RE: Writing in the workplace (long)

[Paula.Gillespie@marquette.edu]

James, does it help as you think your way through your Cs proposal (or
does it help any of the rest of us) to get a chuckle from this?  I talked
to Leigh last night, and she told me that the writing in her workplace is
referred to as "deliverables."  

Paula Gillespie

On Mon, 4 May 1998, James E. Werchan wrote:

> hi folks,
> 
> Hm.... I'm riffing here, brainstorming on a 4c proposal that i don't yet
> have a grip on, but it seems to have some echoes with this workplace
> issue.........
> 
> OK... try this; (I'll telegraph it in small takes, sort of quasi-syllogistic)
> 
> 1.  A theme that I'm trying to tinker with in my 4c doohicky is "visibility".
> 2.  "visibility" is obviously a metaphoric quality to this workplace issue,
> involving more than physical sight.
> 3.  I've often glibly opined to students that good writing is "invisible",
> i.e. it has such clear and compelling content that a reader would not have
> cause to even notice surface features.
> 4. now i wonder: (a.) whose sense of "vision" are we concerned about?  and
> (b.) what does that sense of "vision" _Really_ get used for?  
> 
> First, in the workplace where communication flows smoothly within and among
> the levels of the hierarchy, the more pragmatic readers are concerned about
> content first, and real work gets done via writing.  And I'll betcha it
> works this smoothly because attitudes of camaraderie, common purpose, shared
> ownership  tend to create forbearance, graciousness, and receptiveness, not
> to mention willingness to read between the lines.  So gracious readers have
> better "vision", i.e. ability to glean the valuable stuff from among the
> "noise".  (OK, I'm mixing my metaphors; so shoot me.)     
> 
> So far, so good.... But then, when the relationship between writer and
> reader (rhetor and rhetee?) is compounded/complicated by differences in
> status (maybe with an adversarial spin?), then those with more status
> probably will use anything, including worn-out shibboleths and stereotypes
> about "proper" formalities of expression, to perpetuate the status
> differential.  Suddenly, they develop Superman's x-ray "vision" and find
> obscure nits to pick, because thinking about nits is easier than thinking
> about the ideas of people you don't respect.  Then the writer as person or
> as worker becomes invisible to the big-shot, muckety-muck readers.
> Finally, "vision" takes on a bitterly ironic meaning.  "Vision" becomes
> selective.  
> 
> Whose problem is it? Who's responsible for the "visibility" or
> "invisibility" of workplace writing?  And who's responsible for "teaching"?
> In congenial discourse communities, people naturally acquire fluency via
> what Stephen Krashen called 'meaningful input.'
> .....................................
> 
> 
>  Oh hell; I'm back from the bathroom, and I've lost my train of thought.
> Can anybody tell me what the hell I was getting at?   
> 
> james
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>                     Dr. James Werchan
> (or maybe it's just someone who kinda looks a lot like him)
>               Ohio State University at Lima
>                     4240 Campus Drive
>                      Reed Hall #135
>                      Lima, OH 45804
>                       419-995-8882
> 				
>                     werchan.1@osu.edu	
> 								
>   Come and visit: "http://www.lima.ohio-state.edu/~wacc"    
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> 
> 
>