To be frank, I often utilize an arsenal—of incredibly flowery language—in attempts of persuading my audience that I possess more credibility and legitimacy than I’d grant myself. It’s a false pretense I put up, though I’d like to genuinely assert more confidence in my writing and communication without frivolous words.
Recently I came across an article, discussing Steve Job’s tactics, regarding efficient emailing. From a first (cursory) glance, I was immediately put off, due to the sole reason that I perpetuate a lot of the wrongs described. In essence, it’s imperative that one: has a singular purpose, keeps the design simple, removes filler words, uses an active voice, and closes with their request.
To reiterate here’s a list of what I (shouldn’t) do:
- Cram an abundance of concerns under one subject line
- Write up a huge blurb of content that contains no striking headlines, indentations, bolding, etc.
- Fill up an email with fluff and frilly adjectives
- Use a passive voice no matter what
- Hide requests within the message (due to an absurd fear of bothering others), very counterintuitive… I know
That said, within the read, it raises legitimate points that I know I must begin to adopt into my everyday writing habits. I personally find it nonsensical to keep one email to one topic only; it’s the perfect opportunity to address all concerns. Though in theory and practice this ideology remains rational. From this exploration of desiring and seeking to change (really unlearning bad habits), I find myself struggling to grasp it all on the principal of tradition. It’s always done this way, it should continue to operate this way. Definitely not the best thought process—there’s room to grow—so I’ll keep in mind to prioritize logic over emotion.
As I further examined the contrasts between: Jobs and Murdoch, their styles give insight into their individual priorities. Jobs obviously portrayed that “classic apple mantra:” of simplicity and efficiency, while Murdoch flirts around the idea of professionalism through other means. Steve Job drops all airs (of what people might attribute as manners) and responds relatively curt; still it’s effective in that communication. In my day to day, I still prefer to offer a bit of politeness/ friendliness in my correspondences; as to not offend others. I do concede that every situation requires its own guidelines: on what qualifies as right or wrong.
Overall, the objective I gather from this piece is to take and implement these small tactics in order to effectively convey your meaning—especially in emails. This transition from what I’d label as my amateur format, to this profoundly crafted one signifies something I understand will only help benefit me in my professional career. With my start of diving into all these nuance subject areas, it really taught me the intricacies that go behind every decision; making me all the more conscious moving forward.
I think it was effective that you added in that you struggle with keeping emails short and only containing one topic. This allows you to show your human side to the reader and acknowledges the aspects that make a great blog. I as well struggle with writing good, to-the-point emails, so we related on that level. In your blog you state that compared to Jobs response you still like to add more politeness in your emails; how do you plan on including aspects of politeness while still keeping the email to-the-point?
I think you did a really good job incorporating the punctuations that we learned from Chapter 2, the flow of the writing is smooth and a delight to read. I was like you before, thinking that I should address all the concerns and problems in one email because it is “efficient” that people can reply to me all at once. However, speaking from personal experience- this is not the case- what will happen usually, is they will just answer partly or they will schedule a meeting with me. Even though I’m convinced by the article and your writing, I’m wondering what is a better way to communicate the concerns without sending email back and forth multiple times?