Myth 2: My structure flows logically
By Allen Palmer
This is the second of a series of articles exploring widely held misconceptions that diminish many workplace writers’ efficiency and effectiveness.
Many writers will feel their structure is logical, and they’re right. It is logical – for them. But if we’re to write more effective documents, we need structures that are logical for our time-poor readers – and they’ll typically need a very different structure.
Structure can be a blind spot
We ask our workshop participants to identify their strengths, and many will feel confident about structure. Sometimes, they’re absolutely right – they do have a good handle on this critical aspect of writing.
But more often, at the end of the course, people who felt they were already strong on structure will say that their greatest takeaways have been on – you guessed it – structure. What is it they can see after the workshop that they were unaware of before?
Your structure might only be logical to you
When you start a document, do you consciously choose how to structure it? Most of us aren’t even aware we have a choice. The default approach for most writers is to organise content by the time-honoured sequence of beginning, middle, end. What’s wrong that? That’s perfectly logical, surely?
It is logical. But the particular logic it uses is chronology – time – and the question then becomes, ‘Is chronology the right logic?.’ Most writers will say ‘yes’. For most people, this structure will feel perfectly logical because it allows us to share our thought process with the reader: I started here, I worked my way through the various aspects before concluding this.
This is the logical flow that people talk about. It’s also an approach that appeals to academics because they want to satisfy themselves that the process was sound. But is it logical for readers in the workplace? Not for most readers I know.
Chronological structures don’t work for most workplace readers
If you ask readers to name their greatest frustrations with workplace documents – as I do in every workshop – they will typically produce a list like this:
- too long
- lacks clarity on actions, reasoning or both
- takes too long to get to the point
- key information is buried
- too much information
- too little information
- doesn’t cater to all readers of the document.
It’s pretty much the same list wherever I go: government and corporate, small and large businesses, institutions and start-ups. Are writers everywhere all equally flawed? No, the writers are fine. In fact, many are highly intelligent and exceptionally skilled.
But in every workplace, writers are being let down by the same thing: this ‘perfectly logical’ chronological structure. Those common frustrations that readers have? You cannot address them if you use this structure. They are the natural result of using that structure. Your readers need a different approach.
Chronological structures don’t work for writers either
I have occasionally trained a writer who seems indifferent to the interests of their readers. But even if you were this rare person who writes only for themselves, you should question traditional structures purely out of self-interest.
Your goal with many workplace documents is to convince the reader to take the action you’re recommending: to sign off on the briefing note; to agree with the business case or board paper; to award the tender. To do that, your document needs to make a convincing argument, and traditional structures are notoriously bad at persuasion. In my next post in this series, I’ll explain why. So, writers need a different approach, too.
A reader-friendly structure just makes sense
Am I saying you should abandon the chronological structure?
No. It’s a valid model for certain documents and for sections of other documents. It should absolutely be in your kitbag. But most writers need to add a new model that is more logical for readers – that addresses those common frustrations. They would also benefit from a model that made a more powerful argument.
As luck would have it, there is a structure that addresses reader frustrations and also makes a more persuasive case. If you want to add that to your repertoire, come along to one of our workshops or visit the free Australian Style Guide™.
