2012 Rewind: The Plain Writing Act

Note: I am winding down the last, waning days of 2012 by re-running a few posts from this year that either I liked, were (reasonably) popular, or just didn't get a fair shake the first time around.  If that is not your sort of thing, then come back on January 2, 2013 when fresh and tasty content resumes. Thanks for reading in 2012!

This post, 'The Plain Writing Act', ran in April.  Looking back on it, the Sonny & Cher picture is probably the highlight, but I liked the piece anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Plain Writing Act

This piece from the Washington Post online caught my attention over the weekend - 'Advocates of the Plain Writing Act prod Federal Agencies to Keep it Simple', a review and summary of the 2010 'Plain Writing Act', a law that requires United States Federal agencies to "train agency employees in "plain writing" (defined as writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience."

Yes it is a Sonny & Cher pic. It came up when I searched for 'Plain Language' pics.

The Act proscribes some specific steps for agencies to demonstrate compliance to the new 'Plain Writing' requirements - official agency communications must now use the active voice, avoid double negatives and use personal pronouns. “Addressees” must now become, simply, “you.” Clunky and made-up words and expressions like “incentivizing” (first known usage 1970) are discouraged. The use of internal jargon and acronyms should be limited, etc.

The Act also mandates that Fedeal agencies "designate one or more senior officials within the agency to oversee the agency's implementation of this Act", essentially naming a kind of 'Chief of Plain Writing' within each agency. According to the Post piece, at least some of these appointees are running into some difficulty converting agency communications to meet the 'Plain Writing' guidelines:

“Part of this is we have a change in culture,” said Ed Burbol, the Defense Department’s plain-language coordinator, who oversees two full-time staff members assigned to promoting clearer communication. “We’re going to encounter resistance.”

It might seem kind of odd, or in a cynical 'look at the government, they have no clue as usual' way that an internal Federal agency culture would be at odds with an idea like Plain Writing, which is a concept and a goal that is kind of hard to argue against. But if you think a little bit deeper, and perhaps a little more honestly about organizations that you have worked in, functions you have been responsible for, or even in the current role you possess - can you honestly say you haven't been a little guilty of the same kinds of communication problems or failures that the Plain Writing Act is at least attempting to address?

I know I'd raise my hand to admit that - in fact I am not totally sure this blog post would meet the new criteria. I set out for about 200 words on a simple subject, and on and on it goes. If you have made it this far, congratulations!

And now I ask you close your browser, find a piece of copy on your website, or some HR form instructions, or the 'All Hands' email you are working on and see if it could use some editing, some simplifying, or some 'Plain Writing'.

Have a fantastic Thursda!

Comic Sans and Getting the Details Right

At a prior job I worked with a colleague that had changed her default email message font to Comic Sans. 

The first time I received a message from her, and drank in all the Comic Sans goodness, I thought it must have been some kind of a joke, or a mistake, or a little bit of fun, as I am 99% sure the contents of the message were along the lines of 'Welcome to the group, I am looking forward to working with you.'Not the same, is it?

But as time passed and the ensuing communications I received from this colleague became much more traditional, mundane, and efficient, the Comic Sans persisted. Eventually, I could not take it anymore, and in the nicest way I knew how, (which was probably not very nice, I admit), I gave her some unsolicited advice, to drop the Comic Sans from her outgoing message template, as it was pretty hard to take anything she wrote very seriously when presented in the puerile font of a 3rd grader.

I probably didn't use the word 'puerile' in my note. Well maybe I did.

I can't remember exactly how she took my advice, other than her obvious failure to take heed of it - until I left that position, she never dropped the Sans from her routine.

So this is clearly a blatant example - no one in business I have ever encountered before or since wrote emails in Comic Sans. But when I think about this former colleague, it is truly the only thing about her I remember.  She may have been very smart, capable, an industrious team member - maybe not.

But I would not be able to separate the work, the quality, and her ability from the baffling way she chose to present much of that work, and her failure to grasp how she was coming across to her audiences.

What's the point of this story, (aside from the fact that I found this really cool post on the favbulous blog that renders a bunch of famous corporate logos in Comic Sans and wanted to write about it).

I guess that in communication everything, every last detail matters. And while you can't use that as an excuse to refine, review, and over think things endlessly, it also means that you have to nail the basic, essential bits or you and your message will never be heard.

Seemingly small things, like the choice of a font, often have much larger and more significant implications than we think. And I guess if it doesn't 'feel' right, then it probably isn't.

Happy Wednesday all - I am off to HR Tech Europe in a couple of hours, if you are in Amsterdam this week, please make sure to say hello!

Spring Break #1 - The Plain Writing Act

Note: It is Spring Break week here in Western New York, (for the school-age kids anyway), and while I will still be working and traveling to Washington D.C. for a conference, this week will be busier than most. So this week on the blog I'll be mostly sharing some quick hits and short takes on things I spotted or found interesting. Actually, come to think of it, that is pretty much every week.  Anyway, if you are on Spring Break this week, I hope you have a great little vacation!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This piece from the Washington Post online caught my attention over the weekend - 'Advocates of the Plain Writing Act prod Federal Agencies to Keep it Simple', a review and summary of the 2010 'Plain Writing Act', a law that requires United States Federal agencies to "train agency employees in "plain writing" (defined as writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience."Yes it is a Sonny & Cher pic. It came up when I searched for 'Plain Language' pics.

