Writing course assignment( letter and memorandum)

Unit/Week 2

Rhetoric: The Concept of ‘Audience’; Building ‘Goodwill’

Objectives:

• To understand the importance of ‘audience’ as a primary rhetorical consideration in professional writing;

• To learn how analyze potential audiences for a message; • To understand the concept of ‘multiple audiences’ (primary and secondary) • To understand how that analysis can help us shape, structure, and organize a message in

order to maximize its potential effectiveness; • To define the concept of ‘Goodwill’ (including ‘You-attitude,’ ‘Positive Emphasis,’ bias-

free language, and tone) and explore the relationship of these concepts to effective writing

Read: Locker/Findlay, Chapter 2; Assignment Case: ‘Globe’ (in Course Book)

Diagnostic Paper (ungraded): Audience Analysis (Memo. to Instructor; up to 500 words); due 11:55 p.m. Sunday Week 3

Discussion Topic: Are there qualities in Lyn Smith’s letter that might (wrongly) tempt you to be dismissive and/or condescending in your reply? What other qualities or features might you notice that would help you avoid falling into that trap?

Overview of Unit 2:

In this Unit we are considering the question why ‘audience’ constitutes a primary rhetorical consideration. By ‘rhetorical consideration’ we mean to ask: in what ways can an analysis of ‘audience’ help us to communicate a message more effectively?

(General note and reminder: as with Unit 1, here and throughout I will refrain so far as possible from simply ‘repeating’ the material you will find in the relevant chapters of Locker/Findlay. Our text is very well constructed and written with the aim of being, to a great extent, self-explanatory. My aim in these lecture notes is to provide you with a context in which to situate the text material, and suggest [here and especially in our weekly discussions] ways in which to apply that material.)

By ‘audience’, we mean of course any individual or group who may – actually or potentially – read what we have written. That set of individuals and/or groups can include both those to whom the message is primarily directed, and those who – we might reasonably foresee – might have occasion to read our message, and possibly take some action as a result of it, even though they might not have been the intended primary recipient(s).

If ‘audience’ is a primary consideration in this sense, several questions naturally follow. The first is this: who can we identify as an actual or potential audience, and how are we to characterize them? The second is this: having identified our ‘primary’ audience, in what ways will our message – both in form and in substance – be influenced by an analysis of that primary audience? The third question follows on naturally from the second: what sorts of things are we looking for when ‘analyzing’ our primary audience?

After attempting to answer those questions, we’ll then discuss the concepts of ‘reader benefits’ and ‘goodwill’ as these are understood in the context of professional writing, and consider how ‘goodwill’ is built in part by ‘You-attitude,’ ‘Positive Emphasis,’ and the notion of ‘reader benefits.’ You will quickly notice how interrelated these notions really are, and how the important question of the tone of your writing is a constituent of these concepts.

‘Audience’ as a Major Rhetorical Consideration:

Let’s begin this discussion with a ‘real world’ example, one in which several of the concepts mentioned briefly under ‘Objectives’ come into play. In my job at Western, both as a lecturer in specific courses and (from time to time) in my capacity as a faculty member with administrative duties, I am often in receipt of messages from individual students requesting things, for example extensions on assignments, special permission to take a course or courses without prerequisites, and so on. The range of requests is practically limitless! Here’s the thing: the rhetorical situation in which such requests are made is conditioned at least in part by a specific organizational culture – that of a large university. Within that culture, it has traditionally been and is still the case that in operational terms there exists a certain hierarchy of authority, within which an instructor of a course or someone holding an academic administrative office is of a ‘higher’ status than a student, who has (relatively speaking) none at all when it comes to academic issues. Students of course have certain rights (for example, to appeal a grade), but these rights are still, ultimately, constrained by the academic hierarchy.

On the other hand, many universities such as Western have adopted promotional, ‘mission statement’ language (in which the University and instructors become ‘service providers’, and students become ‘clients’, even ‘customers’ or ‘consumers’ of education) which can give rise to the mistaken impression that the academic hierarchy has somehow changed – it hasn’t!

One consequence of this rhetorical situation, conditioned as well of course by broader cultural change, is that students are now rather more informal and direct when approaching instructors and other figures with academic authority. There is, in my view, nothing wrong with that at all, except when that informality combines with linguistic carelessness to create an unintentionally offensive tone in messages making requests. I have in mind a specific phrase that I find students using all too frequently when closing a request or special-consideration

message: that phrase is or is some variant on “ … please do x/I look forward to hearing your decision at your earli(est) convenience…”.

