Getting the level right for clearer bids

Clarity of communication is vital in bids and proposals. Barriers to clarity include everything from simple misunderstandings to viewing a lack of understanding as being an admission of weakness. Whatever the cause, the failure to communicate with clarity reduces sales performance. You as the author cannot be aware that such issues have occurred. Rather, to prevent this you must write and review with clarity to the intended audience in mind. Get it right and your documents will have a greater impact. You will sell more. 

In this series of articles, I’ll be looking at what you can do, as an author or a reviewer, to ensure that your documents are clear and easily understood. These challenges can become greater when bidding internationally, where challenges from second-language writing, reviewing and readership can occur. However, the topics covered here apply equally to mother-tongue communication. 

In future articles I will cover:

• Writing with clarity in mind
• What to look out for when reviewing copy written by those with weaker language skills 

In this first article, I will look at how to assess the level of your writing and judge whether that level is appropriate for your audience.

Setting the level

Complexity is the enemy of clarity. You need to select the right level for your audience and communicate that level to your fellow authors. There are two categories of complexity benchmark:

• Those based on dictionaries and grammar rules
• Those based on computational assessments of complexity

Each category has a role to play. For reasons we’ll see, the former has a greater role in the planning stages of writing and the latter has a greater role in late-stage reviews.  

Grammatical systems

One example of a grammatical system is a writing or style guide. Many print news organisations have these and use them to ensure that their journalists write with a consistent style. The same technique can help authors in sales organisations write with a single voice. However, such systems only provide a fixed level and so can’t adjust to changing circumstances. 

To cope with this we need a defined scale. For example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) provides a widely-recognised six-point scale of language complexity. This begins at A1 and rises through A2, B1, B2 and C1 to a “mastery” level of C2. This scale is based on:

• An expanding range of topics that can be understood, and 
• Increasing-complexity grammar 

A comprehensive guide on this topic can be found here. 

The expanding range of topics within the CEFR means that, below a certain level, the vocabulary for some topics is just not available. Business vocabulary is only introduced within the B-levels. Use of complex grammar from the higher CEFR levels produces shorter but denser, harder to read documents. 

For clarity, in a mother-tongue environment business documents should not exceed B2. Technical sections might need to reach C1 to express complex concepts accurately. C2 should be reserved for scientific papers and legal texts. 

Where clarity is particularly important (such as summary sections), reducing the CEFR level is advisable so that the key messages are beyond doubt. If the recipient has limited abilities in the language of the document then greater reductions will be needed. Note that these reductions will result in a longer text that is made up of a greater number of shorter sentences. 

The challenge with grammatical systems is that any assessment of level requires the document to be read. Whilst authors can be asked to write to a given level and provided with style guides and sample documents, success can only be measured by reading, which takes time. 

Numerical systems

Numerical systems use calculations to assess complexity. They can quickly assess texts in bulk, though do not assess the grammatical accuracy of the text. Accepting this important caveat, they form a useful tool that features in many packages including Microsoft Word and the Hemingway Editor. 

A well-known example of a numerical system is Flesch-Kincaid. The Flesch-Kincaid scale runs in reverse from 100 to 0, with 100 being easiest. Business documents should have Flesch-Kincaid scores of more than 60 and even the most technical documents more than 30. As with grammatical systems, adjustments should be made to reflect the skill set of the recipient. 

Flesch-Kincaid has been adapted to a range of European languages, making it a useful tool for use within international teams. It has also been mapped onto the school grade system for a more easily-interpreted assessment of clarity. This can give a helpful guide to assist with tuning the complexity of writing to the recipient. When tuning in this way, consider that most people have greater reading skills than speaking.  

Choosing a system

As authors and reviewers, It is easy to fall into the trap of believing that our writing is clear. After all, we have invested our time and our writing is clear … to us. By considering your audience's needs and capabilities, your writing will be more effective. Ultimately, this means that you will win more work. 

As with many decisions in business, there is no one right solution. Grammatical systems are effective in planning and preparation whereas numerical systems are a pragmatic solution when time is short. The use of systems like these reduces guesswork and reliance on opinion by providing measures that can be compared. Through their use, we can be more confident that our objectives are being met.

In my next article, I will look at the changes that you can make, as a writer or reviewer, to improve the clarity in a document. Look out for that next week. 

Copyright ? Alpha Lima Limited 2020