Building Rapport

K.D. Hoffman has expertise in applying theoretical communication to real world endeavors. Her blog is Healthy Change Communications. This is a blog about health communications. Hoffman says, “It’s about using behavioral science to deeply understand specific audiences. With deep understanding, health communicators can engage and inspire change, whether in the individual or in society.”

A current series of blog posts addresses the idea of Targeting vs Tailoring communication. The second post is relevant to our discussion and offers some more introductory-level explanation of cognitive fluency.

Part Two: Engagement…or how to make it matter

“We process messages in two ways, via central or peripheral processing… When people have little interest in a message, they tend to process it peripherally. When processing peripherally, they don’t think about the arguments in the message but rather they use cues like attractiveness, reputation or credibility to guide their decision to perform a behavior….

Alternatively, central processing is energy consuming. It is only engaged in when a message is very important and relevant to the person and when the person has the intellectual or technical ability… Processing centrally requires careful listening and evaluation of message content… Central processing is more likely to lead to long-term and stable change.

One of the best ways to engage the central processing route is to make your message relevant to the audience.  Tailoring achieves relevance.”

The full series of posts is available here, and there is more to come:

Part One Part Two PartThree

 
Expertise as Peripheral Processing

Now consider this older, alternate perspective from our new lens of cognitive fluency.  It provides a hint of the transition to be made in our thinking about writing to make thinking easy for readers with different levels of contextual knowledge.
 

From Farnam Street blog, On expertness and intuition, An excerpt fromHerbert Simon:
“We have seen that a major component of expertise is the ability to recognize a very large number of specific relevant cues when they are present in any situation, and then to retrieve from memory information about what to do when those particular cues are noticed.

“Because of this knowledge and recognition capability, experts can respond to new situations very rapidly- and usually with considerable accuracy. Of course, on further thought, the initial reaction may not be the correct one, but it is correct in a substantial number of cases and is rarely irrelevant. We usually use the word “intuition” – sometimes also “judgment” or even “creativity” – to refer to this ability of experts to respond to situations in their domains of expertise almost instantaneously and relatively accurately. [these] skills have the same basis in knowledge and recognition capability.”

From Simon’s book, Models of My Life. For more: Solution by Recognition and Choice Under Uncertainty.

Many companies try to communicate calm to their shareholders to keep them from panic.  As often as not they produce the opposite results. Here is a case-study.

Press Release: 3-31-2011

Wanderport Corp. (PINKSHEETS: WDRP) today announced that procurement authorization has been granted and approved for the remaining equipment and provisions, which were quoted by engineering and design partners for its microwave energy tankless water heater (MHU).

In conjunction with said engineering and design partners, the Company is well within the end process of procurement in order to complete the single cavity MHU.

“This is significant because the pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together and it symbolizes the transition of my long held vision into reality,” said Robert Simoneau, Wanderport’s Technical Advisor and Product Licensor.

The procurement list includes the advanced heat exchanger unit fabricated using a ceramic type material and customized to exact specifications. This unique enclosure or chamber was designed using thermal dynamic techniques and forms an integral and key component of the baseline single cavity unit. Other items include the metal enclosure, tubes and fittings for plumbing and some miscellaneous items.

“This juncture has been long awaited, as we take the final steps to producing the MHU expected this April 2011. Proceeding with a single cavity ‘point of use’ MHU provides a premise to evaluate the function of our product prior to expansion toward a ‘Point of Entry’ MHU,” said Wanderport’s CEO, Richard Martel. “Suddenly, the immense ‘point of use’ revenue steam is within sight, while we anticipate preparations toward a ‘Point of Entry’ MHU and the considerable market it represents,” further added Mr. Martel.”

After receiving this release, one shareholder posted online:

…it would be nice if the company would just speak to investors in plain language. Once again, they have chosen words which can and are being interpreted differently by different investors. I don’t understand why they have to choose words which cause confusion. A PR is a company’s opportunity to create excitement and generate public interest. Although they have provided some information they have also created doubt.

Many of you know I’ve been here for over a year and am a long-term investor. I’m not a trader and and don’t flip anything here. I believe in the potential of this product and would be thrilled if this PR left me warm and fuzzy…but it doesn’t. Today, one of my friends who invested in the company at my recommendation asked me if there is something wrong after reading today’s PR. Another said that much of it was just mumbo-jumbo. That is not what a PR should instill in someone invested in the company. ..

An article I found today says that in 2 weeks the South African Consumer Protection Act comes into effect. It says that:

Companies need to draft documents that:

• An ordinary consumer
• For whom the product is intended,
• With average literacy skills
• And minimal experience of the relevant goods or service
• Will be able to understand
• the first time they read it,
• without undue effort.

