I have long been at odds with much of the prevailing organisational culture when it comes to written documents. Call me out of touch with GenMe, but I like critical thinking. I enjoy a well written document. I think that actual research is necessary for a well-formed argument — and for those who are unclear, asking Chat GPT or doing a quick Google is NOT research. I think major decisions should have a solid brief — and no, a sketchy one pager with unsubstantiated claims is NOT a brief.
These expectations contrast with the criticism I sometimes receive of my own work documents which ranges from 'they are too long and dense', 'keep your brief brief', or as one CEO demanded: 'Give me six bullet points — TOPS! No one is interested in reading more than that!' Yet I persist in my approach as I struggle with the notion that the shaping of organisational strategy and the making of multi-million-dollar decisions should be the result of 'five words or less' or a compelling image in a PowerPoint deck.
It was therefore with some delight that I came across a recent interview with Jeff Bezos (video excerpt at the end of this piece) in which the founder of Amazon and Blue Origin noted that he likes a 'crisp document and messy meeting'. This is because the document, or setup / background for the meeting, should be closely argued and:
written with such clarity that it's like angels singing from on high.
The meeting, by contrast, should be about discovery and finding the optimal path to a solution. Because of this, the usual rules of 'keep to time' in a meeting can go out the window so that a good discussion can run on.
I have mused before on running effective meetings and while this latter approach of going over time may seem to run counter to my previously recommended approach, I would argue it conforms to the core principles of a good meeting. Specifically, that it addresses the meeting trinity covenant:
- Should it be a meeting? If yes, then take the time to do it properly rather than sandwiching it between available timeslots in a calendar.
- What is the purpose of the meeting? A crisp well-argued narrative document will make that abundantly clear.
- Strive for responsibility, ownership, and accountability. If people are fully prepared for a discussion, there is a much greater likelihood this will happen.
So, how do we arrive at a crisp document?
Contra PowerPoint
Step one is never use PowerPoint. This injunction is one I have been a big exponent of for a long time because there is a reason PowerPoint presentations are sometimes called 'pitch decks'. It is because PowerPoint is a great sales tool but a terrible medium for narrating critical thinking. When internal meetings become about who can 'sell' their plan the best, the organisation will likely end up with an outcome that is strong on form but weak on substance. Instead, people should be encouraged to defend their plans or thinking rather than selling their vision.
PowerPoint suffers from that cardinal sin when presenting an argument — it makes it easy for the author but hard for the audience. A closely argued narrative document is the reverse as it can take two-weeks or more to write but a little under 30-minutes to read. While this may seem onerous for the author, a little discipline goes a long way to structuring robust plans and is indispensable in sound decision making. Given your colleagues' time is valuable, if you cannot be bothered to invest the energy in crafting your argument why should they take the time to hear it?
The bullet-point approach of PowerPoint makes it easy to hide sloppy thinking. But in a narrative document replete with adjectives, adverbs, and paragraphs that can carry the weight of the argument, an individual's thinking is truly tested. It also stands a chance of achieving that sublime goal of all communication — enlightening an audience.
PowerPoint encourages interruptions as people will ask a question that may be answered by the next slide. While in a crisp document, the person takes a note which may be answered by the rest of the piece. This means time is not wasted responding to a question that has already been answered.
Angels Singing
A crisp document is narrative in format and more than one page. To take a leaf from the Bezos playbook, the document or memo should be six pages in length and, following the injunction of the previous section, never delivered via PowerPoint.
The length of the document is essential because it unlocks the true gift of writing — facilitation of memory and thinking. This is because we can write over time far more than we can recall in the moment. To use a computer metaphor, the RAM of our brain only allows us to juggle so many ideas and facts in a given moment. But in writing down these disparate facts and thoughts, we can sort them, rearrange them, or reject them — if on reflection they do not hold up to scrutiny. In this way, the process of creating the narrative document is as important as the final document itself.
A narrative document enables us to contemplate our thinking and stimulates discernment. That is apprehension of the difference between good and bad thinking. This is where the 'crisp' part comes in when writing a crisp document. Because bad thinking tends to be murky, the words on the page a quagmire of verbiage, and when you read and re-read them the quality is shown for what it is — junk. This often happens in meetings where people 'spitball' ideas to be 'innovative'. Yet this process often ends up wasting the groups time going down rabbit holes only to determine it is a bad idea. A crisp document already takes care of a key part of the weeding process.
A narrative writing process gives us the space to learn to defend our ideas. A vital step in building our professional confidence because it is daunting to have our thinking exposed to colleagues and peers — even if we are in an organisation that fosters psychological safety in teams. While harder initially than the ubiquitous PowerPoint pitch of most meetings, it does reduce the chance of you being embarrassed by an Executive because you clearly have not thought through the proposal.
Yet, the value of a crisp document is not all on the writer. At least not in a meeting with Bezos where things kick off with a study hall in which everyone takes 30 minutes to read the document. Again, this can seem at odds with running effective meetings as people should attend a meeting having done the pre-read and ready to go. However, as I think we have all experienced this too often does not happen, with people only skimming the materials or — as with university — bluffing their way through the meeting. By carving out the time needed to review and markup the document, people are forced into engaging with the document in a concentrated manner. A process that gives the topic, the author's effort, and the organisation the respect deserved.
This latter approach of having stakeholders carve out time does for the reader what the writing process did for the author — it slows them down. This is becoming ever more important as technology is making content creation just a click away. While this can be a productivity boon, and essential to Leading AI-First Organisations, it also bears witness to a growing number of people taking shortcuts to the truth.
When we pass off the thinking of others as our own, we fail to invoke the discipline essential to critical thinking. Technology is tending to worsen this trend with services such as Chat GPT acting as surrogate for the dearth of discipline — leaving the operator little else to do but copy and paste. This approach often fails to yield valuable results because it does not comprehend the animating force, or context, of the original work. When strategic choices are made from a base of indiscipline, an organisation will struggle to achieve its objectives. The most effective antidote to which is a crisp document, 'written with such clarity that it's like angels singing from up high', followed by a messy meeting in which people can robustly discuss the thinking presented.
Good night, and good luck.
Photo by Theo Crazzolara on Unsplash.