The Art of Saying Nothing

I’m taking the ULES OWLS content writing class: Writing Foundations, taught by FK Odusola.

This week’s class was about the unglamorous stuff that actually makes writing work. Grammar. Sentence structure. Why some writing makes you feel stupid and some makes everything suddenly clear. What determines whether people finish reading what you write or click away.

A few things that stuck with me from Week 2’s class:

• Bad writing is usually just unclear, not wrong. And unclear writing is a reader problem, not a writer problem.
• Passive voice is often evasive, not wrong. For example, “Mistakes were made” is grammatically fine, but avoids responsibility.
• Sentence length is a tool. Short sentences hit hard, long ones build momentum, but using only one type dulls everything.
• Plain language doesn’t necessarily dumb things down. It’s more about respecting your reader’s time.

The assignment was to find three paragraphs of genuinely bad writing from the real world, rewrite them, and explain what was wrong and why. I chose McKinsey’s human rights statement. After going through it, you’ll probably agree that it seemed appropriate.

Source: https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/overview/our-governance/human-rights-statement

Paragraph 1

McKinsey has appointed a joint Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer (CECO) and Chief Human Rights Officer (CHRO) to oversee our Firm’s Ethics & Compliance and human rights programs, including risk management pursuant to the LkSG. The CECO/CHRO regularly (and at least once per year) reports to McKinsey on relevant ethics, compliance, due diligence and risk management matters.

1. “pursuant to the LkSG” - LkSG was never properly defined/explained. Not even in the full source.
2. Switches from third person (”McKinsey has appointed”) to first person (”our Firm”).
3. “including risk management pursuant to the LkSG” - reads as an afterthought.
4. “regularly (and at least once per year)” - sounds contradictory.
5. “relevant ethics, compliance, due diligence and risk management matters” - nothing wrong in particular, but hard to process.
6. Two very long sentences.

For the first issue, a quick search brings up the official statement from Loening

Germany is setting new international standards by requiring companies to live up to their responsibilities when it comes to human rights and the environment. The German Lieferkettengesetz (LkSG) took effect on 1 January 2023. Companies must now identify and address human rights issues and environmental risks in their own operations and their supply chains. In other words, they must use their economic power to prevent such risks around the world – and make their operations and global supply chains more and more sustainable.

But I find this a bit too tedious. My teacher, FK, would ask: If a normal, busy, probably distracted human being, reads your article on their phone at 2:15 am, would they understand it quickly? No shade to the website, but my answer to that is no.

Hence, my fix:

Companies operating in Germany are legally required to protect human rights and the environment across their supply chains. This is what the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) demands of us.

In line with the LkSG, we have appointed a joint Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer (CECO) and Chief Human Rights Officer (CHRO) to oversee our Ethics & Compliance and human rights programs. The CECO/CHRO reports to us at least annually on matters relevant to human rights and environmental risks.

Here I’ve introduced an extra paragraph to concisely define the LkSG. This is one proof that conciseness does not equal summarization.

Paragraph 2

As described above, McKinsey has a risk management and due diligence process focused on direct suppliers and our own operations. As we identify particular human rights and environmental focus areas in the course of our ongoing risk analysis, we will update this statement and address any identified risks in line with applicable requirements.

1. “As described above” - why? Sounds fluffy.
2. Third to first person switch mid-paragraph.
3. “has a risk management and due diligence process focused on” is full of business jargon.
4. “particular human rights and environmental focus areas” - vague
5. “in the course of our ongoing risk analysis” - filler
6. “applicable requirements” - what requirements? set by who?

My fix:

We audit direct suppliers and our own operations. As we identify human rights and environmental risks in our ongoing risk analysis, we will update this statement and address these risks.

Paragraph 3

If McKinsey becomes aware of an imminent or actual violation of a human rights-or environment-related obligation in McKinsey’s own business area or at a direct supplier, we will, without undue delay, take appropriate remedial action to prevent, end or minimize the violation. The remedial action will be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other things (1) the requirements of the LkSG, (2) McKinsey’s ability to influence the party directly responsible for the violation, (3) the severity, reversibility, and probability of a violation, and (4) McKinsey’s contribution, if any, to the violation. Possible remedial actions may include (among other actions) implementation of a corrective action plan, disciplinary action, or termination of the business relationship.

