Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Books on Demand
- Kategorie: Ratgeber
- Sprache: Englisch
This handbook will help your colleagues write better e-mails. And it may have a few ideas that you find useful, too. At work, you likely are in the midst of many professional documents. Your team needs to produce analyses, memos, minutes, proposals, press releases, reports, and write many crisp e-mails every day. Yet how to get this right? This handbook shows you proven techniques for getting your ideas across, every single time. The handbook, based on extensive experience in diverse contexts, is in its third edition. Previous versions have been translated and published in Armenia, Bulgaria, Central America, Georgia, Russia and Ukraine. Primarily targeted at professionals, it may also be useful for students and jobseekers, with sections on essays, cover letters and CVs. The handbook includes chapters on crisis communications, social media at work, and on how to improve your team's performance through lessons-learned summaries. For good ideas to succeed, they need to explained well. This handbook will help you do that.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 278
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
A Shelf for Your Ideas – Preface to the Third Edition
In the 1930s, a young mother in Tbilisi was in a desperate situation. Her husband had been deported in one of Stalin’s purges. She had a young child and with her husband being an enemy of the people, she had no source of income. She went to relatives and neighbors, asking for work. One of the neighbors eventually offered her to work as the math tutor for their son, who was coming into sixth grade. The young mother was petrified. She had only been in school for four years, yet needed the income to survive and feed her child. In her desperation, she accepted the job.
Once she began tutoring, she sat with the little boy, trying to work through the math problems in his book, and trying to hide that she was uncertain about the right solution. She thus encouraged the boy to figure it out: “dumai, dityё, dumai” – think, kid, think! Perpetually worried that she would be found out, she was told by the boy’s parents, a few months later, that she was the best tutor that the child had ever had. Through her encouragement, he had figured it out, by himself.
This story, told by Natalia Antelava, a journalist and friend, about how her grandmother survived, in many ways is relevant to professional communication. Since writing the first edition of this book, in May 2001, I have taught the skill on how to structure information to more than 1500 people, in various settings, from four-day workshops to 90-minute summaries.
Practically all of the people in the trainings already have many good ideas on how to communicate. Many of the people are very good at figuring out how to structure information, when we go through practical examples.
Yet few of them have a worked-out approach on how to get their ideas across. Their understanding of the challenge often is fragmentary. When we discuss, for example, how to structure introductions, most will have good ideas but not a developed framework. In some ways, it is like they have most of the right books yet no bookshelf to put them on. Their ideas, like such books, are in unordered piles. This makes them far less usable than they should be.
This handbook, then, tries to offer shelves: a framework for ideas on communication that give you a clear structure to work with. Ideas, like books, are much more useful if they are in good order.
I think it is fair to say that the framework presented here is one that has worked. At least it worked for me, in various settings, for example when we convinced dozens of think tanks around the world to become more transparent about who funds them. Others have also found the framework useful, which is why we are going into this third edition. Previous versions were published in Armenia, Bulgaria, Central America, Georgia, Mongolia, Ukraine and Russia, and versions of this handbook have been used for teaching students in Bamberg and Berlin.
Having a framework makes communication much easier. At the same time, what I present here is just one framework. I do think you will find useful to fully understand it, working through the tough parts, and to apply it. If afterwards you transcend it, developing additional ideas and approaches, that is even better. The handbook tries to give you a structure to figure it all out. In this, dumai, dityё, dumai has been a good motto for me. I hope it works for you as well.
This handbook extensively refers to Georgian examples, as Georgians are the primary audience of this version. Non-Georgian readers may enjoy the reference to a different context.
Contents
A Shelf for Your Ideas – Preface to the Third Edition
4321 – What you need to know before you start
The 4321 Essentials
Four Principles
Three Structures
Introduction Formula
The DAGOR Procedure
Specific Applications
Essay
Memo
CV
Business Letter
Press Release
Policy or Project Proposal
Report
Minutes
Social Media for Professional Purposes
Lessons Learned
Editing Documents
Crisis Communications
Conclusion: 4321 To Get Your Ideas Across
Sources & Acknowledgments
4321 – What you need to know before you start
What this book is for; how it can help you; how you should use it.
