Micro communications - micro context?



Courtesy of brittanywriters.com

 The amount that language can be nuanced these days is almost unbelievable to me. Having grown up in a time where writing was a thoughtful, time-intensive effort, usually involving pen, paper and sometimes a stamp, context was almost always a dead give away for overall meaning. Today, where words are dashed off in an e-mail or text message as fast as they cross your mind, readers are more often than not left to infer context, and therefore, meaning. Take for example the difference in the following business e-mail:

Example 1

Please make the changes noted in the attached document.

Thanks.

Example 2

Please make the changes noted in the attached document.

Thanks!

In example 1, I am left wondering what the author is thinking. What was his reaction when he read the document. Was he pleased? Did he hate it? Will I find the draft full of red editor's lashings? What should I be thinking as I open the document? I am left in a sea of ignorance and self-doubt. The need for positive or negative feedback overwhelms me, even before I open it. I want to be prepared for what awaits me.

Example 2 has one single difference, so small that many would overlook it. That difference, an exclamation point, is one that many feel is so overused it is almost meaningless. Exclamation points, I would argue, do have their place in short business communications. Here's why.

In the workplace, e-mail, text messages, instant messages and other short forms of communication have almost entirely replaced longer, more thoughtful missives, and even phone and face-to-face communications. There's no opportunity to read body language, or listen to a thorough explanation of why a business associate has come to a particular conclusion. When you receive hundreds of these communications in a day, learning the art of communicating context in as few characters as possible can not only lead to more concise writing, but also to better business relationships.

In my own workplace, all writing that will be viewed by a prospect or client must be reviewed and approved by our compliance department. Being a part of the sales department, this almost instantly puts me in an adversarial relationship with compliance. It's a government, regulatory thing because we're in the financial industry. So, if I receive example 1 as a response to a writing submission I make to the compliance department, I almost always read it with a negative overtone. To me, a period implies no inflection, no emotion. There's nothing there on which to evaluate not only the work, but the relationship with the particular editor who wrote it. Example 2, on the other hand, by the inclusion of the exclamation point, leads me to think the compliance editor, at the very least, appreciated the effort I put into it as well as the effort it will take to edit it. While I still have to wait to open the document to see the evaluation, I can at least know the person took a millisecond to think about adding punctuation that would give me context. Since there's no tone of voice or body language in e-mail (or text, or instant message), punctuation is one of the few opportunities we have to give the reader context.

So e-mail me, text me, instant message me, I don't care. Just don't forget to use punctuation that gives me context. (At least I didn't get into emoticons.)