Grapevine or Lifeline?

A few weeks ago, I attended a book signing by one of my favorite authors, Rita Mae Brown. She spent over an hour before the signing entertaining and informing us with her ideas about life and, particularly, non-human animals. Her new book, Animal Magnetism, is a memoir of her life with animals.

In comparing us with our non-human kin, Ms. Brown addressed the issue of language and why humans are the only species with a very sophisticated verbal communication system. Her theory is that language developed as a survival mechanism. Verbalization improved our efforts in cooperative hunting. Those noises evolved into words to provide more precise instructions, feedback, and alerts. She suggests it was language that made us so successful as a species.

This piqued my interest because I was learning about Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach’s Media System Dependency (MSD) theory. Her theory was, in part, influenced by Tamotsu Shibutani's theory that rumor is, as Ralph L. Rosnow and Eric K. Foster summarized it, “…a collective, problem-solving interaction that is sustained by a combination of anxiety, uncertainty, and credulity.” Our desire is to resolve ambiguities, especially about our well-being. To do this, we turn to our information sources. The media, in its many forms, can often provide us with the information we need to understand what is going on and clear up ambiguities. In many ways, we can be dependent on it.

This all hit me at a very personal level. You see, I work for a large (global…maybe even intergalactic) financial services company. Our organization has been in a state of turmoil for at least four years. The mortgage and American auto industry collapses have turned our world upside down. Thousands laid off, as many as three helpings of TARP funds, and what seem to be daily changes in management and structure have left those of us lucky enough to have jobs nauseous from the ride, dazed, and confused. How does this relate to MSD? Communication networks.

Feeding Our Heads

Ball-Rokeach’s theory looks at the nature of society, human motivation, power, the media system, and the relationships between individuals, interpersonal networks, the media, and the nature of the power of the media. Society is an organism comprised of interdependent parts. That organism is understood by the relationship between those parts. Our organization - the company for which I work - is also an organism comprised of different levels of employees from clerks to executives, various departments, and networks of employees that may cross departments and positions on the corporate ladder. The media in our organization is comprised of corporate communications, human resources, senior management, and other groups who disseminate official communications.

According to MSD, motivation is part of human nature; humans strive to survive and grow. This includes achieving understanding (social and self), orientation (interaction and action), and play goals (social and solitary). In our corporate world, our survival is equated to whether or not we continue to be employed. For most of us, the job is a necessity to survive in the rest of the world: money to pay for food, clothing, shelter, heat, medical care. It’s needed to ensure our basic needs of sustenance. But we also have less tangible needs that, still, are important to us like understanding where we are positioned in the structure (like a wolf in the pack or a chimpanzee in the tribe) and what our role is in the group. Work also provides some level of social interaction and satisfaction. Or, at least one hopes it does since we spend so much time there.

Information is a source of power as it is needed to attain goals such as survival and maintaining social structure. In modern society, media is an important generator and purveyor of information. No where is that true more than in an organization. While job specific information or knowledge does not endow one with power, detailed knowledge of what is happening within and to the company usually does. Not only does it give one the tools to make decisions on what one should be doing and where one should be situated at any given time, it also gives one the information to know when to fight and when to flee.

Media relies on organizations and other social structures for information and an audience in order to gain influence. It derives its power by maintaining control over information resources that individuals, groups, and society as a whole need to achieve their goals. It’s true that in an organization the greatest powers are the ability of management to hire and fire and, of course, the paycheck. But it also controls its employees by the dissemination or suppression of information.

While the media may be powerful, individuals do not always rely on the media for information. Instead, they may refer to other individuals in their interpersonal network (peers, family, experts such as doctors) or community groups (such as schools, social activist groups). In the work world, it's the networks are comprised primarily of co-workers and, to a lesser degree, other industry contacts.  Much of this depends on the individual’s goals, the credibility of the sources of information, and the availability of media sources, among other variables. And it’s that “availability of media sources” that, in my world, has been problematic.

Trying to Find Our Way in the Dark

The most recent example that impacted me directly was a departmental restructuring. Months ago, we were told that several departments with similar responsibilities would be merged into one. News would be forthcoming. Until then, it was business as usual. Months passed with only intermittent information.  Information on the plans was very vague.  Changes occurred around us without explanation.

Meanwhile, rumors of our parent company declaring bankruptcy or eliminating the business units we supported resurfaced over and over again. Management’s advice: keep your head down and do your best work.  Ignore the rumors.