I don’t know if this is an accurate expression of the new legal requirement, but I hope not. I draw your attention to the last 2 bulleted items in my list above (that are combined with the the previous item in the article):

• the first time they read it,
• without undue effort.

As a writer, and occasional legal drafter, I think these criteria are unreasonable. It is unreasonable to demand that a business or legal document can be fully understood on a quick reading. Time should be taken for careful consideration. It is also unreasonable to use the phrase “undue effort” because:

1. the person who doesn’t grasp the meaning will presume they have made enough of an effort, and
2. consumers do not appreciate the amount of effort they should make to understand a legal, business document
3. the courts will struggle to decide whether the due effort was made.

I think the requirement should be that the person make a “reasonable effort” which is a term the courts are more likely to interpret the right way.

What do you think?

Recently, you could have seen these two bits of corporate miscommunication online:
1. Monetizing your business”Go Green”  
2.

Corporate jibberish

We know corporate-speak as language that is bland, undifferentiated, and hard to read with its meaning obscured by jargon, waffle, hype, verbiage, legalese and conventionality. Other fields and professions use this same kind of language that at least hinders communication and at worst turns off readers. The infamous Seth Godin recently suggested: Don’t hide behind waffling terms that don’t mean anything.

I started collecting examples of words like monetize that are not standard English or have become trite or are overused or whose meanings are no longer so clear. I am calling for their retirement, Read why here.

This list of more than 500 words and phrases has now been posted to this website as the Bathetic Word List. Some of the words are linked to commentaries that favor the discontinuance of the use of the words.

I’d like to keep building up the list, so I am holding a contest to encourage your contributions. The contest details are here. 

Please help me make people aware of the list and contest.

This is a question to be voted on in late 2011, subject to any big change in our provincial government.

Will you offer a rewite?

“Are you in favour of extinguishing the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) and reinstating the PST (Provincial Sales Tax) in conjunction with the GST (Goods and Services Tax)?” Yes/No

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010AG0027-001402.htm

Too often, we are expected to go faster and faster for political reasons. Too many people think plain language change is quick and easy.

Plain Language in Organizations

To help people cope, Kate Harrison and I wrote Plain Language in Organizations: An Action Plan (ebook) but this plan addresses the plain language change in a single organization. The newest developments apply to an entire industry, a U.S. state, or a national government apparatus.

Delay: Country by country

Recently in South Africa, the plain language trainers, writers aountrynd editors had been rushing to satisfy clients who needed to comply with the approaching deadline set by their new Consumer Protection Act. And businesses spent millions over the 18-month advance period. The original date for effect has now been delayed from October this year to March 2011. Even after 18 months for preparation the government has not filled all the commission posts nor released regulations to guide compliance efforts.

Elizabeth Warren has been given the task of setting up the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by July 2011. Because hers is a temporary appointment, the Bureau won’t be able to publish regulations until a permanent director is approved by the U.S. Congress. Not a bad idea to take some time.

One U.S. government employee is quoted elsewhere saying:

Making plain language a requirement, rather than just a best practice, means agency web managers will be able to make a stronger case for allocating dollars towards content producers and writers… It isn’t easy to simplify some government content, so you need that expertise to be truly successful. Plain language would mean better service for citizens, which is what every federal web manager is striving to provide.

Changing the whole government’s style

Soon the U.S. President will sign the Plain Writing Act 2010 (almost certain since Obama was a sponsor of the previous bill). Another change process will begin as all government agencies scramble to comply. This legislation may run into problems with its deadlines also.

My friend and a plain language advocate, William Dubay , has commented elsewhere on this new Act:

Government interest in plain language began in the 1970s in response to consumer complaints. Most states at that time enacted laws that required plain language in agency regulations and insurance policies. Some of these laws have been very effective. Insurance commissioners regularly enforce the insurance requirements but most of the agency requirements are lacking enforcement and standards.

The message may be loud and clear on jargon, but weak and vague on standards, funding, and enforcement. Managers will be loathe to implement new demands for which no resources have been provided. Americans may be losing money because of poor writing practices, but good writing practices take training, method, and practice, which all cost money.

Clear definitions still to come

For all of these programs, one challenge is to decide what sort of efforts or results will satisfy the expectation of plain language. An agreeable definition is hard to come by. The international, non-government Plain Language Working Group of experts is still working on this too. Even agreement amongst plain language advocates is hard to reach.

