> Communication can be frustrating. Sometimes it is like tapping out a song you have in your head and expecting another person to immediately know the tune.
Such a great, succinct description of this problem.
I've found my writing has stagnated due to lack of feedback. Unfortunately my friends and family don't seem interested enough in my writing to engage with it.
For business writing, peers/colleagues will rarely turn down a request to proof/edit/comment on a document. We’ve brought more focus on narrative writing in the last 3 years (and even more in the last 7 months).
People who invest time in refining a doc before the main meeting tend to get better results in the meeting. It’s not subtle and the acts of asking for help and helping each other out seem to forge mutual reliance and a sense of being on the same team (plus the company gets a better doc and meeting).
Throughout my adult life I've always kept a notebook to write down everything that came to my mind. Random ideas for projects and articles, problems and solutions, schemas and drawings, lists and tasks. Whenever I get stuck with a project I will open my notebook and start writing everything down, breaking down the complexities of the task into smaller less terrifying chunks, pinpointing the most problematic parts. In most cases putting it all on paper gives me the clarity needed to jump the hurdle and move forward with the project. I think it often comes down to a problem being too complex to fully fit in my mind. By writing it down I make the notebook an extension of my limited short-term memory. It's a bit like swap memory when you run out of RAM – it's significantly slower, but can save you when the memory requirements of the task exceed what's immediately available.
Not GP, but I stumbled across these [0] at a Barnes & Noble and have been quite happy. Take ink well (including from fountain pens), take abuse well (I regularly fold it nearly in half to have just a page on top). And it's very inexpensive compared to a lot of popular brands.
I use very cheap notebooks with a plain paper cover. I tried more expensive Moleskine notebooks a while ago and found a surprising problem with them. They were too beautiful to use. I couldn't bring myself to blemish them with my unfiltered flow-of-mind notes which would often turn out chaotic and stupid. I would only write things down selectively when I felt they were worthy and sufficiently structured. This would in turn inhibit most of my writing and significantly reduce the value of this habit. With a cheaper notebook the effect disappears. The less holy it is, the more useful it becomes.
On the other hand I highly recommend finding a really good pen to write with.
First of all let me make clear that by "really good" I don't necessarily mean expensive. Instead, the goodness of the pen will be reflected in how pleasant it is to write with it. A good pen feels right in your hand and on paper. Its line thickness matches your writing, and its color matches your taste. Different people will have different preferences and it might take some time to find the right one.
Personally I use "Pilot Super Grip G F" [0] – a 0.7mm black retractable ballpoint pen and I always keep one in my notebook.
The large tech company I work for puts a lot of emphasis on writing. Here are a few suggestions:
1. If you want people to read what you wrote and give you feedback, conciseness is important. We have a general rule of thumb that it takes people 30 minutes to read 4-6 pages of terse material, and it takes roughly an hour to then discuss it. As a result, pretty much all our docs are 6 pages (in the main body; appendixes might be added but are written in a way so that the doc stands on its own without them).
2. For many forms of (non-fiction) communication, the inverted pyramid is a helpful way to structure your thoughts. People are most likely to read the beginning of something, When we read the whole thing, we're more likely to pay more attention to the beginning. It's important then to get the most important information in the beginning, with supporting details as you go.
3. Know the audience, and focus on why the audience should care. If it's not clear why the audience would care, try rephrasing or restructuring to focus on the part they actually would care about.
4. Do lots of iterations. Get feedback from others. You can also iterate on your writing yourself: I find that when I write something and come back to it later, I'm better at finding issues. In order to do a lot of iterations, that means you need to plan out your time. In my company, we often kick-off the doc writing process with a "working backwards" schedule: we're presenting to such-and-such VP on Day X, so we have to have a rough draft of the whole doc on Day Y, so we have to have drafts of individual pieces by Day Z.
5. Be aware of what kind of thing your writing. I'd say 75% of my writing, my audience is myself: I'm writing in order to work through thoughts. I approach that differently when I'm writing something for review by teammates, which I again approach differently from a doc written for other groups.
It doesn't make forming them any easier, it's just a forcing function to spend longer on the task. While it certainly is possible to have a topic that just cannot be handled in 6 pages, my experience is that after removing weasel words, filler, non-essential details, adverbs and the like, 6 pages is enough to base a conversation on most topics when the group has basic familiarity with the subject matter.
