RE: Writing in the workplace (long)

[Libby Miles <emc@omni.cc.purdue.edu>]

I'd like to toss several thoughts into the ring regarding Leigh's
observations about text lengths, grammatical correctness, and
power/recognition in the corporation.  To begin, some supporting anecdotes
from my workplace experience in the publishing industry.

* Although many of the crucially important documents that circulated were
short, HOCs mattered greatly.  It makes me nervous to see a too-easy leap
from "short texts" to "we shouldn't teach HOCs."  Indeed, the most
effective short texts (email, memo, even scrawled notes left on somebody's
desk) paid attention to those issues we call Higher Order Concerns:
context, audience, organization, transitions, etc.  Other short texts
failed to communicate effectively if they did not concern themselves with
HOCs.  Short texts can provide a marvelous opportunity for teaching HOCs
in context.

* On power, correctness, and promotion:  Prior to working in a publishing
house, I would have expected employees to place an unusually (and
hearteningly) high value on good effective workplace writing.  I did not
find that to be the case.  "Great" writers (in the most elitist,
belles-lettristic sense) *were* promoted rather quickly ... but "bad"
writers weren't punished for not writing well as long as they had clearly
defined other intelligences.  As an example, one guy notorious for
communications that were terse to the point of obscurity, was nonetheless
a fantastic face-to-face worker--fair, patient, reasoned, intuitively
personal--and he was promoted to national sales manager despite his crude
writing abilities.  And he's doing a terrific job.  On the other hand, a
very dear friend of mine was a terrible speller, and most of her
communications were sent into the office hand-written -- only excerbating
any perceptions that she wasn't too bright.  After being passed over for
several promotions, she got frustrated and resigned.

I've taken several lessons from these cases, as I've shared them with my
students.  First, one colleague was more easily able to let others see him
shine in non-discursive forums.  This helped him.  Second, he learned
strategies for working around his apparent inability to write clearly.
This also helped him. The other colleague might have helped herself by
spending some time word processing and spell-checking. Third,
unfortunately, were the gender politics that made it possible for him to
be taken seriously whereas she was not.  

 Jon Olson wrote:

> That may well be true, but that teaching stance doesn't always promote
> learning, let alone dialogue.  So how can we identify our ways with theirs?

Jon, I don't know if this helps answer your questions, but I used these
cases in my own business writing class.  I also used texts produced by the
manager (emails forwarded to me from friends still working in the
company...with all names and identification markers removed).  As a class,
we looked at what was happening in this guy's texts: HOCs and LOCs.  We
looked at the political and organizational implications of what he wrote,
to whom, and how.  We talked a lot about audience, clarity, organization,
purpose, and power.  As the semester went on, students sent texts from
their workplaces into the class discussion (again, with all names
removed).  I *think* we had a nice dialog going between workplace issues
and concerns, and academic issues and concerns.  Of course, this is easy
for me to do because of my workplace background ... this would be hard to
replicate without being an "insider" to a company somewhere.

I know this was long (sorry!), but there are so many complex issues
entwined here ....


Libby


Libby Miles
Rhetoric & Composition Program
Purdue University
emc@omni.cc.purdue.edu