4 ms·
If I have multiple points to describe on an important topic, I typically make an outline, and bold a 1-3 word summary for each bullet. As corporate-monkey as th
by thorax 18y ago
If I have multiple points to describe on an important topic, I typically make an outline, and bold a 1-3 word summary for each bullet. As corporate-monkey as that is, it makes it very easy to skim without letting my managers overlook pieces I feel are important.
If they're only going to spend 20 seconds glancing at the response, I want it to be a breadth-first scan of the bolded items rather than a depth-first scan of the first paragraph.
For what it's worth, every management team I've worked under in the past decade of software development has loved it. I feel "uncool" for typing this here, but maybe it'll help someone to try the same approach (in addition to the great revising steps listed in the article).
- muhamm 18y agoI don't find it particularly uncool to convey your meaning as effectively as you can, especially when, in a corporate environment, there is so much other data competing for the attention of your reader. Thanks for the tip. I'm going to try to use this myself.
- derefr 18y agoHave you tried eliminating the body of the message, and just sending the bullet-points? If the reader appreciates it because they're not going to read the rest of the message, why give them the rest of the message?
- thorax 18y agoGood point. The terse details are there for two reasons: * Stakeholders need specifics -- While some managers just need to skim, some peers and deeper stakeholders on the thread require details to validate the points because it impacts them specifically. * Managers want access to details -- The manager wants to be able to skim, but also have details on a specific item if they choose to dive into it (now or later). It's hard to tell which ones these will be, so providing extra information after the heading allows them to pick and choose without obstructing their quick-skim-ability.