>As a result, pretty much all our docs are 6 pages (in the main body; appendixes might be added but are written in a way so that the doc stands on its own without them).
It's good to use appendices when there's a lot of background (whether technical/history/etc.) that really isn't important to the central thrust of the document. Also, even at 6 pages, I'd probably recommend some sort of executive summary.
In business writing, the Pyramid principle (a method formalized at McKinsey) is often used. It's the exact inverse of academic writing where you start with foundations and build up arguments.
The author also proposes combining this with the Rule of 3 -- not more than 3 items (arguments, ideas, bullets) in a group. I've used these techniques in real life and can vouch for their effectiveness.
Is that really the case with academic writing? Viewing a paper as a whole I tend to think that the abstract and intro more or less map to (1) and (2) from your quotation.
Abstract: Briefly describe why the audience cares, what you did, and what the results were so that they know whether they should read more or move on to something else.
Intro: Same as abstract but in more depth and with an emphasis on helping the reader decide if the meat of the paper is worthwhile for them.
Nearly every other section: Specifics vary by field, but there will generally be an argument from foundations as you describe, and elements which don't fit naturally in the flow of that argument are given their own headers (certain experimental details, foundational algorithmic appendices, ...)
I almost wrote a similar comment, but academic paper abstracts can be highly variable. They don't always include the conclusion, or without sufficient detail to act on it without reading the actual conclusion section.
This contrasts with the style GP talks about (also used in the US military, referred to as "Bottom Line Up Front" or "BLUF"). The first thing is the conclusion/actionable part with enough detail to start acting without needing to read the rest, and often zero justification (more a statement of fact or a directive: we will do X starting on Monday). Most of the rest contains things like analysis of alternatives or rationales, useful for some of the people to use but not essential for most to read.
Some academic papers (taken as a whole) are similar to this, but it's not universal.
Thanks for the note on BLUF: I didn't know it was a thing. [1]
Even if a piece of writing isn't BLUF, we can read it as if it were BLUF. In grad school we were taught that the most efficient way to skim journal papers was to read in this order: (1) abstract; (2) conclusion; (3) if still promising, skim parts in the middle.
For my qualifiers I had to pound in excess of 100 somewhat dense papers in 3 weeks on a subject outside of my specialty. I would never have made it if I had read each paper in its printed order.
The structure of a STEM journal paper is very roughly as follows: () = optional
- Abstract
- intro
- (lit review)
- methods
- results
- (discussion)
- conclusion
- references
- (appendices)
I would say this ordering doesn't quite map to the pyramid principle and nor should it. Academic writing prioritizes explanation whereas business writing prioritizes decision-making. They serve different purposes. If we were to hypothetically rewrite an academic paper using the pyramid principle, it might look like this:
Leaders need to learn the skill of "Diversity" in writing. You need diversity in writing. Based on situation one needs to be either succinct or elaborated or aggressive or indicative or crystal clear or write for masses or etc, etc.
I feel that this is also a strong prerequisite for companies that do well at remote work and those who don't.
If you have a leader who is a clear and strong communicator via their writing, it turns out that clear and strong writing becomes a highly prized asset in the company, and people who are very good at communicating their thoughts in that way tend to do much better with remote work setups ... Leaders who constantly want to get everybody in a room, hold a meeting or talk though it (emphasis on constantly) ... spread that mindset through the company, and as a result have a culture that's much less accustomed to doing remote well ... just my anecdotal observation
32 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 74.8 ms ] threadSuch a great, succinct description of this problem.
People who invest time in refining a doc before the main meeting tend to get better results in the meeting. It’s not subtle and the acts of asking for help and helping each other out seem to forge mutual reliance and a sense of being on the same team (plus the company gets a better doc and meeting).
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Miquelrius-Leather-Cover-Graph-Notebo...
On the other hand I highly recommend finding a really good pen to write with.
Personally I use "Pilot Super Grip G F" [0] – a 0.7mm black retractable ballpoint pen and I always keep one in my notebook.
[0] https://www.pilotpen.eu/en/super-grip-g-retractable-fine-tip...
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20821371-the-sense-of-st...
1. If you want people to read what you wrote and give you feedback, conciseness is important. We have a general rule of thumb that it takes people 30 minutes to read 4-6 pages of terse material, and it takes roughly an hour to then discuss it. As a result, pretty much all our docs are 6 pages (in the main body; appendixes might be added but are written in a way so that the doc stands on its own without them).