Artificial Lighting

What management failed to recognize was that our human nature is to see the lack of information as a threat to our survival and growth. So, what did employees do? We sought out information to resolve our ambiguities. Some relied on updates from on-line financial news sites like http://www.bloomberg.com/. Others obtained information from people outside of the organization. But, for most of us, it was the daily, sometimes hourly, conversations with one another. Sharing e-mails that hinted at who was going to be in charge. Reporting on meetings where someone “slipped” and revealed information that was not intended for public disclosure. Monitoring the comings and goings of certain managers between sites. Speculating on who might end up where. And what, if any, positions would be eliminated.

While some of the discussions may have created unnecessary anxiety, it made us feel slightly more empowered to have just a little more information than we did from our own sources. The discussions also helped us prepare for the worse and to consider our alternatives should we lose our jobs or find ourselves in situations that would make us unhappy.

A Little Bit of Sunlight

So, what finally happened? Well, they did eventually announce the restructuring of our department. We now feel more empowered because at least we have the information – now correct information – we need to make good decisions about our own futures.  Knowledge is, afterall, power.

The status of the organization as a whole and the business units we support is still unknown. Recent announcements of offices closing or reducing staff along with comments from our new CEO have not been encouraging.  Bloomberg will continue to see lots of hits from our servers for the foreseeable future.

Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood

There's nothing more frustrating than trying to use documentation that you just don't understand. I'm going through that experience right now. My S.O. ("significant other") is having computer problems. A few months ago, his 4 year old computer crashed. Apparently, despite active virus protection software, it acquired some fatal disease that caused the desktop unit to look for a laptop battery. It is still not functional. As a stopgap measure, I loaned him my 6 year old computer that I had replaced recently before starting school in September. In all the time I had that old PC, I only had minor problems with it last spring when it started running painfully slow. I had it "tuned up" and, from then on, it worked like new. After only 3 months, however, he is having problems with it.

Diagnosis for the computer's demise: Teenagers!

He has two boys: 16 and 17. Despite warnings, they continue to visit sites and download material that they've been warned against accessing. They deny it but my S.O. continues to get suggestive invitations from young attractive women that point to the contrary. The latest dilemma is that the system does not recognize or cannot find Windows. So, I got my hands on a CD to reload Windows XP. Because I cannot access Windows to run it from the Start menu, I have to install it in the DOS environment - and it's been a long time since I've had to do something like that. Amazingly, I've remembered a lot but, regretfully, not enough. I visited the Microsoft website and the instructions are just plain useless to me. I searched the web further and nothing seems to help. So I am now off to talk to my friends on the help desk for assistance.

In the meantime, I'd like to say to Microsoft: "Invest is some better user readability testing. Not just with the techies - do some testing with folks like me. Or, better yet, people like my S.O. who don't even know what "underscore" is on the keyboard. All sorts of people are using computers these days and would like to be able to fix problems on their own. Work with us, will ya'?!?"

Do You Read Me?

I know of what I speak! For a good part of my career in mortgage banking, I've been responsible for creating user documentation - primarily policies and procedures along with some systems documentation and job aids. I learned along the way that not everyone thinks the way I do or learns the way I do. What to me is perfectly logical and clear can be convoluted or even gibberish to another person.

If the reader cannot understand and use the documentation, it's worthless. As individuals conveying complicated information to people who have to actually take action using that information, we must remember that we are writing for others, not for ourselves. Unfortunately, not everyone who writes manuals or explanatory material understands that.

How do we determine that our documentation is readable? That it can be understood by our intended audience? We need to test it!

Testing...1-2-3...Testing...

How do you test documentation for readability?

Well, there are several different ways and your best bet is to utilize a combination of them to achieve optimal results.

Things you want to look for in your testing:

• Ease of learning - How quickly can the user understand what she reads? Does she have to read and re-read several times to get it?
• Efficiency of use - How quickly can the user apply the material learned?
• Memorability - Once the user understands how to apply the information, can he remember it or does he have to frequently return to the documentation for a refresher?
• Minimizing errors - Does the user grasp the material or does the user consistently make errors even after reading the material?
• User satisfaction - Does the user feel that the documentation is easy to understand and helpful?

Doing the Math

There are mathematical formulas for testing readability of documents. There are the Flesch Readability Scale, the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, and the Gunning Fog Index which use elements in text such as the average length of sentences and the average number of syllables in the words to determine how hard a document is to understand.

