The Clatter Chatter Manifesto
Solving the
Crisis
in Public Sector Writing
Francis Walsh
For an
organisation to operate successfully, communication is important.
In
'knowledge' organisations, communication is the essential element: the form
within which knowledge resides.
In
government organisations, knowledge is called 'policy'. It is developed,
implemented and explained, principally, in writing.
So, good
writing provides the framework for effective government.
But, what happens when writing
is distorted to the point of fracture? How good can government get when
documents are loose and muddle-headed?
Many documents create more
noise than sense: they wheeze with errors; they mumble dullness. And, this
is achieved with enormous effort and cost.
How did we get to this point?
How do we get out?
The problem is not simply the
result of poor thinking, although that is an important concern. It is not
caused by ignorance of grammar, style and punctuation, although that
exaggerates the aggravation. Nor does the trouble arise from faulty
processes alone, although that baffles reason.
The problem is systemic. It
needs rapid remedying. It is urgent.
The best
public sector organisations have taken up the challenge to change. The worst
ignore it or say that nothing is wrong. They declare that it happens
everywhere. They work with words that are barely more than government
chatter. They shrug off the emptiness. 'Why bother?'
The Pedantic Solution
To the pedantic public
servant, the symptoms are the cause: no-one knows the rules of grammar,
spelling, punctuation and style. The pedant argues that we should follow the
rules (they mean the rules they know and love). Then, the problematic
clatter will be hushed.
They are right, but not
wholly.
In the Department of Pedantry,
the Punctuation Section dozes in a quiet corner of an office, abandoned in
Barton. The comma is awaiting a redundancy package, and the semi-colon has
already retired to the south coast. Of course, we speak softly about the
colon: terminal, apparently. No hope.
Only the full stop sees a
career ahead, although it constantly complains about doing work for which it
is unqualified.
The Punctuation Section often
hears that ministers sometimes must proofread documents they receive. These
are pieces that have passed by five or more professional public servants.
What were they doing? Nothing coherent, it seems. This impulse to anarchy
makes meaningless chatter: government chatter.
Of course, every supervisor
takes a varying view on style. Every middle manager diverges from those
above and below on grammar. Every executive remembers what their teacher
told them about commas in Year 5. Every minister develops differing rules,
guidelines and formats.
If you hear calls for clarity
and precision, listen carefully and follow. They are two, lost graduate
recruits. They voices echoing along an empty corridor.
So, the pedantic public
servant's impulse is towards authoritarianism. They declare, 'Any order is
better than none'.
I tend to agree.
In fact, the pedant's position
meets little opposition. The problems are real. But, they are symptoms of a
wider problem.
The Confused Purpose
The purposeful public servant
works against confusion. You can hear them querying their boss.
'A
report has an introduction, a body and a conclusion. A submission has a
recommendation. So, do you want a report or submission?'
Their boss's answer is
silence.
'Why does the Information
Brief end with a redundant recommendation? It's just information.'
The manager has no comeback.
'Why do we use these hollow
headings and nutty structures?'
The busy supervisor sneers,
'Get over it.'
I ask those questions, too.
How can we write ministerial
briefings that include delirious headings? We see 'Issues', under which are
found recommendations. We find 'Background', where the key problem is
defined. We read 'Comments', below which the text offers options. These
teetering structures are quite common. This is the architecture of anarchy.
In the end, the purpose-driven
public servant understands that the worry is wider. There is much more to
the problem.
The Public Relations
Perspective
For those with a
public-relations inclination, the issue is the reader. Does the document
reach the reader in a form that they can and will read? The PR public
servant fights for Plain English. They detest documents that require
PhD-level reading skills (particularly, those sent to citizens who quit
school at Year 10).
They craft modern,
eye-catching formats; they dish up dashes and fancy fonts. The style is the
message. The tone is the content. They reckon the rest is scarcely read.
It's just government clutter and clatter.
In monochrome offices, they
are told their writing is one of the two, known tones: 'too flowery' or 'too
blunt'. This clanking criticism is not common to all public service
organisations, but the tone-deaf tend to target 'professional neutrality' as
their failsafe. Here is the impulse towards authoritarianism.
Of course,
'professional
neutrality' may sometimes succeed, but there are times when text loses any
subtlety or charity. It clatters like a tin can hit with a stick.
The public-relations public
servant becomes outcome obsessed. However, their perspective has narrowed
too much to accommodate the twin desires of clarity and precision. In the
end, they too become part of the problem.
