Does writing matter? Do capitals matter? Does punctuation matter? Does reviewing what you wrote matter?

Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.

We’re not talking about becoming the next Tom Clancy or winning a Webby.

This is about sounding professional and respecting your reader, whomever they may be.

There are a lot of things that go into good writing, but the most important thing is that it makes sense, not how many multi-syllabic words are used. Obviously, this Fortune 500 company manager didn’t believe that when he described his job.

“It is my job to ensure proper process deployment activities take place to support process institutionalization and sustainment. Business process management is the core deliverable of my role, which requires that I identify process competency gaps and fill those gaps.”

Additionally, it requires using the correct words, as I said in another post.

“Are most people loosing their minds, while I am losing mine?

Years ago KG sent me a memorable reminder of the importance of capitalization. I used it then and here it is again.

“Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse and helping your uncle jack off a horse.”

A missing comma cost Oakhurst Dairy a lawsuit for overtime — they lost.

Finally, it takes very little time to review what you wrote; the best way is to read it out loud.

CB Insights shared a hilarious example from a resume they received.

P.S. We’ve been asking folks about their job interviewing and resume reading tips. Here’s a pointer for candidates: think carefully about your wording when submitting a CV. We received this earlier this week:

Enough said.

Image credits: thewritingreader and CB Insights

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

Bad writing isn’t age related. Bad writing spans all ages and keeps getting worse. You deal with it daily in email, web content, hardcopy marketing material, resumes, and, the worst, information and instructions from the boss. Decoding bad writing is not only time-consuming, but can also be downright scary if a design change or product launch depends on it.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Bosses, business coaches, academics, bloggers and many others bemoan the lack of communications skills in Gen Y, especially written communications, but they have plenty of company in preceding generations.

Not just bad writing, but opaque writing, the kind that leaves readers scratching their heads wondering what they are missing.

Of course, I shouldn’t complain, since one of my company’s most popular products is Clarity RE-writing, which involves using the fewest possible words to present even the most complex information in the most understandable way.

Who are the worst writers?

Granting that many of Gen Y don’t understand the difference between writing and texting, I find lousy writing much more offensive when it comes from those who (should) know better.

And while the more lofty their position the more offended I am, I save my greatest reaction for those old enough and senior enough to know better who work in the field—in other words, they are, or should be, professional communicators.

Charles H. Townsend, the chief executive of Condé Nast Publications, which includes Vogue, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair, is such a one. He recently sent a 500 word memo to his staff, here is a sample from it.

“…a consumer-centric business model, a holistic brand management approach and the establishment of a multi-platform, integrated sales and marketing organization.”… “To optimize brand revenue growth, we will shift responsibility for single-site, digital sales and marketing to the brand level. Publishers can now fully leverage their offerings across all platforms.”

Don’t feel badly if you aren’t sure what he is trying to say, his staff wasn’t sure, either.

If you want to write clearly here is some quick and basic guidance.

• • • Avoid jargon;
    • shun multi-syllabic words;
    • use short, simple sentences;
    • pass on large blocks of text, especially on the Net;
    • spell check everything; and, most importantly,
    • never forget that most people scan and don’t actually read.

Image credit: Karin Dalziel

I wrote on this a bit last week.

When it comes to open floor plans you have the ability to break concentration pretty quickly.

Maybe you ask a work-related question, or you see someone walk by who catches your attention, or it could be the other meeting occurring five feet away that draws your attention.

All in all, it can add up to a loud and unproductive environment.

That said, there is another issue at hand: the collective focus of our country.

I have political leanings (most folks do), but I don’t address them in this forum.

However, I have found it is very difficult to focus with the hyper-political environment we are in right now.

The latest on Trump, Supreme Court nominees, and international trade dominate the conversations. Even at work, I have found it can be a minefield to even poke into certain topics. How do we overcome this?

One thing I have started doing is actually turning off the news and not keeping up with every little change to the topics of the day; it can be a bit freeing. At the same time, I am not in a position where I can be completely ignorant of what is happening.

I have also found that there is common ground among my co-workers on how divisive it has all become.

And it is a lot harder to push your politics on someone when they are standing right in front of you. The shield of anonymity is gone.

I have found that reading negative press also has the added effect of making me less productive.

I focus on the negative and it goes into my head. What good is all that?

So maybe next week we can focus on the positive and move forward?

Most of us get presidential alerts on our phone now, but we can also turn them off.

Image credit: VirtualWolf

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Have you ever wondered where all the bullshit business terms (BBT) came/come from, especially since their spread predates the Net and social media by decades?