Managing change

Dominique Joseph, a language analyst in Ottawa, has provided some links for support on managing change:

• Kotter’s 8-step change model: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm
• Website based on Kotter’s “Heart of Change” book: http://www.theheartofchange.com/
• Chip and Dan Heath (in their book “Switch”), also talk about the importance of using both “feeling” and “thinking” to create the motivation for change.
• A favorite story — Gloves on the boardoom table: http://www.theheartofchange.com/ It’s wonderful

Still, for a mere $15 Plain Language in Organizations is a good guide for use within a department or division of a larger entity.

picture credit: Cover image of a foundational text of the plain language movement, the 1966 Gobbledygook Has Gotta Go by Bureau of Land Management employee John O’Hara; via the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Language-Change Index

Oxford University Press reports that the third edition of Garner’s Modern American Usage has a most interesting new feature: the Language-Change Index categorizes the level of acceptance of changes in adoption of new usages for words or phrases.

Five stages of language change

Stage 1 – rejected except by a minority of the language experts

Stage 2 – rejected by those who insist on “standard usage” but spreading fast

Stage 3 – used widely, even among the well-educated, but still avoided by the language mavens

Stage 4 – ubiquitous, meaning virtually universal, but still argued against by grammar police

Stage 5 – fully accepted by rational people

Evolving English

For another perspective on changing usage, we can turn to Robert Levy’s blog Save the Semicolon:

The Six Stages of Word Grief http://savethesemicolon.com/2010/05/11/the-six-stages-of-word-grief/
You will have to read his post for the explanations.

The Six Stages of Word Grief

1. Confusion

2. Amusement

3. Annoyance

4. Exasperation

5. Acceptance when OTHER people do it

6. Complete Acceptance or death

And, in “Very Unique” is Here to Stay, http://savethesemicolon.com/2007/07/29/unique-and-monique/

Robert says:

I think that there are at least two phases after a word becomes well-known, but before it becomes really standard.

The first is when people who care about these things (and even people who don’t, but who consider themselves educated) would never use it that way, and in fact, they sort of judge people who do use it. They roll eyes, or cringe a bit, or get annoyed when they hear role-models (like politicians) use it. They consider the usage a pet-peeve, or laughable.

The second is when the people who care about these things would still not use the word, but they accept that even educated, intelligent, well-read people do use it the new way. They start to feel curmudgeonly, or pedantic, if they insist that others avoid the new usage. They recognize that they’re on the way out.

So, for my call to action: Pick the stage with which you are comfortable, write there, and stop your belly-aching.

That prescription-drug info from the pharmacy can fall short

The LA Times has reported that the legally required type of medical information given out by pharmacies is not doing the job of communciating risk.

Researchers at the University of Florida found shortcomings in the written information for on “directions for use” and “comprehensibility/legibility”.

They wrote: “Many leaflets failed to meet the minimum requirements, such as provision of a complete list of absolute contraindications, and more than half lacked specific directions that would allow patients to manage problems. Because CMI [consumer medical information] was the sole written information dispensed, some patients had no information about the risk of lactic acidosis associated with metformin or related warning signs or action steps. The high reading level required to comprehend the presented information and the inadequate formatting suggest additional shortcomings.”

Drugstores are for ‘One-Document Solution’ for patient information

The National Association of Chain Drug Stores says pharmacy and consumer groups should collaborate with the government to develop a “one-document solution” for information provided to patients regarding prescription drugs.

NACDS submitted its letter in response to an August 9, 2010, article in the newspaper that was critical of such information. NACDS President and Chief Executive Officer Steven C. Anderson says:

“Pharmacy is working with the government to help provide enhanced user-friendly information to patients about their prescription drugs. The National Association of Chain Drug Stores submitted a Citizen Petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2008. Seven additional organizations, including other pharmacy and consumer groups, joined in the petition.

“The petition requests FDA guidance describing the parameters for a voluntary, FDA-approved, concise, plain-language document for patients. Such a format could consolidate and replace the multiple written communications pharmacies must now distribute to patients.

“This ‘one-document solution’ could harmonize multiple documents that arise from different FDA-imposed legal requirements or information interpretations, and from different offices and constituencies within FDA.

The Los Angeles Times article is available by clicking here http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-prescription-information-20100809,0,3840303,print.story

So-named because they are examples of zealous over-editing, whiz deletions happen when the editor strikes out the relative pronouns which and that.

Dominique Joseph has commented on these elsewhere:

As a Francophone and a translator, I can confirm that keeping the “whiz” words in makes the text clearer and easier to understand. When “whiz” words are deleted, it can be tricky to figure out the underlying structure of the sentence and the relationships between words or ideas.

1. From “Rules for writing plain English”, by Bill Lutz (http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/Resources/lutz.htm#anchor)

Bill Lutz says we should avoid “whiz deleletions”, which he explains as follows:

Subordinate clauses are often introduced by such words as “which is,” “who was,” “that are,” etc. Deleting these words (the relative pronoun and linking verb) is known as “whiz-deletion.” For example:

1.The supervisor wants the report which was written by the Purchasing Office.
With a whiz-deletion we get:

2.The supervisor wants the report written by the Purchasing Office.
The whiz-deletion makes sentence 2 ambiguous. Does the supervisor want the Purchasing Office to write the report, or does she want the report that the Purchasing Office has already written? Generally, it’s a good idea to avoid whiz-deletions.