The Peculiar Processes
To the process-driven public
servant, the problem is the pathway. It's the way the document is produced.
Few find it hard to understand
the rationale of the process. Many staff produce many draft documents. As
the documents pass up the managerial tree, they are refined from each
perspective: more effort below, more power and precision above. This is the
authoritarian dream.
What actually happens is
different. The staff member drafts as best they can, based on their
knowledge of the subject and of the 'department's view'. Both can be
famously foggy.
I have seen as many as 14
redrafts at this stage. They bounce back and forth between one staff member
and one supervisor: a clattering public service pinball machine.
The writer sees their document
systematically destroyed. Their morale sinks. Their competence falters.
Careless cynicism will draft the next.
The procedure is duplicated
between the supervisor and the manager. Every aspect of the document may be
changed before it rises to the next level, the SES officer (sometimes
referred to as the Senior Editing Service).
The SES officer, sometimes
liaising with the executive group, may rewrite the document or suggest
changes. These can be determined by a carefully considered ministerial
change or, sometimes, by chaotic convulsions in the minister's office that
are calmed and covered by the discreet, senior bureaucrat.
Then, the document may go to
the minister's office for approval. Or, it may drop all the way down to the
original staff member for redrafting. It is now common for the first,
(long-forgotten) draft to be offered once more. It whooshes through the
approval process like a demented skyrocket: anarchy in flight.
But, that is just one symptom
of a wider problem that is pervasive and pernicious.
Clarity and Precision
What can we do to correct this
sclerotic system?
The public sector document
should be clear and precise, but what part does clarity play and what part
precision?
Clarity should set the
context. Each player in the process must be clear about the document's
purpose. They must agree on the appropriate form and style of writing. They
must concur on the characteristics of the reader and the policy context.
Precision should guide the
writing. The text must be aimed precisely at the abilities of the reader. It
must be written in a language that is exact, following clear-cut
grammatical, punctuation and stylistic rules. It should fit within standard
structures and sit perfectly within the policy context. Everyone dealing
with a document should hold precisely to their roles.
Let’s harness the impulses
towards anarchy and authoritarianism. They can drive the improvements so
desperately needed.
The Solution Call
Let there be a standard style
of writing that the leaders of the political and public service spheres
endorse.
It may be that the next
edition of the Style Manual wins that role. The debate about what is
good style and what is bad grammar must end. Let's simply agree on a set of
rules in the Australian Public Service and leave it at that.
Clarity is served by approving
a service-wide style. Precision is served by writers following its formulas.
What a pleasure it would be to
hear the Prime Minister and the Secretary of the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet settle the empty arguments about grammar, punctuation
and style. They could do so much to stop the fragmentation and foolishness.
Let there be standardised
names and structures for APS documents.
A report should be called just
that. A submission named a submission. An information brief should bear that
title. A minute is sent within an establishment. A memo's sent outside.
Let's ensure the clarity of a
document's purpose and the precision of its structure. We have nothing to
lose but our confusion.
Let there be writing that fits
every reader. Messages to the minister and to the masses should be clear and
precise.
Citizens, customers and
clients should be surveyed to ensure that writing's complexity and tone is
precisely right for them. Every writer should be clear about the appropriate
form and style for every type of reader.
Let there be information
flowing freely to all those who draft. Let there be less work for
supervisors, managers and executives who have opened these gates. Let the
territorial disputes about knowledge and power dissipate as a culture grows
that knows. Remember, an unknowing staff silently subverts an organisation's
aim.
Let everyone understand and
stick with their task. The writer with clarity and precision can confidently
draft. The supervisor and manager can effectively check and direct. The
executive can swiftly oversee. The minister (and their staff) can rapidly
reach decisions, assured rather than flustered by sloppy processing.
What a wonderful day it will
be when leaders of politics and public sector agreed to bring order to our
document names and structures. When they set strict guidelines on how to
reach out to readers. When they require realignment of the writing rules.
What a glorious day it will be
when they call for clarity in responsibility and precision in performance.
We must stop this pervasive
problem before government and nation are damaged.
Some say that public sector
writing cannot be saved. It is nothing more than government chatter: the
clatter of a pebble in an empty, metal kettle. If that is so, we will face a
difficult fate.
I say, let's make a start.
Let's begin the work.
Let's speak out against the loss of meaning and purpose in public sector
writing: the inevitable outcome of the anarchy of government clatter
chatter.
Contact Francis Walsh
|
