Don't dumb down

My friend Bill Pugh wrote me after my last post.

From: Bill
To: Matt

One persons perspective, writing down to lower grade levels does not improve communication. Following the advice of Strunk and White does.

• Clear
  
• Concise
  
• To the point
  
• Correct
  

It is not the grade level of the material it is the quality of the material that maters!

 -- Bill

From: Matt
To: Bill

I love Strunk and White and try to reread it every year. I always have used copies sitting around because I give them away like candy. And I think E.B. and the Professor would have no problem with readability statistics. 

I think of it like this: Clear, Concise and To the point are big Xs; readability statistics are the little Ys. Even S&W take that approach. "Principle 17: Omit needless words." "Style Approach 6: Do not overwrite." "Style Approach 14: Avoid fancy words." Readability is a metric to help measure how well you're doing in the quest for Clear, Concise and To the point. You have to do many, many other things as well. 

I'd like to do a post about this. Since you didn't post this on the blog, do you mind if I use your e-mail in a post?

 Thanks for the feedback!

- Matt

From: Bill Pugh
To: Matt

Happy to have you use my email. 

I do not agree that readability stats reflect quality of material. I also realize that I have a larger goal, that is to raise the education standards in the US. By constantly writing down we are not helping society, we are in-effect saying that no mater how little you educate yourself we can write to or below your level.  That is bad for society. We need to increase education levels, good writing should challenge the mind not stoop to the lowest common denominator.

Here is my favorite line in S&W:

"Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences short or avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell."

I wonder what its readability level is (my copy of word does not have the tool) - I did notice the MS highlighted a phrase as grammatically incorrect... interesting. 

-- Bill

From: Matt
To: Bill Pugh

I don't think we're far apart. It's just a tool that helps you break up run-on sentences, replace three words with one and rethink polysyllables. I can only speak from experience -- it makes me more concise. 

The quote from Strunk & White is grade level is 11.4; readability is just under 50. Your own writing is at 9.7 and 54.9. Do as you say, or do as you do? 

It is also absolutely true that some sections of a piece of writing may be at a high level, and some at a lower one. Please remember that I'm talking about internal communications here, not fiction or essays. How does a communicator make sure that the message can be -- at least -- understood by the many different people in a company that will read it? At RRD, I owed it to the folks on the shop floor to write in a way that was easy to understand. It is not dumbing down. It's disciplined writing. 

- Matt

From: Bill Pugh
To: Matt

Likely not. 

I did miss the key point to all communication "to be understood".  Interesting that with no editing etc I write at 9.7... I wonder if after editing my stuff goes up or down.

Have a great weekend.

-- Bill

My favorite metric (and if you snooze, you loose...)

For more than two months I've been saying to myself, "Matt, you have never really written about readability statistics! You should do that!" Readability has become my one indispensable communication metric. I was dying to share it with others.

But I procrastinated. And wouldn't you know it, someone else wrote my post.

Steve Crescenzo (steve@crescenzocomm.com) published a long interview two days ago on Ragan.com with Michael Runzler. Runzler is Intuit’s senior manager of editorial services and executive communications. The post, titled “Can you measure your company’s writing,” explains a system that uses the same tools I use. Damn. (Here’s a link to the article. However, you have to be a member to read these after a few days.)

Anyway, here’s what I would have written:

Like many communicators, I do a little of everything. I do some design work. I shoot and edit video. I produce presentations and town halls.

But mostly, I write. And since writing is my primary output, measuring its quality is important. And I need to be monitored for quality! Writing can be boring and repetitive, which leads to all kinds of excesses. Ten-dollar words, elaborate sentences, jargon – you name it.

Luckily, I discovered readability statistics. It's a tool for measuring readability that resides right inside Microsoft Word. You can run it when you spell check. What could be easier?

