FOR EVERY SECTION AUTHOR /
SUBJECT MATTER CONTRIBUTOR
THAT CONSIDERS THIS DEGREE
OF CONCERN REFLECTIVE OF
“ANAL RETENTIVENESS”, THERE’S
A READER (AND POSSIBLY A
MULTIPLE THEREOF) THAT
CONSIDERS THE CORRECT USE
OF GRAMMAR REFLECTIVE OF A BASIC FIFTH GRADE EDUCATION
With grammatical standards slipping badly in
today’s digital/electronic communication-driven
society, there’s been an unfortunate flow-on
effect in the quality of written presentation in bids i.e.
responses to Expressions of Interest (EOIs), Requests for
Tender (RFTs), Requests for Proposal (RFPs), and the like.
Many years ago, when I was a fresh-from-high-school
cadet reporter, my subeditor (the unpleasable, unsmiling,
6’4″”Mr G”) forged my fledgling news-writing and editorial
standards by constantly drumming into me: “Make your
writing understandable to the lowest common denominator
within the readership. Make your grammar acceptable to the
highest common denominator.”
I’ve dealt frequently with the first part of the fearsome
Mr G’s admonition and, no doubt, I’ll continue to do so both
through this and other vehicles. However, writing – as I do
- for a predominantly senior level audience, I rarely address
the second part of his admonition in this type of forum.
But now, with the rapidly declining standards I’m observing
both in everyday corporate communications and in bid-related
documentation, it’s time to bring the issue out of the closet.
Before I do, let me make this point:
For every section author / subject matter contributor
that considers this degree of concern reflective of “anal
retentiveness”, there’s a reader (and possibly a multiple
thereof) that considers the correct use of grammar
reflective of a basic fifth grade education.
Now . . . relevant corporate and career-related
demographic considerations in mind, which of these two
opposing viewpoints do you think is most likely to be
represented on evaluation and supplier selection committees
in the case of high-value bids?
I sincerely hope you answered in favour of the latter (age
factors alone would suggest this.)
This, then, is your “highest common denominator” reader
. . . and his or her opinion of your organisation’s grammatical
standards stands to directly flavour the credibility he or she
attaches to your submission.
Subconscious Judgements Aplenty
At the most basic/overt level, certain aspects of your
submission – through your people’s incorrect use of
grammar – may be ambiguous or otherwise unclear to an
evaluation team.
At the more subconscious level, it’s possible the
evaluators could make an unfavourable judgement about
your organisation’s propensity for attention to detail in
its service delivery or other aspects of its after-sales
performance (including communication). If so, they could
be forming a hard-to-change opinion about the frustration
your people are likely to visit upon their people in your
organisation’s ongoing relationship with them.
And somewhere in the middle of the scale of concern is
the certainty that the evaluation panel will be questioning
the overall professionalism of the staff at certain levels
within your enterprise.
And all for the want of the exercise of leadership in your
organisation’s standards of written communication.
So, is it worth taking a standard against the popular
relaxation of conventional grammatical standards? Is it worth
demonstrating leadership in this regard? And, if so, is it worth
making certain these high standards are firmly evidenced by
the quality of your bid, tender and proposal documentation?
I vote “YES”. (Mr G may be watching.) How do you vote?