To live and actively participate in a society requires you to communicate all the time. This is why most people want to be better at communicating. Being better at communicating allows you to succeed and to help others succeed. You have a better chance of transmitting your ideas.
But it is difficult to learn professional communication. Universities rarely teach it in good courses. Without systematic teaching, there isn’t an established framework for professional communication, or an ongoing discussion on how such a framework could look. And professional communication is not a skill that can easily be learned from a book.
So how can this book make a difference? I believe that this book can give you the tools to succeed: four principles, three structures, two formulas and one procedure. If you master them, you will do very well. You will first learn the four principles that always apply and then see how to put them into practice. Three structures help you make your ideas accessible. Two simple formulas will support you, and you can adapt them to your requirements. The book will also show you a procedure that you can always use to draft documents.
To make the most of this book I suggest that you thoroughly engage with its first part. It is short, for your benefit. You should fully understand the four principles, three structures, two formulas and one procedure. Once you have the 4321 framework internalized, you have the basics for practically all professional documents. We will discuss specific formats in the second part of the book.
The primary purpose is to get you to think in the right direction. You will need to think because you will need to make choices. For that reason, the book is designed around transferable advice that you can adapt. Use this book as a tool that opens possibilities, not as a text that imposes constraints.
The handbook draws on the experience of running organizations, of working with think tanks across multiple countries, of campaigning with international impact, and of teaching and coaching. Moreover, it draws on the experience of making mistakes that I can help you avoid. I have used techniques that have been successful across many countries and various organizations, including the private and public sector and the military. The biggest inspiration has been Barbara Minto, who has put together some of the best ideas on how to write clearly. Throughout, however, I have tried to keep in mind what you, an interested reader, will find useful.
The 4321 Essentials
How to get started.
To communicate well, you need to follow four principles. These principles apply to all professional communication, and they also underlie the structure which we use to organize ideas. Your success will depend on your understanding of these essentials, and on your ability to apply them in various contexts. The following pages explain the four principles, three visualization techniques that help you build a structure, two formulas and a procedure which you will find useful whenever you write.
Four Principles
The principles that always apply whatever text you are writing.
• Define your purpose in writing
Professional communication is about achieving results. You write so that something will or can happen. Whenever you write, clarify what result you are trying to bring about. Even if you just want to inform someone, you give them this information so that they can ask themselves whether they need to change or adapt their own plans in response to what you tell them. If you are sure that they do not need to act, most likely they do not need to know.
Hence define the purpose before you do anything else. One good way of defining the purpose is to create a visual image of the specific action you want your reader to take. When writing a memo, you want people at least to take note – which means that they should ask themselves and their subordinates the question “Do we agree with the proposed action? If we don’t, what is our better suggestion on what to do?” When writing a CV, you usually want to obtain an invitation to the interview. Consequently, you should picture the situation where the person looking at your CV compares it with the criteria for the position, decides that you are suitable, sets it aside and tells her assistant to invite you for an interview.
Who does what how when where why?
Having defined your image, write down the specific actions you want to happen as a result of your document. Be specific. The action formula for writing down the objective is: “Who does what how when where why?” This formula is used wherever people need to take decisions and implement them. As all action goals can be formulated in this way, you benefit from always using it.
Having the image and the written formula alone does not ensure that you will succeed. But if you do not create the image, you may fail to define your purpose and you will be even less likely to succeed. At the same time, the image helps you to check whether your aspiration is realistic. Can you visualize it happening? Have you seen something similar happen recently? If so, your goal probably is realistic. You will, of course, occasionally try something new that previously never happened – but these are exceptions. Usually you will want to pursue less ambitious goals, as doing so allows you to succeed more often.
• Write for the reader
Having established your visualized aim, pursue it by writing specifically for the reader. Who is the reader? Why is the reader reading your document? What are the reader’s interests, expectations, beliefs and possibilities? I suggest characterizing the reader with three to five adjectives. Characterize before you begin to plan your document. Decide whether you need to do some research about your reader (or groups of readers).