The tool scores writing in two ways – from 0 to 100, and by grade level. I’ve learned that any score under 50 means the writing is too complex. I also shoot for a low grade level. I rewrite to keep mine under grade 10 if possible. (Certain proper names or technical terms drive up your grade levels if the phrases are very long.) If I can write to a sixth-grade level I’m delighted.

The tool uses the Flesch Reading Ease Test and Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Levels, named for the inventors. The primary metrics are sentence and word length. Short sentences and short words equal high readability scores. The tool also measures passive sentences by percentage. There is a place for passive, but in my book, that place is under 10 percent.

You can also take advantage of a slew of settings that will flag your writing for jargon, capitalization, misused words, clichés -- a whole host of options. Use at your own risk as it can get rather naggy at times.

Here’s how to use MS Word Readability Statistics:

• First, turn on the function. In MS Word, go to Tools>Options>Spelling & Grammar> and check the box marked “Show readability statistics.”
• Check Spelling and Grammar. Readability will now display when you check spelling and grammar. Go to Tools>Spelling and Grammar or simply hit F7.
  
  
• Tip 1 You can select any part of a document and check it separately. That way, you can identify a problem area. For example, you can check paragraph by paragraph (or even sentence by sentence) to find passive sentences or sentences that are overly complex.
• Tip 2 To improve your scores, shorten sentences or break them in two. Use short words in place of long words.

I’ve been writing since I could hold a crayon. I know how to write. But for the past five or six years, I’ve use this tool on just about everything I write for business. It’s humbling to say, but it’s made me a much better writer.

Is your message getting through, Benny Lava?

This video -- which I first viewed on the Fake Steve blog -- is a great object lesson for communicators. Is the message you're sending getting through? Or are viewers making their own interpretations?



Plus, it's hilarious.

External vs. internal measurement

It’s a good external measurement. Does that make it a good internal measurement? A recent post, white paper and comment has me wondering.

I recently wrote about the possibility of using a kind of net promoter metric internally. Reader Mariana – bless her commenting heart! – wrote to say she was going to give it a try. I also think it has promise, and I want to try it too.

However, last week I read a great paper from the Corporate Executive Board that takes some air out of net promoter as a measure of consumer service and support. (The Corporate Executive Board is a terrific source of ideas. Be sure to ask if your company has a membership and get access to its resources.)

So, regarding consumer service and net promoter (NPS). The study first addresses loyalty. It maintains that promoters don’t necessarily stay, and detractors don’t necessarily leave. What does count in consumer service and support loyalty is how easy you make it for the consumer. Measure consumer effort instead of satisfaction or likelihood to recommend. It’s a better predictor of customer financial behavior.

The paper also says, concerning support, that "NPS® is an inadequate metric in the service channel for two reasons:

• "The survey question is inherently positive, as it only considers likelihood to recommend (not criticize).
• "It also captures company-level sentiment regarding product, pricing, and brand reputation, which limits its actionability within the contact center."

Now, do these issues mean NPS is not suited for internal use? I’d say no. It’s still a useful metric – a way to look at your net impact. It may have the added value of being familiar to your business-focused bosses. That makes it easier to communicate upward.

At the same time, it’s always good to be aware of any weaknesses in your metrics, and address them. Let’s make sure we measure the likelihood to criticize. And let’s make our net promoter questions specific enough to be actionable, vs. “would you recommend internal communications?”

Thanks to dogra on Flickr.com for the photo.

54 / 365 Originally uploaded by ardella

Your best self

"In my experience there's nothing inherently distant about good writing, and nothing essentially intimate about face-to-face meetings."

I posted that on a Ragan blog late last year on the topic of written vs. in-person communications. Communication blogger David Murray posted it on his blog, which sparked quite a discussion.

You can read it here.

I know this post is old news, but I was Googling myself and it popped up...

Also, I see that David is moving on from his current role.

“Net promoter” internally?