2. For many forms of (non-fiction) communication, the inverted pyramid is a helpful way to structure your thoughts. People are most likely to read the beginning of something, When we read the whole thing, we're more likely to pay more attention to the beginning. It's important then to get the most important information in the beginning, with supporting details as you go.
3. Know the audience, and focus on why the audience should care. If it's not clear why the audience would care, try rephrasing or restructuring to focus on the part they actually would care about.
4. Do lots of iterations. Get feedback from others. You can also iterate on your writing yourself: I find that when I write something and come back to it later, I'm better at finding issues. In order to do a lot of iterations, that means you need to plan out your time. In my company, we often kick-off the doc writing process with a "working backwards" schedule: we're presenting to such-and-such VP on Day X, so we have to have a rough draft of the whole doc on Day Y, so we have to have drafts of individual pieces by Day Z.
5. Be aware of what kind of thing your writing. I'd say 75% of my writing, my audience is myself: I'm writing in order to work through thoughts. I approach that differently when I'm writing something for review by teammates, which I again approach differently from a doc written for other groups.
6. Maybe a bit controversial in some circles, but: Strunk and White (https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/...). It's a short book, and even if you don't do everything in it, the focus on clarity and succinctness is still useful.
It's good to use appendices when there's a lot of background (whether technical/history/etc.) that really isn't important to the central thrust of the document. Also, even at 6 pages, I'd probably recommend some sort of executive summary.
https://medium.com/lessons-from-mckinsey/the-pyramid-princip...
Quote:
1. Start with the answer first.
2. Group and summarize your supporting arguments.
3. Logically order your supporting ideas.
The author also proposes combining this with the Rule of 3 -- not more than 3 items (arguments, ideas, bullets) in a group. I've used these techniques in real life and can vouch for their effectiveness.
Abstract: Briefly describe why the audience cares, what you did, and what the results were so that they know whether they should read more or move on to something else.
Intro: Same as abstract but in more depth and with an emphasis on helping the reader decide if the meat of the paper is worthwhile for them.
Nearly every other section: Specifics vary by field, but there will generally be an argument from foundations as you describe, and elements which don't fit naturally in the flow of that argument are given their own headers (certain experimental details, foundational algorithmic appendices, ...)
This contrasts with the style GP talks about (also used in the US military, referred to as "Bottom Line Up Front" or "BLUF"). The first thing is the conclusion/actionable part with enough detail to start acting without needing to read the rest, and often zero justification (more a statement of fact or a directive: we will do X starting on Monday). Most of the rest contains things like analysis of alternatives or rationales, useful for some of the people to use but not essential for most to read.
Some academic papers (taken as a whole) are similar to this, but it's not universal.
Thanks for the note on BLUF: I didn't know it was a thing. [1]
Even if a piece of writing isn't BLUF, we can read it as if it were BLUF. In grad school we were taught that the most efficient way to skim journal papers was to read in this order: (1) abstract; (2) conclusion; (3) if still promising, skim parts in the middle.
For my qualifiers I had to pound in excess of 100 somewhat dense papers in 3 weeks on a subject outside of my specialty. I would never have made it if I had read each paper in its printed order.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLUF_(communication)
- Abstract
- intro
- (lit review)
- methods
- results
- (discussion)
- conclusion
- references
- (appendices)
I would say this ordering doesn't quite map to the pyramid principle and nor should it. Academic writing prioritizes explanation whereas business writing prioritizes decision-making. They serve different purposes. If we were to hypothetically rewrite an academic paper using the pyramid principle, it might look like this:
- Combined abstract + conclusion (1-3 points)
- Results (1-3 points)
- Discussion (1-3 points)
- Everything else goes into the appendix.
where he talks about tips and tricks for journalling and how it makes you a better writer.
There is no need to learn it, it will happen on its own. If you want to be good, you will write and you will become interested in being better at it.
Which begs the question, why aren't leaders already good at writing? Answer me that mister :)
If you have a leader who is a clear and strong communicator via their writing, it turns out that clear and strong writing becomes a highly prized asset in the company, and people who are very good at communicating their thoughts in that way tend to do much better with remote work setups ... Leaders who constantly want to get everybody in a room, hold a meeting or talk though it (emphasis on constantly) ... spread that mindset through the company, and as a result have a culture that's much less accustomed to doing remote well ... just my anecdotal observation
I mindmap instead of write to manage complex idea nodes. (ithoughts for the win!)