The principle that you write for the reader guides you whenever you have to make a difficult decision about how your document should look. By asking yourself what would be best for the reader you focus your thoughts on the one criterion that counts. To make your document attractive, ask yourself just how much your reader needs to know. It is unprofessional to be longer than you need to be, as your typical reader faces many competing concerns. Too little detail, on the other hand, may leave the reader unable to decide, and may lead to further back-and-forth.
Remember that you yourself want documents (including this book) to be written so that they meet your needs. Do others the same favour. If you keep setting a good example in your organization, others will soon follow.
To understand the right approach, it helps to reflect on the difference between professional and other types of writing. Writing e-mails or messages to friends mostly is about expressing yourself. You do that in whichever way you want. You expect your friends to understand your style, as it reflects your feelings. Friendship at least in part is about understanding each other.
Professional communication is different. It has the purpose of achieving tangible results in an effective way. Unlike the communication between friends, its prime purpose is not that people should enjoy each other’s company.
Note, too, the difference to literature. Literature entertains and at its best inspires us. If it is good it encourages various interpretations of its meaning. Its language often is complex, because decoding texts can be a thrill.
Professional communication is more narrowly strategic. You do not want multiple interpretations. Instead, readers should act. They must know precisely what you want to say. Your priority in the use of language should be clarity.
• Present your conclusion first
Present your main idea first. Only then introduce the ideas that support this main idea. In other words: state your conclusion first and then say why this is the right conclusion. Readers find it easier to understand your text if you follow that sequence.
Do not take the reader through your thought process. Taking the reader through your thinking takes more time and you may lose the attention of the person you are addressing. Consider the example:
In the river Mtkvari: what would you use?
Version 1 --- “You, listen to me and look over here, I’m not in a good situation and I cannot get out by myself so I think that you could be pretty important to me. I need you to take off your clothes, and your shoes too, now jump into the river and quickly swim in my direction. Then grab me and pull me out.”
Version 2 --- “Help!”
In the second version, having stated the main idea first, the listener knows what to do. You do not have to take him through every single point. The same is true for professional communication. If you communicate the main idea first, many of the details become obvious.
The extreme example illustrates a reality we often encounter in writing. While struggling in the river practically everyone will use a simple call for help. Yet often, when it comes to writing, people resort to the kind of convoluted message of the first version. Too much detail drowns out the core idea. Putting the main first helps to make sure this does not happen.
The principle of “main idea first” applies to all communication, unless there is a specific exception. You should use this principle in essays, in memos, in professional letters, when answering questions. You even use the principle when presenting options: you present the idea that there is a good choice between these specific alternatives and you make the case that there are no other viable courses of action. How it works in detail will be explained in the next section on structures.
There are some exceptions to this conclusion-first format. An obvious exception is most literature. Because she wants you to remain curious, Agatha Christie does not tell you right away who the murderer is. Moreover, for some professional documents you must pass on “neutral” information for other people to make their own choices. Here you must keep out your own ideas. We will discuss the exceptions in the section on formats. In the meantime, use every opportunity to apply the principle of main idea first to your writing.
• Always think before you type & be precise
Much of what has been said above can be summarised as “think before you type”. Use paper and pencil to plan your documents. Your documents will be more compelling, clearer, and mostly shorter. You will increase your chances of success and save yourself frustration.
Thinking thoroughly before you type goes along with another principle: be precise. I could repeat this principle throughout this book but I hope that saying it once with emphasis is enough. Without precision, you cannot think well because your thoughts will remain vague: they cannot work together to generate substantial and authoritative results.
For example, when we want to get together we would never agree to “meet somewhere on David Agmaneshebeli some time Thursday afternoon”. Yet, in professional contexts we often see documents that are vague on how institutions will work together and achieve results, only stating a broad intention to collaborate. Precision here can save much effort, in the same way that precise arrangements on where to meet will save us the effort of looking for each other.
To be effective, we can go back to the action formula, and specify who does what how when where why. Specifying these aspects early greatly assists your planning, and your writing. Note that precision is a great tool to get ahead, within and between organizations. You have a good chance of prevailing if you continue being more precise, even against the odds. Precision, as the story of David's victory over Goliath illustrates, is a powerful weapon for the underdog.