(source: http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/Resources/lutz.htm#anchor)

2. From “Revisiting Plain Language”, by Beth Mazur (http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/history/mazur.cfm)

One such guideline is the suggestion to “avoid whiz deletions.” A whiz deletion is the absence of introductory text for subordinate clauses. The Guidelines offer the comparison between the sentence “The director wants the report which was written by the Home Office.” and “The director wants the report written by the Home Office” (Felker and others 1981, pp. 39-40). This guideline was based on direct research done by Charrow and Charrow (1978). In their extensive study of jury instructions, these authors found that whiz deletions made jury instructions harder to understand (Felker and others 1981).

The last defence of the nervous lawyer is “the judge won’t like it.” Guess what she will like plain language.

Joe Kimble and others conducted studies in Michigan, Florida, and Louisiana more than twenty years ago. Robert W. Benson and Joan B. Kessler conducted another study in Los Angeles, California. The results indicate that the participants found the Legalese passage to be less persuasive than the Plain English version. The respondents also believed the Plain English author was more believable, well-educated, and worked for a prestigious law firm. All of these studies compared only sentences or paragraphs and included both lawyers and judges.

A new study compared actual pleading documents, surveyed only judges, and asked directly and only about persuasiveness. Of 800 judges mailed the survey, 292 responded. This survey was conducted by Sean Flammer, a trial attorney at a Texas litigation firm. He had previously clerked for a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The study has been reported in the Journal of the Legal Writing Institute and has become available online:

PERSUADING JUDGES: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF WRITING STYLE, PERSUASION, AND THE USE OF PLAIN ENGLISH
Sean Flammer
The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute [Vol. 16] 212
also: http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/2010/183.pdf

Flammer survey shows:

The results are clear: judges prefer Plain English to Legalese. Whether a judge is an appellate or trial judge or a federal or state judge plays no role in whether the judge prefers Plain English. Nor does the judge‘s gender, age, years of judicial experience, or years of experience in the legal profession. Whether a judge‘s district is rural or urban plays no role, either. Judges—by a two-thirds margin—find Plain English more persuasive than Legalese. Thus, it is in the litigator‘s interest to submit pleadings in Plain English.

Flammer worked with 3 samples drawn from an actual court pleading:

1. a 3-page excerpt from the original pleading
2. a plain language revision, following the advise of experts in legal writing
3. an “informal” version taking plain language plainer, using contractions and colloquialisms

Each judge saw either #1 and #2 or #1 and #3. A majority of judges preferred 2 or 3 over the legalese of #1.

Flammer reports:
The judge‘s age, number of years spent in the judiciary, number of years spent in the legal profession, and gender had no correlation with whether the judge preferred Plain English or Legalese. Further, whether the trial judge was from a rural or urban district did not matter.

Some judges elaborated on their preference with these remarks about the the Plain English sample:

• more persuasive because of the succinctness of the argument.
• easier to understand, more clear and straightforward, and therefore, more persuasive.
• simpler, more direct prose. Getting to the point trumps pontificating any day.
• easy reading. It goes directly to the point.

Judges appreciated:

• brevity
• use of lists
• deletion of the opening paragraph‘s gobbledygook language

These judges found the Plain English sample to be ―cleaner, leaner, and more effective and understandable.

The bad news for legalese writers is that they won’t be read carefully:

The convoluted style led me to skimming for its essence. This was not the only judge who stated that the writing style in the Legalese sample inspired him to pay little attention to the document‘s logical intricacies. These comments make clear that an indirect and convoluted writing style is likely to make the document go unread. An unread document cannot be persuasive.

The minority of judges who preferred legalese, liked that it was
―more polished
―formal
―easier to read

What about the “cranky” judges (my soulmates)? They said that the two plain language versions did not go far enough. Those writings were

• too wordy
• poor writing
• too verbose and filled with formal legalese
• not punchy enough
• capable of being made more succinct

The data show that judges—as a group—would much rather have an attorney err on the side of informality than err on the side of being too stilted and formal. One judge made a fair criticism of this Plain English sample in that it was not plain enough and was too wordy. Another said, “Short and direct is almost always more persuasive.”

More evidence is in, judges are sold on plain language, so why not be brave and use it.

Read my books, Plain Language Legal Writing and Plain Language in Plain English, both available with free U.S. shipping this summer at Plain Language Wizardry.