Attention to Communication

In the last week on LinkedIn I've had cause to make the interventions about the following inaccuracies in my feed:

1. The use of "too" where it should have been "to".
2. "Electric engine", which should have been "electric motor".
3. Use of incorrect chemical nomenclature in a chemistry video.
4. A claim about a beneficial property of a lubricant that wasn't backed up by the accompanying video.
5. A claim that computer modelling “proves” superior performance of a fluid.

Each inaccuracy has its causes and solutions. All could have negative consequences and could have been avoided with a little more attention to detail.

1. As someone who’s done this kind of thing many times, I consider this to be the most forgivable. Firstly, this was a post (the only one of these five), rather than any other kind of publication. However, because they are the most off-the-cuff, they can also be the most dangerous. Think inadvertent Tweets. I forgive this because I've been the victim of predictive text or flicked the wrong word and then not re-read with sufficient care. Perhaps I didn't re-read sufficiently carefully because my eyes were tired, or I was stepping on/off a bus or train? However, once you hit “send” that post or comment is out there until someone is kind enough to send you a private message or sufficiently unkind to make a public issue of it.
2. Is a classic example (recognised by the author after a gentle nudge), that they should have had a "techie" read through the technical bits of the article. As it was a promotional article targeted at a non-technical audience, it probably did little damage. But what if your company is head-hunting a techie?
3. This type of error sets up your company to fail. A "look how clever we are" video that includes a high school error. While many people have commented favourably on the video for explaining a concept in 3 1/2 minutes, I have a question about the competence of the company based on something that is on the screen for about 5 seconds. Would I refer a client to this company for short training videos that explain sometimes complex concepts? What else have they got wrong?
4. Is a warning that companies can’t control your communication beyond certain boundaries. An enthusiastic employee risked undermining their company’s excellent technical position by over-claiming relative to the promotional video. The video was made by technical staff, the post by a non-technical employee unconnected with the video. An enquiry to the company revealed that yes, they had an abundance of data to support the claim, but none of this was in the video. While I took the time to ask, how many others might have just said “they’re making hyperbolic claims with no backup, I’m not going to consider their product”? In my opinion, they had no need to make the additional claim, it was part of the reason why it stood out as being “wrong”.
5. The difference between this and number 4 is that the hyperbolic claim is made by the author of the publication. Modelling can only “prove” that the model is effective at predicting reality. We require experimentation and observation to establish that reality. This is not to decry the value of modelling. A model is truly effective when it is deemed sufficiently robust to predict what might happen in a different situation. A model can also explain what is happening. However, it cannot prove a concept or an effect. Such hyperbole calls into question the credibility of the person and - when repeated by colleagues - the whole organisation.  

Solutions?

In all cases a degree of proof reading is required. Here are a few ideas about how some or all of the five occurrences could have been avoided.

Avoid shooting from the hip.

Not easy, I know, but a proven concept with Email can also be helpful in shorter formats: let it sit as a draft and re-read before sending. How much does your social media post/comment lose by arriving 5 minutes later because you boarded the train, sat down, and re-read it before hitting send? This is important because there’s something akin to the safety triangle here. If you pause before posting or commenting in this situation, you’re probably more likely to do the things below, as well.

Accept that you have blind spots.

Ask others to review your piece. The more remote they are from you, the more likely they are to spot inconsistencies, over-statements, or inaccuracies, whether they are subtle or “hidden in plain view”.

What message(s) are you trying to send?

Beware attempts to over-state your case or to make claims that are unsubstantiated by the post.

Ensure the quality of your internal communication matches your external communication.

• Do you have clear guidelines to staff about re-posting? [Note, this could include telling some staff not to re-post.]
• Should each external communication be accompanied by an internal staff briefing of the aims and objectives of each post?

Do I follow my own advice? Unfortunately, not all the time, but I consider I’ve got closer to consciously competent than consciously incompetent on my journey up the competence ladder.

Happy communication!

Trevor Gauntlett’s writing experience began as a reporter and Sports Editor on the Sheffield University Newspaper “Darts” in the 1980s when it won two Guardian Student Newspaper of the Year Awards. He was also a freelance sports reporter and photographer, published in the Sheffield Morning Telegraph, and a regular writer for the biggest English basketball fanzine “Pawprint”. During the 30+ years of his science career he was less than exemplary at writing scientific papers and internal reports, but good enough at writing and maintaining Quality documentation and ensuring his teams stuck to the procedures that he stayed in a job. He also volunteered for the Shell Education Service, including writing and publishing worksheets for GCSE Chemistry with the local education authority.

He resumed writing as a freelance when he became independent, with frequent contributions to the Lubes’n’Greases stable of magazines - including some of their special publications - and F+L Magazine. He has also been commissioned to write promotional features on science and technology.