CHAPTER 6

Correspondence: Communicating Information to New Employees

When a new employee is hired into a unit, someone often is asked to introduce the newcomer to the nature of the work in that unit as well as the work expected. This provides an orientation for the new employee. Much of this message is informational, but to some degree it is persuasive. The company is trying to persuade the new hire to “buy into” the culture of the unit or company. The employee conveyed interest in working for the company through the job application, of course; but what does he understand of the company’s culture and practices? Not much, until he starts working.

The Welcome Message

Consequently, the “welcome” message needs to be inviting while informative, considering the audience’s neuroscience. The new employee is curious, and to some degree fearful, but he wants to be able to make the transition to working there easily. The situation lends itself to three or four of Hamm’s (2013) “Five Messages Leaders Must Manage:” “Corporate culture,” “organizational hierarchy,” and “time management.” It can also involve conveying parameters of “your job.”

Let’s consider an example of such a message that is based on an experience I had coordinating a course. In it I welcome faculty who are new to teaching the course while introducing some changes from teaching approaches that they are used to experiencing.

Again, we will apply the formula:

Situation

As I indicated before, I have coordinated a business writing course that is required of all business majors at my institution. This coordination has involved course development, including any modifications to the course, training and mentoring any who teach the course, and acting as a liaison between the Department of English (ENG) and the Business College (BC). The liaison role has included working with someone who has coordinated an oral communication course housed in the BC as well as communicating with BC leadership. The two courses have represented communication-specific coursework in the business program. Over time, a number of assignments were explicitly linked between the two courses. At one point, there was only one explicit link between the two courses—a final report assignment; students produce a document—usually a proposal—for the ENG course and they present their findings orally in the BC course.

Administrators and faculty in the BC generally respect my background, but they prefer a different kind of approach to teaching courses than is identified as “best practice” in rhetoric and writing studies scholarship. For example, a difference that stands out is that BC wanted all sections of a given course to include the exact same content, assignments, activities, and instructional materials. Scholarship in writing studies encourages faculty to have autonomy so they can customize some material and activities for their own teaching style and student needs.

As coordinator for the course, I have been tasked with finding a balance between these approaches. Several exchanges with BC’s representatives over several years involved negotiating between the two approaches. I mentioned before that the team of instructors who would teach the different sections of the course changes from semester to semester; some may have been new to the course while others were veterans.

In introducing faculty new to the course to the standardized pedagogy, I am introducing something that most have not yet experienced. They are used to having some degree of autonomy with their course. While the course objectives are the same for all sections of a writing course, individual faculty have flexibility to facilitate that learning as they feel best suits their teaching approach and with content they feel will benefit students.

Desired Action or Response

I want the audience to feel invited to the course while accepting the standardization required. Also, I want them to feel that the transition to the course will be easy, addressing a fear that many have about teaching a course for the first time. In this respect, I am persuading them to believe that it is easy.

Audience’s Needs

Message

I am the course coordinator for [course number], and I am aware that you have been scheduled to teach at least one section of the course for the first time in the Spring 2xxx semester. I am writing to ask if you would be able to meet with me before the end of this semester to discuss the course generally and expectations to help you transition to teaching the course.

Unlike most courses you have taught, there are several parameters associated with the course consistency across sections and standardization linked to the Business College’s (BC) needs. The course serves Business majors, and BC had considerable input in its development. If you have taught [course a] or [b], you are familiar with most of the content; however, BC wants us to emphasize particular content in certain ways.

The content and approach differ from those of [course b] in several ways, and I need to make you aware of those. We use a standard syllabus and course schedule, including several common assignments. Also, we do not use a textbook for the course; instructors use materials from the Resource Center to facilitate instruction and learning. There is SOME room for individualization of pedagogy, and I’ll discuss these dynamics in more detail with you.

Those who teach the course also participate in a mentoring program that I facilitate throughout the semester. I try to schedule these meetings considering others’ availability. We tend to meet every other week for an hour each time and discuss various issues with the course as well as some scholarship in business writing pedagogy. For many who teach the course, this is the most formal education or training they receive in business writing pedagogy. I can discuss these with you in more detail during that orientation meeting.

My office hours this semester are on [days or times]. Please let me know if any of these days or times is convenient to meet with me. I can also be on campus on [another weekday] morning if needed. During exam week, I can be available almost any morning. The sooner I can meet with you, the more time you will have to prepare for your class section(s).

I look forward to discussing the course with you and helping you transition to teaching [the course].

