The Foreign Service Journal, November 2016

THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | NOVEMBER 2016 17 SPEAKING OUT Getting Beyond Bureaucratese—Why Writing Like Robots Damages U.S. Interests BY PAUL POL ETES “Innovation engagements” is a good example of the pompous jargon often used in bureaucratese—it sounds impressive, but actually says nothing. I s there a State Department writing style? Formally, no. Unlike The New York Times , we don’t have an official style and usage guide. The Executive Secretariat has a style guide, but it’s mostly focused on usage of acronyms and region-specific terminology. A few other offices or bureaus have guidelines for drafters, but these are all ad hoc, more along the line of tips than rules. As an organization, the old mantra—“the best way to write is whatever way your boss tells you to write”—still mostly holds true. But read enough State cables, memos and published annual reports, and you’ll see something resembling a com- mon style take shape. Unfortunately, it’s a style that’s often boring and confusing to read, characterized by wordiness, empty jargon, wishy-washy prose and a near total lack of human touch. It’s a style I call “bureaucratese.” Bureaucratese in Action Here are a few examples of State Department bureaucratese in action. See how jargon, clutter and robotic prose drain the life out of our writing and obscure our message. I found all of these examples on www.state.gov. USAID/State 2014 Annual Perfor- mance Report: “On another front, the Department of State is monitoring a Paul Poletes completed a tour as deputy chief of mission at U.S. Embassy Ashgabat this summer and is now studying Latvian at the Foreign Service Institute. He joined the Foreign Service in 1998 and has previously served in Athens, Dhaka, Bishkek, Tirana and Washington, D.C. The views expressed here are his own. positive trend in the number of foreign students studying in the U.S. and notes progress is on track to meet goal of a 50 percent increase in high-level science and technology and innovation engagements.” What are “innovation engagements”? I have no idea. Are they somehow related to the number of foreign stu- dents in the United States? We don’t know that either, because the sentence doesn’t say. This entire passage is mostly vague fluff that implies progress but in fact tells us little of substance. “Innovation engagements” is a good example of the pompous jargon often used in bureaucratese—it sounds impressive, but actually says nothing. Benghazi Accountability Review Board Final Report : “With increased and more complex diplomatic activities in the Middle East, the [State] Department should enhance its ongoing efforts to significantly upgrade its language capac- ity, especially Arabic, among American employees, including DS, and receive greater resources to do so.” This sentence is such a disaster, it’s hard to know where to begin. I under- stand what it’s trying to say, but can it be said more clearly and forcefully? “With more State Department person- nel working in the Middle East, the department must train more Arabic speakers—including in Diplomatic Security. Congress should give the department the resources to train more Arabic speakers.” The revision isn’t any shorter than the original, but it’s clearer and more to the point. Accountability Review Board reports should be hard- hitting and focused. Burying recom- mendations and findings under layers of bureaucratese does a disservice to the board and its mission. It’s Not What You Say. . . I singled out the reports above not because they are bad reports, but because they are good examples of how bureaucratic writing undermines what we’re trying to accomplish. As State Department officials, we’re trained to focus on the substance of what we write. We work hard to get the facts straight, forgetting that how we present the information is often just as important, or even more important, than the facts