TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Arguments not to use From:Marcia Coulter <notjust -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 2 Jun 1995 07:13:57 -0700
John Gear <catalyst -at- PACIFIER -dot- COM> wrote
>Someone suggests using this argument to explain the value of technical
>communicators:
>>The point is that logic rarely, if ever persuades anyone, and never
>>persuades one who is already biased. What is required to do the job,
>>if it can, indeed be done at all, is an emotional appeal. In this
>>case, I suggest explaining to that engineer that the true value of a
>>technical writer is the sparing of that engineer's valuable time so
>>that he can devote it to the far more demanding and more important
>>task of engineering. That is a persuasive argument.
>Of course, this runs the risk that the engineer with whom you are
>talking doesn't enjoy syncophancy and won't respect people who rely on
>it.
Is it syncophancy to recognize that the practice of technical writing
is not *personally* important to the engineer? I feel an almost
physical need to write. So while I value what the engineer does, I
*don't* want to waste my valuable (life) time engineering. And I assume
that the engineer feels the same way about his/her work. That's not
synchophancy; that's ackwowledging and using our differences to reach a
common goal.
>Obviously flattery has its place in a salesperson's toolbag.
>Especially the travelling salesperson who expects never to have to
>deal with the mark again. But it's an approach that doesn't help
>create authentic, interdependent relationships between coworkers.
Only in the toolbag of the mediocre salesperson; it's too easy to spot
and label. Better salespeople respect those with whom they work,
complimenting appropriately when appropriate. (For example, "Nice tie"
vs. "I understand that your design will both strengthen the bridge
supports *and* use lighter material. How were you able to come up with
that idea?")
Whatever the message delivered, respect is important -- for oneself and
for the other person. A respect noticeably lacking in the stereotype of
the traveling salesman.
-------------------
Marcia Coulter
notjust -at- ix -dot- netcom -dot- com