A fascinating article in the Guardian traces the birth and rise of business bullshit that sprang from a 20th-century Russian mystic, was embraced by corporate leaders, inspired Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, and has been re-imagined and added to by consultants and pundits ever since.

It hasn’t always been this way. A certain amount of empty talk is unavoidable when humans gather together in large groups, but the kind of bullshit through which we all have to wade every day is a remarkably recent creation.

Founders and others in tech are especially fond of BBT as they go about changing the world.

There’s even an online generator that takes the effort out of remembering terms yourself.

Business bullshit always reminds me of a guy I worked with, who believed the more multi-syllabic words he used the smarter he would sound.

He didn’t and you won’t either.

The article is long, but well worth the reading time.

It might even help squelch your own penchant for using them.

Hat tip to CB Insights for pointing me to the article.

Image credit: Scott Adams

Words are tossed around today with little consideration for their actual meaning, let alone accuracy of usage.

Sometimes it doesn’t matter, but misusing others can be the basis for serious errors, while treating words as interchangeable, as if they are synonyms, can have dire consequences.

This is especially true when the subject is emotionally charged or carries a lot of baggage — such as diversity, the great catch-all.

I can also say that I, too, have used the following incorrectly: privileged, underrepresented, marginalized, diversity, and inclusion.

Let’s take a look at what the words actually mean.

• Privilege is about access.
• Being underrepresented is about numbers.
• Being marginalized is about treatment.
• Diversity is about variety.
• Inclusion, which is about experience—the experience of a person, a group, or a community.

None of these words are interchangeable; each has a complete, stand-alone meaning in and of itself.

Companies are famous for signage promoting their values, mission, etc.

Perhaps the time has come for a new one based on the true definition of these five words.

The poster covers talk.

However, the talk is worthless unless it is partnered with the walk.

Exactly like diversity and inclusion — the first means nothing without the second.

Image credit: TEDx NJLibraries

Yesterday’s post about BS jargon seemed to be replayed in a pictorial of the atrocious, say-nothing advertising that graced the booths, many of which gave no hint as to the product.

Quartz reporter Mike Murphy summed it up nicely.

It’s like these companies spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure booths at CES, and then forgot to pay anyone to actually market whatever they were selling.

This is one of the most jargon laden.

You can check out the rest here.

Murphy was wrong on one point.

The companies probably spent as much, possibly more, on message creation.

And advertising companies don’t give refunds.

Image credit: Quartz

For better or worse I earn my living wordsmithing content, such as websites, blog posts, presentations, etc.

Today was definitely worse.

That’s because so many senior business people believe that stringing together trendy, multi-syllabic words spotlights their intelligence and impresses their target audience — whether investors, employees, or customers.

The presentation I’m working on is so loaded with jargon that I wonder if they didn’t use some equivalent of the The Corporate B.S. Generator I read about on CB Insights (the last item in the Blurb).

While I would never use a real excerpt, I used the BS Generator to create a bit of content similar to what they sent.

We at Opaque Inc. work hard to dramatically foster efficient technologies for our clients in an effort to globally customize specific integrated methodologies. Our goal is to overcome intervening challenges and quickly restore compelling value.

Are you impressed?

Do the ideas presented increase your confidence and enhance your desire to become a stakeholder?

Or are you more likely to walk away scratching your head and wondering what they actually do?

Image credit: Wikipedia

This past week we had one bad press event after another and all from different sectors. Let’s review what has transpired so far: Pepsi decided to release an ad that equated the giving of a Pepsi to a police officer as the answer to the protests that have occurred.

It was looked, at the very least, tone deaf, but was also offensive to many who felt Pepsi was attempting to capitalize on societal events that have true impacts.

Our President’s Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, somehow thought it was a clever idea to bring up Hitler as an example of how he was better than the current Syrian regime. If you missed it he essentially said that Hitler never gassed his own people, unlike what Assad has done in Syria.

A basic history lesson will show that Hitler may not have used gas attacks in a combat role but he gassed millions of innocent Jews in death camps throughout Europe. Not exactly a bastion of humanity there.

The event, however, that caught many by surprise was the viral video of a passenger being forcibly removed from a United Airlines flight after it was determined that they needed his seat for an employee.

This man was already seated and refused to leave, since he was a doctor and had appointments he needed to make. When he refused to leave, the police were called and he was dragged off screaming. To make matters odder he somehow got back on the plane, bloodied and rambling.

That event was terrible, but then the CEO of United decided to double down and call the man belligerent. Since then the CEO has issued several apologies, but the damage has been done.

What do these three events have in common? I would argue that in each of these cases the leadership of the company, who typically maintains the cultural norms, has failed.

Let’s dive in and see how this could have been prevented to learn from them in the future.

