Army Writing

I discovered a handbook once published by the Army's Training and Doctrine Command called the "Action Officer's Guide: Staff Writing." It's actually a very useful little pamphlet. It's purpose was to help action officers avoid bad writing. In it, the author, a gentleman by the name of John Beckno, counsels against what is described in a politically correct manner as "bureaucratic writing." "While some bureaucratic writing is good," he says, "much of it is turgid, passive, and confusing."

He might also have added that it is 'bromidic,' 'inane,' 'boring,' 'dull,' 'stilted,' 'affected,' 'stuffy,' 'ponderous,' 'unclear,' 'leaden,' 'dismal,' 'uninteresting,' tedious,' 'monotonous,' 'dry,' 'unexciting,' 'mind-numbing,' and 'lifeless.' But then, that would have been bad staff writing.

For all we know, Mr. Beckno could have been describing a random doctrine publication; but he was, in fact, addressing all types of writing which may fall within the purview of a typical action officer.

"In spite of efforts to eradicate it," writes the expert, "poor writing still survives."

But how can this be so?

Beckno lists five reasons ...

• "It's embedded in the bureaucracy." Embedded is the right word. It's a deep problem, part of the culture. As new people enter the service they conform to this horrible way of writing just as though they thought it mandatory, like the bad haircuts.

• "People think government writing should look official." People actually work hard to produce such bad writing. They think, when they've handed in their writing to the boss, that they've accomplished something monumental. It really gets their dander up when the paper comes back bleeding red ink, or when some smarty pants fills multiple pages on a comment resolution matrix pointing out their mistakes. Especially after they've had more than one boss tell them they saw no problem with their work.

• The under-educated or insecure think they can impress by writing this way. This one really stings. Under-educated, he says!  Why, didn't someone inform Mr. Beckno that most of the Army's writing is done by officers? With university degrees? Well, if more officers followed Mark Twain's advice and refuse to let college get in the way of their education, they would become better writers almost overnight. But a college education can't be blamed for all bad writing. Some of it stems from writers' insecurity. They don't write to communicate, they write to impress. But the impression given by their "bureaucratic writing" is usually the opposite of what was intended. Said William Zinsser, a writer who writes and teaches about writing, "Bad writing makes bright people look dumb."

• Writers either don't know how or else are afraid to change. This is almost a restatement of the previous reason. They don't know how because they weren't taught, which, by definition, is being under-educated. They don't know how because they lack experience. No one, with the probable exception of the authors of holy scripture, ever sat down and produced excellent writing on the first try. Good writing takes lots and lots of practice, of getting it wrong the first dozen times, of making mistakes, of getting feedback from readers, before anyone can write anything half decently. And there are many who will never write any better than they do now because they are afraid to change. Some of these are possessed of great physical courage. But they would never, ever, ever venture to change their writing from Army-speak to plain English. For someone might criticize them!

• Leaders who should know better tolerate poor writing. Which pretty much says it all. Poor writing in the military is the result of the failure of leadership. "In spite of efforts to eradicate it," writes Beckno, poor writing "survives," for more than any other reason, because it is tolerated.

One of the best things Beckno says in the guide is that

"Action officers must write well; they write documents for senior leaders to sign, often widely read, and having large impact. One who writes with a golden pen has an edge. An otherwise talented person who doesn't write well works at a disadvantage." 

Here's to rededicating myself to writing better.

Pontification concluded.

twh