Now, you may think: what’s wrong with that? It sounds polite/respectful, and indeed I do not for a minute believe that (most) students who use this language ‘get it’ – I believe that they do indeed think they are being polite/respectful. But here’s the problem: this phrase is code! That is, in the rhetorical contexts where it originated and is frequently used, it does NOT mean ‘if it’s not too much trouble, could you possibly do/consider x when it is convenient for you to do so’!! For example, if MasterCard sends you a message informing you that you’ve missed a minimum monthly payment, and asking you to make that payment ‘at your earliest convenience’, MC is NOT saying ‘oh, that’s ok; just thought we’d remind you; pay when you can/when it’s convenient for you’!!! MC is, of course, saying ‘pay NOW, or ELSE …..’! Similarly, when a lawyer sends out a letter asking someone – even another lawyer – to respond at her or his ‘earliest convenience,’ the phrase does not mean ‘when you can find the time;’ it means ‘respond immediately, or ELSE ….’ That ‘…or else’ is the clear implication communicated by this phrase when it is used by a student making an academic request, whether he or she intended to do so or not. The tone is (politely) threatening, and in the context of a university’s organizational culture it is therefore also disrespectful, and consequently wholly offensive – at least potentially – to the recipient. The practical consequence of course is that ultimately this kind of carelessness with language may well work against the student’s original purpose in writing in the first place, which was to ask for something; she or he may well be less likely to get what was asked for!

Putting this example into a broader context, students who use this language have neglected what we are calling ‘You-Attitude’; their linguistic choices here were, even if unintentionally, driven by their immediate needs to such an extent that they failed to take into account how their audience might react. The result, of course, is that the message in the end damages the goodwill in their relationship with their instructor/advisor. Ultimately, all of this is down to the sender’s unawareness of the relative positions of sender and receiver in this particular rhetorical context, in light of the sender’s purpose in writing and sending a message in the first place.

Following on from our introductory discussion in Unit 1, we can safely say that in general terms effective writing is predicated on the principle ‘Understand who you are writing to (or for), and why.’ In this Unit, we are dealing with the ‘who’! To this principle, however, we should add that in professional contexts a second consideration applies: your purpose (‘why’) almost always includes persuading someone to do (or not do) something. For example, you might want someone to start a project you are proposing, to hire you (!), to agree with you, to accept information, to make policy changes, to promote you, to pay you or your organization some money (or not demand that you do so!), and so on.

The interrelationship between these two considerations is rather obvious. For example, you might be writing a report requested by, and addressed to, your immediate supervisor (your primary audience) – who in turn may, or may not, have the authority to act on your recommendations. Your report might be read by your supervisor’s superiors and other potential secondary audiences (such as your organization’s legal staff or outside legal advisors), for example. These potential secondary audiences can in turn be classified into various types (see below). Let’s suppose that your subject is fairly technical – broadly, on a significant information systems question – and that while your immediate supervisor is well versed in the technical issues, and conversant with the relevant technical terminology (‘jargon’), members of other potential audiences are not or may not be. You would want to adjust your writing so as to find a way to communicate complex technical issues with equal clarity to potential audiences from various backgrounds and levels of comprehension. For example, you would need to find a way to express a complex notion regarding ‘systems interfacing’ in language which could be understood by, say, a V-P whose background is in personnel issues while at the same time not boring (or sounding ‘simplistic’ to) your IT systems technical managers. In turn, how well you can do this may well bear directly on your chances for a move up the promotional ladder of your organization – i.e. your ‘goodwill’ (your image, reputation, perceived value, your ‘ethos’) within your organization!

Identifying Audiences

The first step, then, in composing a message is to work out ‘who is your audience’ (or audiences!). There are many different schemes of analysis covering this question; our text identifies five kinds of audience (pages 27-8) and we’ll follow that analytic scheme here. As you consider this typology, think a little about the scenario in ‘Globe Airlines’.

Initial Audience: the first audience to get the message. Sometimes the initial audience assigns the message. For example, your supervisor may ask you to draft a letter which will respond to a customer complaint. In ‘Globe’ Rita Simmons will almost certainly be your ‘initial audience’. She will review your draft letter to Ms. Smith, and given her position will probably also be a >>

Gatekeeper: just as the term suggests, someone who has the power to stop a message from being sent, or authorize its being sent to one or more other ‘audiences’. ‘Gatekeepers’ could of course also be an initial audience, as in ‘Globe’; they may also, however, be someone higher in an organizational hierarchy, or even someone outside the organization.

*Primary Audience: the intended recipient of the message who will decide to accept what you say, act on your recommendations, and so forth. You must reach your primary audience in order to fulfill your purposes in any message. In ‘Globe’ your primary audience will be Lyn Smith.

Secondary Audience(s): persons/groups who may be asked to or required to comment on your message, or implement ideas after they’ve been approved by the primary audience. In larger/more complex organizations, a common secondary audience consists of lawyers and other professionals, who may use a message – often after considerable time – as evidence of then- current organizational culture, practices, and even intentions, for example in the context of a legal action.