These tests can be done manually but that is no longer necessary. Software is available to test your content. In fact, you can test for both Flesch scores in Microsoft Word.

1. Click on Tools.
2. Select Spelling and Grammar.
3. Click on Options.
4. Under "Grammar", select "Show readability statistics."

When you complete your document, run Spell Check. After Word has completed the spelling and grammar checks, a dialog box will provide a report that looks like this. A score of "65" or higher for Readability is considered "plain language". The desirable grade level depends on your audience.

While these tests are good starting points to make your documentation more accessible, they do not measure things like whether or not:

• You've effectively communicated the information;
• The information is well organized;
• The format is user-friendly and the text is legible; or
• The content is appropriate to the users.

For that, you need to work with real, live people - representative users.

Tell Me What's On Your Mind

All of the mathematical equations in the world will not ensure that your user documentation is worth the paper or computer screen it's written on. In order to test that, you need to consult with actual users.

Select a representative pool of users. There may be many types of people using your documentation. Think about it. Ask around. Who needs the information?

In my world, I was primarily writing for people who took loan applications, processed loan applications, and prepared loan closing documents. But I quickly found that it didn't stop there. I also had state and federal regulatory agencies looking at the documentation to ensure we were giving our employees adequate and appropriate direction. Our legal department had an interest in it to support our position in litigation and customer complaints. Other internal departments, like Accounting, Loan Servicing, and Underwriting consulted it to understand processes and opportunities for improvement. So, it was necessary to consider all of these areas when documenting policies and procedures.

Ask your sample users to document their findings. They should consider various aspects including:

• Is the information accurate, complete, and appropriate?
• Does it flow and match what happens (or should happen) in the real world?
• Is the information presented in a logical order?
• Are the graphics appropriate, necessary, and consistent with the policies, rules, and processes?
• Would more graphic examples enhance the material or should some graphics be removed?
• Is the layout easy to use and pleasing to look at?
• Is the typeface legible? Does it need to be larger or smaller?
• Can desired information be located quickly?
• Is the language appropriate? Are there too many hard words or is the information too simplified for even a new employee? Are sentences too long or too short?
• Are there cultural, gender, or class biases?

Testers must be reminded to be critical and honest. And you, as the documenter, need to put ego aside. Don't argue over feedback. It can be tough to have someone criticize your work and tell you they don't like or understand your material. Taking a few steps back and looking at it from the user's perspective can help. Taking user suggestions will improve your documentation. Like I said, if they can't use it, it's not worth a thing.

Going back to the criteria under "Testing..." above, it may be useful to test your users' comprehension. Monitoring performance in the real world can also measure the effectiveness of the documentation.

It's Getting There That Counts

In the long-run, the goal is to create thorough, user-friendly, useful documentation. Your users will be happier. They'll also be more productive and efficient. (No more spending hours trying to figure out how to do it right!) Better documentation supports training and reduces the need for continued follow-up training. It also reduces calls to help desk or support teams and time taken by supervisors and managers to provide individual instruction.

And it will mean that your documentation will be used and valued. I was surprised when I found out just how many people in my organization used and valued the manual I created in my last position. A lot of the success had to do with the fact that I listened to my testers. I didn't always like everything they had to say but they were most often right. I handed over the documentation to others 5 years ago. It's surprising how little has changed. It was slightly reformatted but not so significantly as to be markedly distinguishable from the original. And most of the text remains the same. Better still, people still refer to it and actively use it.

I take a good bit of pride in that!

The Times, They Are a'Changin'

October 19, 1987. The Stock Market crashed. The housing market slowed. Six months later, I was laid off from my job with a major mortgage lender. I almost instantly found another mortgage position, 400 miles or so away in Connecticut. So, I left my life-long home in South Jersey and relocated to central Connecticut.

As I was making this life change, savings and loans (or "thrifts") were failing. They had been since 1986, mostly due to bad real estate investments. (Sound familiar?) President Bush (the elder) introduced a "bail out" in February of 1989 but it was too late for my new employer. They just happened to be owned by a Texas-based savings and loan. By all accounts, they were doing well, then, boom! They were declared insolvent near the end of 1988. The RTC (Resolution Trust Corporation), an arm of the OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision), took over our parent company and our mortgage subsidiary was shut down in February of 1989.