The fine Church of the Customer blog has an interesting post. It’s called “Remodeling customer surveys” but it has good advice for internal surveys as well. Here's blogger Ben McConnell’s description of a good customer survey:

1. Its first question is: “Based on your recent experience with us, would you recommend us to your friends, family, colleagues, etc.?” Yes, no, or I don't know are the possible answers. (You could use the Net Promoter methodology here, too.)
2. Based on the answer to question 1, the survey then asks, “Tell us more about the reasons for your previous answer.” Then I could select from a pre-determined list of reasons for my answer, or blank boxes for me to write my own.
3. It would ask me how I would describe the company and/or my experience to friends and colleagues. Again, a list of possible answers could be presented along with a blank field for my own description.
4. Finally, it would ask me how the company could improve. I could rank the importance of specific items or provide my own idea which, who knows, could be the dumbest idea ever or somewhat innovative. Process improvement is a never-ending marathon.

I love how this list stresses providing a list of possible answers, along with a blank “other” field. In my book, this is the perfect combination of sortable data and consumer freedom. You will get tons of great material that you can analyze in PowerPoint. And you will get write-in comments that should be manageable. This approach eliminates much of the tedious and subjective work of reading and classifying open comments. A quick brainstorming session will surface most of the possible answers, and there's your list.

The net promoter approach of asking “would you recommend?” is also interesting. Net promoter is based on a single question – would you recommend us to a friend or colleague? Net promoter is the percentage those who will recommend, minus those who will not.

Can it work internally? I don’t see why not. “Would you recommend X Team Town Halls to your co-workers?” “Would you recommend the X Team e-newsletter?”

I’m going to try it in a future survey. If any of you do, please share your results.

Read the entire Remodeling customer surveys post at the Church of the Customer blog.

Measuring fear

During town halls, we always provide an option for posting anonymous questions. Generally, that means e-mailing them to me -- I pass them on without providing the name of the employee. That's imperfect, obviously. Many employees don't know me, and I daresay even some who do don't trust me. (I would never, ever compromise a request for anonymity. They can't know that.)

Now we’ve launched a blog for my team leader. I’d love to see employees comment on her posts, and get a little back-and-forth going. My boss feels the same. But I was surprised when I heard additional requests for anonymity.

First, it was from the team I’ve been working with to raise engagement scores. We need an anonymous way to comment, they said. I pushed back, at least a little. I hated the idea that anonymity was going to be a first option. First options should be that you sign your name. Second, that you send a private e-mail to the boss. And finally, grudgingly on my part, an anonymous option.

Then, after a recent blog post, a co-worker of sterling reputation and performance asked me the same thing – could he post a comment anonymously?

Well, it was clear. I am soooo out of touch. When did I get so trusting of leadership? When did I stop being afraid? Anyway, I am not representative of employees. People are afraid that they will get in trouble. Period. I don't have to feel the same way, but I have to remember it.

So, I provided the anonymous channel. Posted it on the blog and on our team’s intranet site. The boss even sent out a nice blog post letting employees know it was there. “Listening to her customers” she called it, and she’s right.

Some of you may want to know how to create an anonymous feedback channel. Here’s what I did:

1. Set up a surveymonkey.com survey and called it “Private Feedback.”The opening copy explains what it’s for – private, safe feedback. SurveyMonkey even has an option (under Collect Responses>Change Settings) so the survey won’t even collect IP addresses from respondents. (Not sure if this option is available for free surveys.)


2. The first question is just an essay box for feedback.


3. The second question asks if the respondent would like their feedback posted on the boss’ blog as an anonymous comment. Choices are no, yes, I don’t care - it's up to you, and an “In your own words…” text box option for more explanation.


4. The final question asks if the boss can quote all or part of the feedback on the blog or in other communications. Same options.

Now I monitor the site for responses. I’ll let you know what kind of traffic we see. Maybe we can come up with some kind of "fear ratio" by comparing the volume of public and private feedback.

(photo: Whisper, 2005 / Dr. John)