Watchdog Audience: differs from a ‘gatekeeper’ in that it does not have a ‘present power’ to stop a message, and will not act directly on it. It does, however, have political, social, and/or economic power which it can use – on the basis of transactions between ‘you’/your organization and primary audiences, as evidenced by messages, to engage in future actions which directly or indirectly affect you/your organization. A common example would be the actions of various governmental regulatory agencies, formulating new regulatory policies on the basis of past practices. In the ‘Globe’ scenario, we can imagine several such ‘watchdog’ audiences.

Analyzing Audiences (Locker/Findlay pages 28 – 49 generally)

Identifying the ‘primary audience’ is the crucial step. Even when, as in ‘Globe’ for example, a message will clearly go to multiple audiences, your analysis of your primary audience determines the rhetorical choices you make. Your understanding, from the evidence available to you, of Lyn Smith ‘as a person’ will dictate how you organize your letter, what level of formality you use, the amount of technical detail you include, and your use of technical and/or theoretical terminology.

Consider for example the differences in tone created by these six different possible salutations:

n Dear Ms. Smith n Dear Lyn Smith n Dear Lyn n Lyn Smith n Lyn n Hey Lyn!

Tone (see Locker/Findlay 44-5) is, for our purposes, the attitude of a writer toward a reader implied by the language used by the writer. In this little example, the level of formality, given the rhetorical context, of each of these possible salutations implies a different attitude.

Try using the suggestions in Locker/Findlay pages 28 to 30 to analyze Lyn Smith as she presents herself in her letter: what do you think her expectations are re. tone/level of formality? You should take the time to try to ‘understand’ your audience so that you can formulate answers to the kinds of questions given to you at Locker/Findlay pages 32 – 34 before sending a message:

n How will your reader react to your message? n How much information does your reader need? n What obstacles must you overcome? n What positive aspects can you use to build support for your points? n What expectations does your reader have about the appropriate language, level of

formality, format, channel for messages? n How will the reader use the document?

Reader Benefits (Locker/Findlay pages 34 – 36)

Reader benefits have to do with the substantive content of your message. In effect, you want to give your reader(s) a reason or reasons to:

n Employ you or your services n Buy something from you n Follow a policy recommendation n Adopt your ideas, for example, for a development project n Accept the information you are offering n Accept a proposed solution to a problem n Etc.!

As Locker/Findlay note, your writing should always be informed by ‘reader benefits’ when drafting purely informative, positive (or ‘good news’), and persuasive messages. In general, we are not so concerned with ‘reader benefits’ in purely negative (‘bad news’) messages, although even here there are exceptions. For example, you might, in the ‘Globe’ scenario, be instructed by Rita Simmons to draft a reply to Lyn Smith that is wholly negative insofar as her substantive requests (especially for her Chicago hotel expense reimbursement) are concerned. But even here, given that you are trying to at least keep open the possibility that she/her husband might again fly with ‘Global,’ you might try to look for some kind of ‘alternative’ that you can offer her, something which could be as intangible as trying to make her ‘feel’ that her efforts in writing her detailed letter will not go unrecognized by your organization.

On the other hand, if in fact Rita Simmons does instruct you to offer the ETUVs in substitution for hotel expense reimbursement, then indeed you do have something ‘positive’ to work with in the form of a tangible ‘reader benefit;’ this will have definite implications for the way in which you structure your reply.

Goodwill, and the concepts of ‘You-attitude’ and ‘positive emphasis’ (Locker/Findlay pages 38 – 44)

‘Goodwill’ is one of those phrases, as we’ve seen earlier, which is intended to capture in a single word a concept of general application in modern organizational environments. As Locker/Findlay note repeatedly, it applies both internally and externally. Back to your

hypothetical assignment in ‘Globe,’ for a moment, we can see this immediately: internally, you would be building ‘goodwill’ for yourself within your company if you could successfully draft a message (reply) to Lynn Smith which she accepts and which, consequently, puts an end to further correspondence on the matter (!). If both of these results obtained, it might in turn at least keep open the possibility that she would fly with ‘Globe’ again, or at the very least not be inclined to pursue the matter with consumer advocacy groups, or regulatory agencies (external goodwill).

In turn, the question whether or not you successfully create external goodwill with Lyn Smith is contingent on many factors, as we’ve been seeing, not the least of which are your ability to use both ‘You-attitude,’ positive emphasis, and tone (overall, including the very important contemporary concern with ‘Reducing Bias in Business Communication’) to make her receptive to your company’s response. Our text, page 44 through to the ‘Summary’ on page 50, breaks these several concepts down, and through examples demonstrates their applicability. Again, to a great extent this material is self-explanatory.