Pepsi had grand ambitions to have a meaningful conversation around current events and sell their product. One critical flaw here, they utilized their in-house marketing team.

They were operating in an echo chamber with no one to tell them to stop and think for a moment. This is something I personally must do in my own life. I must seek out feedback on a continuous basis to determine if I am on the right path.

My goal for this post is not to get political, but we can look at the Sean Spicer event as a leadership problem. He was hired by Donald Trump, who already had an idea of what Sean was like. Since taking the role Sean Spicer has been in hot water several times, this being the latest in a string of gaffs.

This man is essentially the voice of our President, twitter aside. The culture of the White House has enabled him to act recklessly and uncouthly. Similar to the idea that brilliant jerks are ok, we have a similar issue at stake here.

My take-away from this is to put yourself in the shoes of your listeners. Would what you are saying be divisive to your listeners or just plain wrong?

Finally, we have the United Airlines debacle.

Now the event itself was a shock but we need to look at the response since it came to light.

The CEO started by stating the man was belligerent and the CEO supported his employee’s decisions.

I get it, you want to reassure your workforce that you have their back, but in this case the CEO was also viewing this from a legal standpoint.

There is a law that allows you to forcibly remove a passenger if he is belligerent. The CEO labeled that passenger in such a way to protect himself legally. But we all saw the video and beyond refusing to leave the man really wasn’t much of a threat.

To me, this response is indicative of both pride and attempting to cover up rather than solve. That CEO has surrounded himself with folks that are unwilling or unable to push back and offer insight.

I have done that in my own life as well and so must always reach out to those that share different opinions than I or different beliefs, so I can continue to learn.

Image credit: Topher McCulloch

A newish reader called me, mainly, he said, to see if I really did answer my phone (the number and an invitation to call is prominently displayed in the right-hand column). He seemed even more surprised that I would take time to chat.

The conversation covered several topics, but the question I found most appropriate to mention here was, “Do you really think word choice and punctuation make all that much difference or is it just your own personal hang-up?”

Fair question and one I’ve heard before.

Regarding the importance of punctuation I referred him to the lost lawsuit in yesterday’s post, which he hadn’t read, yet.

As to the importance of word choice you need to look no further than the care taken by the shared economy giants, such as the UK’s Deliveroo when referring to their non-employees.

The critical importance of using the correct terms (click the link above for a sample) can be found in Deliveroo’s bend-over-backwards effort to avoid having the government class their non-employees as employees, with all the associated rights and costs.

The six pages of do’s and don’ts are meant to serve as a template for how staff should speak to and about its couriers (though it prefers to call them “independent suppliers”). For example, they want to avoid saying “We pay you every two weeks”, preferring the more obtuse passive phrase, “Rider invoices are processed fortnightly.”

Words are incredibly powerful, as I wrote way back in 2009; more than 50 years ago James Thurber concurred.

Precision of communication is important, more important than ever, in our era of hair trigger balances, when a false or misunderstood word may create as much disaster as a sudden thoughtless act.

Of course, precision is just as important, if not more so, when intentionally creating false views and misunderstandings as proven beyond doubt by recent elections here and around the globe.

Image credit: DailyExcelsior.com

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over nearly a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.

It’s that time of year again and and my best advice hasn’t changed since 1977 or as I wrote it in 2007. The only difference is that now it’s the same advice you can find in dozens of places. Done right (as described below) reviews are the greatest gift you can give your people. So give it to them, even if you don’t get the same from your boss. After all, it is said that it’s better to give than receive and, as I tell clients, you can control the former, not the latter.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

I’ve written on and off about the importance of, and how to do, performance reviews and it’s that time of year again.So in yet another effort to convince you doubters out there that honesty is the best policy and your people really don’t want to hear feel-good fudging, prevarications or outright lies, especially around Christmas.

Social psychologist William B. Swann in a new study published in the Academy of Management Journal… People don’t like to be treated positively if they know it is not heartfelt. If people are coming across as inauthentic and forcing you to come across as inauthentic in return, that can be enormously stressful… His work has centered on an idea known as self-verification theory. All people carry around an image of themselves that tells them who they are, whether they are good-looking or average-looking, for example, or clever at math, or kind and thoughtful or largely self-centered. Inasmuch as people want to be recognized for the things they are good at, Swann’s work suggests many people also want honest acknowledgments of their flaws, and that when these flaws are minimized or wished away, people end up feeling worse rather than better.

Just remember, honest and authentic don’t mean abusive or destructive. Offering recognition of what the person does well and being candid about areas that need improvement are two hallmarks of a good review.

The third is no surprises, which means that you’ve been giving candid feedback throughout the year.

What kind of reviews do you give? Receive?