Discussion

There are six paragraphs, which seems to violate principles of lean communication; however, the substance of the message is conveyed in the first two paragraphs. I begin the message to new instructors with an informal introduction of myself, similar to any form of external—introducing oneself in the context of the message and acknowledging the purpose of the message. In the second paragraph, I describe some specific differences between the course and other professional writing courses they may have taught (most who teach the course have taught another professional writing course previously). This is to make the reader aware of some differences while, immediately, reassuring them of a relationship to previous experiences (hippocampus-related connection). They can recall that course and feel a bit more comfortable knowing they have experience with the general content and related pedagogy, especially in the form of activities or assignments.

I move on to detail differences further while conveying how the transition will be easy for them; the content and pedagogy are already available to them. Again, this addresses a fear for many people who teach a course for the first time. I also acknowledge the mentoring program that we use, which is for all instructors teaching the course, not just those who are new to teaching it. I acknowledge that it represents formal education in business writing pedagogy, which will reassure them further. Generally, when someone teaches one of the other professional writing courses, they will ask for tips and a syllabus to use to help them transition to the course. They receive no formal training.

I close by inviting them to let me know when we can meet, suggesting my own flexibility. Again, willingness to speak directly with them and conveying willingness to work with their schedule can put them at ease while showing support.

A few words about that face-to-face meeting: Generally, I dress professionally when I am on campus—a suit and tie or sport coat, dress shirt, dress pants, and tie. Sometimes I will go without the tie. Rarely am I dressed less formally than “business casual.” So, they will understand me to be professional in my demeanor.

Humor and Sarcasm

I have a sense of humor, which I use liberally and try to place well. Humor, when used well, tends to put people at ease while facilitating important information. Most people value humor, and using it in a measured way mirrors that valuing of humor. However, humor is very difficult to convey with just print. Consequently, it is better presented in a face-to-face setting or via phone. Avoid sarcastic humor at all times, except in person with someone who will understand it. Here is a story that illustrates this problem.

Once upon a time, I drafted a proposal for a workshop at a major national conference at which I would be a cofacilitator. The other person provided feedback as I drafted the proposal. I drafted the proposal in the conference organizers’ online proposal submission system. I was able to save the proposal as I revised, with the understanding that the last draft that was in the system at the submission deadline would be the version used to make a decision. The conference is competitive in that it tends to accept about one third of proposals submitted.

Colleagues in a professional organization affiliated with the conference and to which my cofacilitator and I both belonged also drafted a proposal on a topic somewhat similar to ours. They routinely facilitated a professional development workshop at the conference; so, it was generally assumed theirs would be accepted. I knew some of the people involved in that workshop, but I did not know the person drafting their proposal. They invited us to join their group of facilitators, and we eventually agreed to join them.

When word of proposal acceptance came, there was some confusion over which proposal was accepted. At first, I was confident it was their proposal, as I was sure that I deleted the draft I had in the system. My colleague with whom I drafted our initial proposal observed that our title was listed, not the organization’s title; so, I asked the conference organizers to clarify which was accepted. They indicated the acceptance message pertained to the one I had “submitted.” Because of the lengthy discussion dynamics involved in deciding to join the group prior to the submission deadline as well as the grading responsibilities at the time the proposal was due, I had forgotten to delete the proposal.

For a few days, I panicked at the thought of helping to facilitate at two workshops, still presuming the other would be accepted. However, early the next week, the person who drafted the organization’s proposal acknowledged that the organization’s proposal had been rejected. Stunned that my draft proposal was accepted, and embarrassed about forgetting to delete it, I apologized profusely via e-mail to the person from the professional association who developed the group proposal. She responded with acknowledgment of some dynamics of that proposal’s development and included a statement to the effect that she could “blame” me for the organization’s proposal not being accepted, including some phrasing declining my offer that some of them could work with our workshop. This invoked some degree of fear in me, as it reinforced my initial perception (and concern) that I was “messing up” the organization’s efforts and had become a competitor. Later that same day, she wrote, asking if I “got [the] teasing tone” in her message, twice apologizing and expressing hope that I was not offended by or upset with her response, confessing her concern about potential confusion about sarcasm or her teasing tone in e-mail, and inviting me to become more involved in the organization’s leadership.

Unless the audience knows you and your sense of humor, sarcasm may only worsen a situation, necessitating more time and effort to correct or clarify it. Either avoid using sarcasm in print-only settings, or make sure you express explicitly immediately after your statement that it is sarcasm.