What is plain language? (Part Three: Writer outcomes)
In the first two posts defining what I mean by “plain language,” I have focused on two points of the rhetorical triangle: textual elements like style and organization (Part One) and reader outcomes like comprehension and usability (Part Two). Now it’s time to tackle the third, the writer’s purpose.
This is arguably the aspect of rhetorical context that gets the least attention when it comes to workplace documents. This is logical. For academic writing — you know, the kind of writing done throughout nearly all formal education — the writer has often been promoted as the most important aspect of the rhetorical context. Take, for instance, the concept of “writing to discover” from Peter Elbow. (Here’s a 2007 interview which will help you understand this perspective on writing.) I’ve written several posts about the unhappy consequences of students learning to write only for teachers (see this early one or this more recent one or my About page). One of the things teachers have in common as an audience of student documents is that they must support this writer-centered view. At least to some extent. I mean the student writer is the focus of a teacher’s professional responsibility.
The emphasis on the audience in workplace writing is critical for helping workplace amateurs focus on the rest of the rhetorical context and become pros. However, as a representative of his or her organization, the workplace writer and his or her purpose for a document is also critical. Unlike academic writers, whose writing is self-centered, workplace writers must focus on both their audience and the organization they represent.
In my video-tutorial on purpose based on Chapter 1 in Revising Professional Writing (RPW), I categorize a professional’s reasons for writing based on the intended effect on the audience:
- informing emphasizes tasks and the status quo
- directing emphasizes tasks and action
- consulting emphasizes relationships and action
- valuing emphasizes relationships and the status quo
While these do a good job of describing the immediate aims of the writer’s document, they don’t adequately connect to the overarching organizational goals to which the document contributes. I’m talking about THE bottom line — money. Whether for-profit or not, every successful organization seeks to maximize revenue and minimize costs. When workplace writers create documents, they affect their organization’s bottom line.
Not long ago, I wrote about selling plain language to your manager. (In fact, a comment on that post is why I started this series on defining plain language.) I argued that a business case for creating quality documents might be the key. Making a business case includes analysis of costs, including risks, and benefits. Let’s consider a simple, hypothetical business case for creating the email announcement to employees about changes in pension plan contributions — the one referred to in Part One and Part Two. In the table below, I’ve calculated costs for creating both a lower quality and higher quality announcement based on the salary of those involved.
Low Quality Document |
High Quality Document |
|
1. Reading time (100 employees’ 50K salary) |
$4,200 (10 minutes) |
$2,100 (5 minutes) |
2. Writing time (HR writer’s 50K salary) |
$12 (30 minutes) |
$50 (120 minutes) |
3. Reviewing time before delivery (HR manager salary 90K) (5 employees’ 50K salary) |
$0 (0 minutes) $0 (0 minutes) |
$22 (30 minutes) $60 (30 minutes) |
4. Answering questions after delivery (HR employees’ 50K salary) |
$600 (1440 minutes) |
$200 (480 minutes) |
TOTAL COST |
$4,812 |
$2,432 |
The lower quality announcement costs less before delivery but results in higher overall cost to the organization due to the greater time required for employees to read the email and for HR employees to answer questions about the email content after delivery. Note that I haven’t tried to calculate benefits related to things like employee satisfaction or compliance with federal requirements. Risk assessment is not my specialty. Nevertheless, those benefits could be converted into dollars for the writer’s organization.
My point with this simple example is that plain language is not only about the text and the audience. Or even the about the writer’s purpose for writing. It’s also about the organization’s goals. While I’ve talked about all three corners of the rhetorical context, I plan one more post on understanding plain language. I need to deal with the process involved in creating plain language documents.
Related articles
- What is plain language? (Part One: Elements of the text) (proswrite.com)
- What is plain language? (Part Two: Audience outcomes) (proswrite.com)
- How can you sell plain language to your manager? (proswrite.com)