, by the way.) Stupid, perhaps, but it is so.
And if takes you 20 minutes to check your grammar for anything of normal length, you haven't internalized the rules, and thusly are inefficient. It's not about perfect grammar, either; hyper-correctness is, in itself, totally obnoxious and useless and paralyzing. (I know I misspelled a few things in here, a few grammar gaffaws, but I hope I'm clear enough.)
I agree, if you're clear and everything is good, then great. You needn't be able to diagram the perfect sentance, but you should be able to state your goal clearly; and if anyone comes back with questions, or, worse, doesn't ask you the questions they have, then your language has failed, or maybe the person is an idiot.
People you may or may not ever meet make decisions based on your communication. Treat it as such.
In the interests of full disclosure: my Masters Degree is going to be in Rhetoric and Professional Writing. Waste of time for some, I imagine, but I think it's interesting. Takes all kinds, I guess.
Dan
No irony was intended. Let's try another more direct form,
CNet can't write a title.
Sam, the limits of form imposed by advertisement funded, dead tree writing are clear to see. I'm sure the title was made up by some editor, but I feel bad for you.
This wasn't posted by CmdrTaco.
When the nations "Paper of Record" can't get it right, what do you expect from the rest of us? Slashdot digs up news that matters and that's all I care about. Noam Chomsky would say that the media should not be able to write a proper sentence if it's working right. He claims the media's purpose is to limit thought and it does so by presenting what it's owners consider the limits of an acceptable future in an obnoxious and belligerent way. You are supposed to think of news and politics as unpleasant, unpolite and ultimately something beyond your control. What you get from your average 15 minutes a day of news "consumption" is direction not information. George Orwell's "Duck Speak" is exactly what you should expect.
Go back to sleep now.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Being able to write well virtually ensures you're dealing with a person who possesses a meticulously organized thought process, or at the most, somebody with a fairly high IQ.
Some may argue that there's no relationship between writing ability and general intelligence, but my reasoning states that in order to produce good writing, one must recognize good writing. And that requires exposure to good writing through reading. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suggest that the less a person reads, the more likely he is to have an average or below average vocabulary and base of knowledge.
Moral of the story is thus: if you write poorly, chances are you're a poor reader. And if you're a poor reader, chances are you just aren't cut out for the IQ game.
- IP