51–60 of 136 posts
My dad was career military. So was my ex husband. This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.
BLUF is completely disarming to sensitive people. Consider it a subcultural impasse. BLUF, as a generalized communication style, is a way of thinking that impatiently violates the social pleasantries of socializing for the sake of being social.
This mode of writing has its strength, unfortunately it also encourages a lazy and low detail mode of communication when applied to places it doesn't belong. I have had the experience of working in an environment with ex-military folks installed in leadership positions, the BLUF style of communication was standard issue. One problem this style of communication has when applied to a non-military work environment is th…
That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider latitude, the ability to even disobey the specific instructions, and so need greater background information.
Captain to corporals: All pickup trucks shall carry a fire extinguisher. [BLUF]
Captain to Warrant Officers: Provide fire extinguishers in all the pickup trucks because local law requires it. [BLUF + context to encourage compliance]
Captain to lieutenant: A new law was just past that looks to require fire extinguishers in all pickup trucks on public roads. Please make sure none of our trucks leave the base without one. [No BLUF. Explanation of situation and commander intent. Specifics of implementation left in hands of reader]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One unfortunate thing about the opposite, very polite or "guess" communicator, is that sometimes when one provides all necessary data immediately, that communication is simply not heard. Very polite communicators actually can have trouble processing a situation that's fully laid out before without the protocols of etiquette. It's heck of annoying but one can learn to adjust to it also.
I'm aware. I actually think that sort of thing is a major underlying problem in male-female communication. When a woman says and does the same things as a man, it can get interpreted completely differently due to either the simple fact that she is female or due to subtle differences between "male culture" and "female culture" so to speak. (as just one example.) I get that there is no single standard that works everyw…
Which is to say that some guys can completely shift gears and accept the woman communicating as just one of the guys. And some can't. And it's not divided in some liberal/conservative fashion.
This video is geared more towards academic writing, but, I've found it helpful even outside of that space.
I'd also suggest one more thing: do not send emails on which you expect a response on Friday evening. It'll be gone and forgotten by Monday. Send it on Monday morning instead. OTOH if you'd like to bury some mildly bad news, Friday evening is a perfect time to send it out, for the same reason.
This mode of writing has its strength, unfortunately it also encourages a lazy and low detail mode of communication when applied to places it doesn't belong. I have had the experience of working in an environment with ex-military folks installed in leadership positions, the BLUF style of communication was standard issue. One problem this style of communication has when applied to a non-military work environment is th…
>> taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader. That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider latitu…
Like everything else in the US military, there is a written standard to support this style. See Army Regulation 25-50, Section IV "The Army Writing Style" https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/r25_50.... > Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active…
The Air Force has a similar guide that has been around for decades, the "Tongue and Quill." We were introduced to it starting in officer training. https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/p...
I wish more news site articles would practice this. So many times I'm scanning the damn thing for the bottom line to decide if I want to read all the waffle or not.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-12/medical-eq...
There are a decent number of long-form articles posted on Hacker News that don't follow this standard and don't have a last paragraph (or two, or three...) that's any more helpful. They typically have an intriguing click-bait title that fails to fully parse and I wind up clicking on them just to figure out what they're about. I read three or four paragraphs in and it becomes clear the article is going to do a painfully slow reveal of it's point, if it even has one. So, I scroll alllll the way down to the bottom, noting that it will take a good twenty minutes to read that far, and find the last few paragraphs to be utterly unhelpful ramblings rather than a summary or conclusion. Giving up, I read the comments here and it is frequently the case that a lot of people are just commenting on the title without having figured out what heck the article is about either.
I find this absolutely infuriating.
I apologize for venting.
BLUF works when the power relationship between the speaker and listener/reader/writer was established prior to the communication.