The Act proscribes some specific steps for agencies to demonstrate compliance to the new 'Plain Writing' requirements - official agency communications must now use the active voice, avoid double negatives and use personal pronouns. “Addressees” must now become, simply, “you.” Clunky and made-up words and expressions like “incentivizing” (first known usage 1970) are discouraged. The use of internal jargon and acronyms should be limited, etc.

The Act also mandates that Fedeal agencies "designate one or more senior officials within the agency to oversee the agency's implementation of this Act", essentially naming a kind of 'Chief of Plain Writing' within each agency. According to the Post piece, at least some of these appointees are running into some difficulty converting agency communications to meet the 'Plain Writing' guidelines:

“Part of this is we have a change in culture,” said Ed Burbol, the Defense Department’s plain-language coordinator, who oversees two full-time staff members assigned to promoting clearer communication. “We’re going to encounter resistance.”

It might seem kind of odd, or in a cynical 'look at the government, they have no clue as usual' way that an internal Federal agency culture would be at odds with an idea like Plain Writing, which is a concept and a goal that is kind of hard to argue against. But if you think a little bit deeper, and perhaps a little more honestly about organizations that you have worked in, functions you have been responsible for, or even in the current role you possess - can you honestly say you haven't been a little guilty of the same kinds of communication problems or failures that the Plain Writing Act is at least attempting to address?

I know I'd raise my hand to admit that - in fact I am not totally sure this blog post would meet the new criteria. I set out for about 200 words on a simple subject, and on and on it goes. If you have made it this far, congratulations!

And now I ask you close your browser, find a piece of copy on your website, or some HR form instructions, or the 'All Hands' email you are working on and see if it could use some editing, some simplifying, or some 'Plain Writing'.

Have a fantastic Monday!

Off Topic - Shut it. Shut your trap I said.

Did you have to endure a meeting this week where someone just would not let go of a topic and kept blathering on and on endlessly?

Did you find yourself stuck on a commuter train or bus or maybe waiting on a plane when Mr. or Ms. Big Shot Important Person could not get off their mobile phones for one second, subjecting you and everyone else around them to the intimate details of their (boring) lives?

Or maybe, just maybe, that significant other in your life has been on your case about something you sort-of-but-not-really promised you'd do and have not managed to get around to it yet?

Well I just might have a solution for you - get yourself one of these cool Speech-Jamming guns, direct it towards the person you'd like to silence, and suddenly.... Shut it!

The details of this awesome new invention come courtesy of the MIT Technology Review's Physics Blog with this piece - How to Build a Speech-Jamming Gun. 

From the MIT piece:

The drone of speakers who won't stop is an inevitable experience at conferences, meetings, cinemas, and public libraries. 

Today, Kazutaka Kurihara at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Tskuba and Koji Tsukada at Ochanomizu University, both in Japan, present a radical solution: a speech-jamming device that forces recalcitrant speakers into submission. 

The idea is simple. Psychologists have known for some years that it is almost impossible to speak when your words are replayed to you with a delay of a fraction of a second. 

Kurihara and Tsukada have simply built a handheld device consisting of a microphone and a  speaker that does just that: it records a person's voice and replays it to them with a delay of about 0.2 seconds. The microphone and speaker are directional so the device can be aimed at a speaker from a distance, like a gun. 

In tests, Kurihara and Tsukada say their speech jamming gun works well: "The system can disturb remote people's speech without any physical discomfort."

Money. Shut up that person who needs, (at least in your mind), shutting up with the added bit of awesomeness in using their own words fired back at them. I'd love to try one of these out sometime.

What do you think - did you find yourself looking around for a Speech-Jamming gun this week?

Have a Great Weekend!

I do not think it means what you think it means

Very random and kind of funny tweet that I spotted in my quest to maintain constant vigilance on all things related to the Talent Management systems space, this one from a random Twitter user in an unknown role at an undetermined company:

Announcement from HR re new "Talent Management System." Seriously tried not to snort out loud when I read THAT nomenclature.

— Sally Gore (@mandosally) February 21, 2012

Kind of funny, and I suppose not terribly unfair. Now I realize that our friend Sally here might not represent the majority of individuals at his or any organization that is considering or actively working on Talent Management technology projects, and I also realize that no matter how well planned, how perfectly aligned, and how well the value is communicated to the team that there are always going to be some detractors or nay-sayers in any big tech project. And it could be that for this organization, this opinion and reaction is in the decided minority and the folks driving the talent project would do well to push forward with their plans and not let this kind of thing slow them down.

I don't really highlight this amusing tweet to make a case that everyone in an organization needs to be on board with big changes and major HR technology initiatives, because that simply is not possible. Why the tweet was interesting to me though is how it actually called out the specific terminology used by his organization's HR team - 'Talent Management System' as being almost laughable. And that I think might be a fair point.

While the term might make perfect sense to vendors to describe what they are building and marketing, and resonate with an organization's business and HR leaders as what they need to focus on, I wonder for the average person, (like I am assuming the author of this tweet to be), the terminology at best means almost nothing, and at worst is a little insulting.

I can imagine our friend Sally thinking, 'Wait a minute here. I am the talent. I am not at all sure that I want HR to install a big, new system to manage me.'

I don't know anything about this specific project, but I do know this - if what you decide to call your project, system, initiative - whatever, repels and possibly insults the very people whose buy-in you need to make the entire thing work, well then you are probably in some trouble.

What do you think? Is it time to re-think the phrase 'Talent Management Systems?'

Have a better idea?