I returned to South Jersey and found another job...in the mortgage business. The economy improved and, two voluntary job changes later, I landed my current position. That was a little over 12 years ago.


Today I face the possibility of another involuntary separation. My employer cut 75% of our workforce in the past year and a half to 2 years. News reports and "implod-o-meters" on the Internet predict our imminent demise. Those of us who remain show up every day and wait for the other shoe to drop.


Things are different from what they were in the late '80s. In the mortgage business back then, the people who suffered the most were employees of savings and loans. There was a rash of foreclosures but they were mostly concentrated in Texas. Now, it's global. You can barely find any business or person unaffected by the conditions.


So, as I consider my options, I find myself reflecting on how things have changed in respect to looking for a new job. The biggest change I see is the importance of the Internet.


Casting the Net


My, how things have changed. Back in the day, I found my jobs through one of three ways:

1. Professional recruiter who was paid a fee (usually by the employer).
2. Newspaper ads.
3. Personal referrals.

In fact, I can say I found positions with each of the three at least once.


Today, I don't know a person who starts a job search without the Internet. In fact, that's where much of the concentration appears to be. And it's no longer just going to an employer's web site, clicking on their "career opportunities" page, and scrolling through a list. We now have tools which, I believe, fall under the recent categorization of "Web 2.0".


The New and Improved Web
My understanding of Web 2.0 is still a little fuzzy. I've read articles but the techno-jargon gets in the way. But, what I grasp is this:

• Web 2.0 is user or audience focused. It seeks to interact with us. We're not just clicking on links. We're establishing the information we want from a site. We may even be adding information to a site or database.

• As information available on a site changes, the look and feel of the site doesn't. Data available on the site is independent of the site. Applications are running on the web. We're no longer looking at static pages where information must be changed in html to be refreshed.

So, how do we interact using Web 2.0? The articles I've linked to give plenty of examples: Wikipedia, blogging, iTunes, del.i.cio.us.
For job searching, the focus seems to be on two things:

1. Social networking sites - particularly LinkedIn
2. Interactive job search sites - Monster.com, industry specific sites.

Reach Out and Touch Someone


Going back to the old days, if you wanted to network, you had a Rolodex and hoped that you had everyone's home number. If you wanted to hook up (professionally) with some new contacts, you attended networking events, professional meetings, etc.


While the face-to-face meetings still have a place, the Rolodex is so 20th century. In today's world, the on-line social networking sites are where you stay in touch. And, they're where you can meet your contacts' contacts without a formal introduction. In my circles, LinkedIn seems to be the site of choice. I started getting invitations from departing coworkers just as the body count started.




By sending and accepting invitations to join one's network, you have access to a multitude of contacts and information about them. You can see where someone works, their past experience (like an on-line resume), and recommendations from current or former co-workers. This gives you a better idea of who you're dealing with.
LinkedIn has more applications that I've not yet explored. So far, the most critical area has been "People". Staying in touch right now just seems to have the most urgency. Particularly when you haven't had a chance to say "good-bye". But these are also the people who, as they land in new places, will be the most likely to help us late-comers (or late-leavers) land safely, too.
The social networking sites are part of Web 2.0 because we, the audience, are responsible for the content. We're building the database.
A Hunting We Will Go
Another newer function to the internet that I believe falls under Web 2.0 is the "define-it-yourself" job search. Some of these engines are undoubtedly better than others. The thing that I think makes them Web 2.0 is that you can narrow your search by setting criteria and then have links to the job...not just the site...sent to you when there's a new match.

My site of choice right now is USA Jobs. (With banks and other financial institutions failing and billions of dollars in bail-out money, those regulators will need plenty of people experienced with the inside workings to shovel through the muck and help set things right. )
With this site, you decide how much information you give upfront (like whether or not to provide a resume) and what jobs you want to "hear" about. You can set up as many searches as you want or need. And the information is constantly updated without changing the look or feel of the site.

What's Next?
Honestly, I'm not technically saavy enough to make predictions. I read that collaborative sites and audience defined functionality is the future. Some of it I find useful...like the tools I've mentioned here for networking and job hunting. Some of it I find confusing...like the new language of the internet and the associated tools. And some of it worries me...like the "democratic" nature of tools like Wikipedia - how "facts" and information can be owned by people without expertise in the given area. Maybe that's a blog for next week. "What scares me about Wikipedia." Hmmm...