How to avoid poor public policy writing

Yesterday, I endured a punishment beating. I read a letter sent to the Commission’s leadership. I felt sorry for the Commission President’s team and the official who had to prepare the reply. It is just one example, out of many,  of the poor writing that lobbyists launch at officials, politicians, and their clients.  It is designed to confuse the reader or force them into unconditional surrender.

It does not have to be like this. Until telepathy advances, writing is going to remain the best medium of communicating with officials, politicians, and clients. Done well, it will promote your case, help you secure your public policy goals, and bring light to an issue. Done poorly, you’ll confuse the reader, frustrate them, and leave them with no grounds to support you.

In a city where decisions are often reached by written procedure, making a strong case by the written word is even more important. You need to produce a paper trail that lays out for anyone new to the matter why they should support you. The person who supports you may not be in the room when ‘decision’ time happens.

Good policy writing is hard work. I’ve just finished a note on how to engage in the ‘evaluation’ process. It took deep work, useful feedback from experts, and a lot of editing.

Looking at the first version, it would have been pointless to send it. I would have wasted the busy reader’s time, confused them, and likely just pisse them off. It is insulting to ask someone to set aside their valuable time, and then throw up a pile of gibberish confusion in front of them. You are setting yourself up to be ignored then and in the future.

This is my imperfect method.

Before I do anything, I try and create a picture of who the Reader is. The reader is not everybody. The depth and language you use will be different if you are writing to a CEO, Commissioner, or technical expert. Save yourself a lot of editing time by having a clear idea who you are writing for.

You want to communicate what is relevant, not everything.

For example, in a Parliamentary debate on a legislative file, a client only needs to know a few pieces of information, like: did their issue come up, who supports or opposes their position, when the votes are going to happen, and a guestimate of how the vote will go. They don’t need to know about every issue that came up in a Committee exchange. What is likely a few thousand-word transcript is, in essence, 100-150 words for the client.

So, you need to filter a lot of ‘irrelevant’ information for the reader.

If you are writing by Committee, you are doomed. The intended recipient is no longer the reader. The Committee is writing to their belly buttons. They want to pour their angst and 20 years of confinement on one issue out onto the page. Shrunk & White is a forbidden text. If the reader does not grasp the brilliance of their words, the reader be dammed.

When you know what you want to write about to the reader, you are going have to do some research.

More on research here.

Sometimes it can be quick, and if it is new, it will take time.

Don’t skip this part.

Take a Parliamentary debate, you will need to watch the debate or read the transcript of the exchange. If you rely on 3rd party summaries, you may well miss the essence. I like Prismos. I can watch a debate when I want to, and the ChatBot lets me check the debate.

Write down on paper what you intend to write and the supporting information.

My outlines for a briefing would be like this:

Main Message: Why is this important to the Reader. Put the key point why this is important to the reader at the start.

Introduction: Background.

Key Part of Story 1 + Fact/Evidence (use credible/reputable experts)

Key Part of Story 2 + Fact/Evidence

Key Part of Story 3 + Fact/Evidence. Address your Achilles heel.

Conclusion

Step Five: Write

Have a model/example in front of you of a good ‘briefing’, ‘position paper’, or ‘letter’, etc. to guide you.

Sit down and write the first draft. First time around, just put the points down.

Second, go back and check for style

Third, go back and check for flow.

Don’t waterboard the reader. Miller’s law makes clear that, as a species, our brain’s short-term memory can take on board about 7 +/- 2 bits of information at one. These tests were on numbers. Our brains can only hold two concepts at once. And, as public policy concepts are complex, two is the upper limit. Your standard position paper with several ideas is going to be lost on most readers.

You need to focus. This means no distractions, none of the background white noise of open plan offices, all interruptions blocked (mobile phone hidden, alerts shut off).

You will need to set aside them time. Use your agenda to set off time.

I think it is impossible to switch from doing meetings to doing good writing. You are using different parts of your brain. I prefer to write in the morning and do meetings in the afternoon. I find my writing brain comes back alive at 8 pm. It is annoying.

You may ask when you will have the time to write. You just need to set aside the time. I use two to three-hour blocks. After that, I go for a walk. Writing uses up a lot of energy. Your brain has to work hard.

If your agenda is full of internal meetings, turn down any that don’t have an agenda and pre-read. That will eliminate 90% of them instantly. The one act will liberate hours from your day. For those that remain, set aside to prepare beforehand, and complete the follow-up tasks after the meeting. I set aside time the day before to prepare and an hour after the meeting. That gets rid of a lot of ‘to-do’ actions. Checking in the day before allows you to read the pre-reads, let your brain process the issue in your sleep,  and cancel any meeting that does not have a pre-read.

There are examples of good public writing hiding out there. Use them. They tend to be concise and clear. Headings are helpful for readers.

Your job is to make the reader’s life easier.

You need to edit. Most people hate doing this. I do. There are some people who can skip this. They are fabulously successful.

You need to go back and edit what you have written and improve it.

Recommendations