• The hierarchy of the four principles
Keep the four principles above in mind. They follow from each other. If you have a purpose and a clear image of what you want the reader to do, you automatically want to write for the reader. If you write for the reader, you will structure the text so that it is easy to understand. You will put the main idea in the beginning. And you will spend more time planning your documents in the future, thinking first so that you can save yourself work later.
The relationship of the principles is hierarchical, with the higher principles dominating over the lower ones: if you have diverse readers (Second Principle) with potentially contradicting views, you may sacrifice precision (Fourth Principle). This is what advertisements or political slogans do, deliberately targeting their messages to a diverse audience. The term “compassionate conservatism” used in the US presidential election in 2000 is perhaps one of the most powerful examples. The term was finely crafted to send two different messages: to mostly secular voters in the middle of the political spectrum it can sound like conservatism distinguished by moderation (it appears compassionate, not tough); to committed Christians it sounds like an emphasis on Christian doctrine (with policies against what they see as liberal excess).
Similarly, if your reader (Second Principle) is negatively disposed to your conclusions, you may decide not to begin by putting your main idea first (Third Principle), but instead show that all other options have been exhausted. Moreover, if your purpose is to convince (First Principle) readers who may feel threatened (Second Principle) by your main message, you will demonstrate and establish your empathy first, removing or at least reducing their anxiety before delivering your main message. As these examples illustrate, the principles give you a robust structure for thinking about communication.
Writing is like building a house. Texts structure meaning in the way that buildings structure space. Both ventures tend to succeed if they are accessible, rather than labyrinthine. For both, if they are more than emergency cover, you need to plan sensibly, putting different materials together in a single unit. Good writing like good building is primarily about planning. Typing is like laying bricks: necessary for completion, but unlikely to deliver desirable results without a solid plan. The next sections will give you some more advice on how to assemble the plan for successful communication.
Three Structures
How to organize your ideas.
To write professional documents you need to know how to organize them. The entire structure flows from the third principle: present your conclusion first. This presentation principle helps you to structure your thoughts. In this section, you will learn an approach that allow you to present any material to your reader. Once you master this technique, you can apply it consistently to develop any type of document.
Throughout this section, we will be referring to the example presented below.
• State the main idea first
We have already determined that you should present your conclusion in the beginning, as it helps the reader understand what you are saying. To illustrate this principle, let us examine the example below. Read it and try to identify the differences for yourself before you read on.
Memo to Nino, the director of a marketing consultancy, written by Paata, after several clients turned down proposed projects. Two versions:
Version 1 --- Giorgi was unhappy with the way our project pipeline is going. He says he has too much work on existing projects, he cannot concentrate on personnel, legal aspects and completing the pitches to clients at the same time, especially as he also has to take Keti‘s position whenever she is away. He is already late with the yearly review because it is too much.
I discussed it with Keti. She says she can‘t help Giorgi, because she needs all the time to focus on maintaining the contacts with clients. As no one else is available, Giorgi and Keti think that we should consider employing an assistant to concentrate on completing our pitches. Giorgi would be responsible for the assistant. The assistant would probably cover her cost, as we would have better chances of getting more income if someone had more time to spend on it. Could we meet this Thursday 15:00 to discuss this with you and Irakli? Thanks, Paata
Version 2 --- Giorgi and Keti suggest hiring a junior assistant to increase our sales. We would like to meet you and Irakli this Thursday 15:00-16:00 in your office to discuss this proposal.
A dedicated assistant will be able to help complete pitches that clients are interested in, and potentially additional clients. This move seems necessary after we missed out on several pitches recently. If we succeed in winning more projects, we could expect the assistant to cover the costs of employing her and to earn additional income for the company.
Moreover, having this assistant would allow Giorgi – who would supervise her – to fully concentrate on existing projects, personnel and legal issues, allowing him to respond to more requests. This increased efficiency would enable us to take on further contracts, earning us some more money. With sufficient training the assistant would also be able to stand in for Keti, giving Keti more time to work on implementation with our clients. In terms of cost [add detail…].
Please let me know if the above is a convenient time for you to discuss this proposal.
Which version do you find more convincing?