At this point, I started to both pity and suspect legal writers.

1. Same third to first person switch again.
2. “McKinsey’s own business area” - vague. What is McKinsey’s business area? I can’t fix this myself because I don’t know what that is.
3. “without undue delay”/ “become aware of” / “take remedial action” - handwavy
4. “to prevent, end or minimize the violation” - redundant
5. “The remedial action will be determined” - passive
6. “among other things”/“among other actions” - redundant. potential loophole?
7. “McKinsey’s contribution, if any, to the violation” - the “if any” also sounds like a potential loophole, but not my place to remove
8. “Possible remedial actions may include” - “possible” and “may” perform the same function here. Also passive.
9. The inline numbered list makes the sentence hard to read
10. “human rights-or environment-related obligation” - compound
11. “implementation”, “corrective”, “disciplinary”, and “termination” can all be replaced with simpler verbs.

My fix:

If we discover a human rights or environmental violation — in our own operations or at a supplier — we will act promptly. We will determine this action on a case-by-case basis, taking into account:

1. the requirements of the LkSG,
2. our ability to influence the party directly responsible for the violation,
3. the severity, reversibility, and probability of a violation, and
4. our contribution, if any, to the violation.

We may correct the problem, discipline the people involved, or end our relationship with the supplier.

Final

Companies operating in Germany are legally required to protect human rights and the environment across their supply chains. This is what the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) demands of us.

In line with the LkSG, we have appointed a joint Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer (CECO) and Chief Human Rights Officer (CHRO) to oversee our Ethics & Compliance and human rights programs. The CECO/CHRO reports to us at least annually on matters relevant to human rights and environmental risks.

We audit direct suppliers and our own operations. As we identify human rights and environmental risks in our ongoing risk analysis, we will update this statement and address these risks.

If we discover a human rights or environmental violation — in our own operations or at a supplier — we will act promptly. We will determine this action on a case-by-case basis, taking into account:

1. the requirements of the LkSG,

2. our ability to influence the party directly responsible for the violation,

3. the severity, reversibility, and probability of a violation, and

4. our contribution, if any, to the violation.

We may correct the problem, discipline the people involved, or end our relationship with the supplier.

Conclusion

Compared to other examples I’ve seen, I believe The McKinsey text isn’t badly written because someone was careless. It’s badly written because someone was careful. Every hedge, every vague verb, every passive construction was a deliberate choice to sound accountable without actually being accountable. The writing is doing exactly what it was designed to do. It just isn’t designed to inform anyone.

That’s the thing about bad writing. Sometimes it’s laziness. Sometimes it’s habit. And sometimes it’s the writer knowing precisely what they’re doing and hoping you won’t notice.

My job, as a reader and as a writer, is to notice.

Original

The 3 paragraphs I extracted from the original text for completeness sake.

Source: https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/overview/our-governance/human-rights-statement

McKinsey has appointed a joint Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer (CECO) and Chief Human Rights Officer (CHRO) to oversee our Firm’s Ethics & Compliance and human rights programs, including risk management pursuant to the LkSG. The CECO/CHRO regularly (and at least once per year) reports to McKinsey on relevant ethics, compliance, due diligence and risk management matters.

As described above, McKinsey has a risk management and due diligence process focused on direct suppliers and our own operations. As we identify particular human rights and environmental focus areas in the course of our ongoing risk analysis, we will update this statement and address any identified risks in line with applicable requirements.

If McKinsey becomes aware of an imminent or actual violation of a human rights-or environment-related obligation in McKinsey’s own business area or at a direct supplier, we will, without undue delay, take appropriate remedial action to prevent, end or minimize the violation. The remedial action will be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other things (1) the requirements of the LkSG, (2) McKinsey’s ability to influence the party directly responsible for the violation, (3) the severity, reversibility, and probability of a violation, and (4) McKinsey’s contribution, if any, to the violation. Possible remedial actions may include (among other actions) implementation of a corrective action plan, disciplinary action, or termination of the business relationship.