Version 2 is better because it immediately tells the reader the main idea. The boss knows that Giorgi and Keti want to meet with her to discuss the hiring of an assistant on Thursday at 15:00. Writing for the reader, the author dropped several items that Version 1 – which takes the reader through the thought process – kept. Even if Version 1 were streamlined, the reader still would have difficulties understanding the text because she does not know to what conclusion it leads.
Note how the action formula (“who does what how when where why?”) has been adapted to highlight the main point. The action formula would have been:
In Version 2 the formula was split into two sentences and the main idea was stated first. We instinctively understand things best if the main idea is presented first. The other supporting ideas fall into place.
This top-down principle is universally true because we process information from an organising principle. Having understood the central idea, we find it easy to remember the subordinate ideas. Think of a car and you can immediately visualise a lot of different components that fit together to make the vehicle. Conversely, if I tell you: door, window, roof, mirrors, seats, lights – you may think of a car, but you cannot be sure. Is it a house? Nor are you thinking of the many other parts of the car.
Always find the main idea – which should relate to the purpose of writing the document – and mention it in the beginning.
• Structure the levels of your argument
A complex argument may include several different ideas on different levels. You should put these ideas into an order that reveals their connections, thereby making them intelligible and compelling to the reader. The arrangement of these ideas is comparable to the order that you would develop in any collection of objects or ideas. For example, when arranging books on a shelf, you sort them by criteria and by sub-criteria (alphabetical order, subject area, size, or even colour). These criteria need to be used consistently, otherwise your order will be confusing to others.
The same is true for ideas. Take time to identify what your main idea is. From now on, we will call this main idea your thesis. Your thesis should be supported by further ideas, which we will call arguments. These arguments in turn will be supported by subarguments.
To work with such a structure, you should visualize what it looks like. There are three approaches to visualizing your structure that I have found useful: the argumentative circle, the pyramid, and the mind map. You can choose whichever you feel most comfortable with. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
The argumentative circle looks like a spider’s web. In the center is your thesis. On the next level are your arguments. Beyond that come the subarguments and if what you are saying is very detailed, there will be supports. The argumentative circle looks awkward when printed, but is effective in dividing a page that is sideways in landscape format, with a pencil.
The pyramid is another visualization you can use. This top-down approach has been put forward by Barbara Minto. At the top, there is the thesis, on the next level you have the arguments, below the subarguments, and then the supports. The pyramid is a great way of envisaging information, and works particularly well if you use Post-it notes for planning on a big wall. The pyramid is less suitable for planning complex documents on a single piece of paper, because you run out of space on the lowest level, where you have all the detail. (Even on this page we struggle to include the subargument level.) To fit everything onto a page, the argumentative circle is more useful, as you branch out the detail to the edges of the paper. A single sheet with an argumentative circle holds information for planning a paper of 8 to 10 pages, or for a talk that lasts for an hour.
The mind map is the third useful visualization tool. The mind map has more of a flowing structure, in which the thesis sits in the central circle, and branches out to other items around it. The mind map, developed by Tony Buzan, is intuitive and engaging to draw and develop. Self-drawn mind maps are nicer to work with than the ones we get from computer programs, such as the one below. The one disadvantage of the mind map is that it has less of a rigorous emphasis on the hierarchical nature of your structure. Robust relationships often are represented more rigorously by the pyramid or the argumentative circle.
With these three visualizations tools, you can order complex information to make it accessible to others and to yourself. Make sure that the levels cohere in all directions. The thesis must be a summary of all the main arguments. And this structure then works all the way down (or out): the arguments must directly be supported by the subarguments. And the subarguments should be summaries of your supports.
The summaries must be “clean”. Clean means that only ideas (i.e. arguments, subarguments, etc.) that directly contribute to this summary should be included. You can, for example, have reasons for greatly decreasing income tax and abolishing value-added-tax as part of your case. (Your thesis could be: Ukraine needs to introduce two changes in its tax regime immediately in order to stimulate its economy, increase tax income, and decrease the shadow economy.) But in this context, you cannot make a point about altering the exchange rate (unless it directly relates). It simply does not add to your summary as expressed in the thesis.
The circle must cohere “sideways”. If you have mentioned income tax and value-added-tax on the argument level, a decrease of tax on medicines against asthma does not fit on this level, as this topic is less significant to the overall thesis (and offers a greater level of detail than needed). You should, in other words, have roughly similar importance on each respective level. Our memo on the sales assistant can illustrate the requirement of coherence.
Thesis:
We should discuss the hiring of an assistant for project-pitches to increase our income.1
Arguments
She should be able to increase our revenue because she can concentrate on developing pitches.She will allow Giorgi to obtain more contracts because he can concentrate on his job.She can help to improve our service by freeing Keti to spend time with her clients.Here all three arguments highlight the possibility of generating more income: by improving efficiency and quality, you are likely to stimulate demand, as your products or services become more attractive relative to other offers. The proposed change should generate more income, of course, because otherwise the organization cannot afford to pay for the new assistant. The three arguments are roughly on the same level of importance. It is right that they are mentioned together, and at the argument level.
Now, try to imagine an argument that does not belong here. One clear example of such a misfit is:
She can remind Giorgi to return his coffee cups to the kitchen, because Giorgi always forgets to do it, makes a mess, and no one else has cups left.
While this may be true, the argument would not be on the same level as the other three arguments. Coffee cups are not important enough and their return does not contribute to the revenue collection of the consultancy. Hence they should not be included. It would, however, be permissible to say:
She can increase efficiency by taking charge of Giorgi’s office management.
This statement coheres with the other three arguments. The other three arguments were about a possible increase in income due to employing an assistant. Improving office management is about decreasing cost, as internal processes will go more quickly and hence cost less. So all four arguments are about the same activity: increasing revenue.
The argument about increased efficiency may include the subargument that the assistant will ensure that the office remains tidy, but it will also entail a range of other tasks, for example, managing the filing system. If the subargument is just about the office running out of coffee cups, you better drop it altogether.
All this means that a proper structure can be presented like a mathematical equation, with A standing for “argument”:
and so on.
The mathematical representation emphasizes that there should not be anything on the subargument level that is not reflected in the thesis, since the thesis is the sum of all the subarguments. Conversely, the arguments need to literally “add up” to present the content of the thesis. It is a rigorous, robust and fully rational structure.
Yet to fully grasp that structure, especially if you have more than four or five ideas that need to be integrated simultaneously, you will need to visualize it in one way or another, at the very least in a detailed outline form. Even better, use the argumentative circle, or the pyramid, or the mind map, to visualize your eventual structure.
• Pick 3-5 main points
When organising items or arguments into a structure, you should ideally pick three to five main arguments. All other ideas should be subordinate on a level below as subarguments. Remember that you are writing for your readers. Their time is limited. If you identify three to five main arguments that are powerful, you should be able to convince them. If they are not convinced by these arguments, further arguments are unlikely to succeed.
One poor argument gives people who are sceptical a pretext for not listening to the other good arguments. They focus their objections on the one poor argument, disregarding the others. A poor argument increases the vulnerability of your document. Moreover, if your document lists all the arguments you can think of, it will be so long that nobody will want to read it.
Figure 2 shows how many readers are convinced relative to the number of arguments. The curve is illustrative and its actual shape will depend on the readers and the text. The point to remember is that quantity cannot substitute for the quality of a few well-chosen arguments.
You need to choose. Which arguments will you pick? The answer is to be found in the principles discussed above. Write for your reader: pick the arguments, then, that are most likely to make your reader act the way you want her to. As Nino needs to generate income to keep her company going, the main arguments in the short memo were well chosen.
• Visualize processes, too
Obviously, you can use any of these visualizations to describe a process, too. As “arguments” you have the main steps that need to be taken. Try to keep to the maximum of five steps. Five steps are easy to remember. Include further items as subarguments. Again, your levels should cohere. To use a straightforward example:
Thesis:
Keti, Paata and Giorgi will re-organize the office under Keti’s leadership on Saturday at 09:00, because we need to create space for a new sales assistant
Arguments:
Discard all unneeded papersRe-arrange bookshelvesRemove old sofaSet up new workspace.Note that for each of those arguments there are subarguments, so that again you could fill the argumentative circle:
1. Discard all unneeded papers:
Collect all loose paperIdentify what is needed and file accordinglyIdentify confidential/private material to be discarded and shred itDiscard the restetc.
