Over the years, I’ve coached or trained hundreds of professionals to write clear, purposeful emails that save time. So I'm always pleasantly surprised when I discover a new approach, or a fresh perspective on an old one. Which brings me to Cal Newport's time-saving email tips he shares in his book, Deep Work.

In his book , Newport describes how emailing strategically to eliminate long back-and-forth message threads helps create time for undistracted effort on cognitively demanding tasks (the so-called "deep work.") Here's a quick look.

Too often, we send or receive vague emails before whatever issue or need being discussed is closed. Here is one example:

Vague: “Do you have any input on the proposal?”

This seemingly easy, casual request will likely generate in your audience a number of questions. For example: What kind of input? How much detail do I need to get into? How soon do I need to reply?

The following revision anticipates these questions and answers them in advance, enabling the project loop to be closed efficiently:

“Can you review the Materials section (pages 2–3) for accuracy? I’d appreciate your input by Thursday so we can submit by Friday.”

This approach also works when replying to someone else's email. Consider how to handle this message:

“It was great to meet you last week. I’d love to follow up on some of those issues we discussed. Do you want to grab coffee?”

Newport suggests a detailed response like this: "I’d love to grab coffee. Let’s meet at the Starbucks on 100 Main St. Below I list two dates and times when I’m free. Please choose your preferred one. I’ll consider your reply confirmation of the meeting and send you a calendar invite. If neither of these work, give me quick call and we’ll hash out a time that works. Looking forward to it."

It may take a few extra minutes to compose a reply like this one, but once sent, you can bet that the resulting follow-up will be minimized and both parties will be less bothered a game of email "ping-pong," meaning more time available for "deep work." I've already begun incorporating this strategy as I navigate my daily inbox!

Recently, the WEST organization, dedicated to promoting the career development of women in STEM in Greater Boston, unveiled an inspiring theme for the 2024-2025 year: Grit, Growth, and Gratitude. If this theme resonates with you as it does with me, the reasons go beyond the words themselves.

The Rule of ThreeFirst, this theme brilliantly employs the “Rule of Three,” a principle that groups concepts into a manageable number. Research shows that human working memory reaches its peak at 3-4 items, making it advisable to communicate in short bursts for ideas to be retained clearly. Additionally, going back to the early days (BCE) of rhetoric, three items are the fewest number to demonstrate a pattern, and groups of three have been inherently more engaging, memorable, and impactful. Think of iconic phrases like “Friends, Romans, countrymen…” (Shakespeare), “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” (an iconic Clint Eastwood film), or “location, location, location.”
Rhythm Makes It StickSecond, the “Rule of Three” in “Grit, Growth, and Gratitude” is enhanced by rhythmic variation, which makes the grouping even more unforgettable. The phrase exemplifies the “short, short, kind of long” rhythm, as described by University of Michigan law professor Patrick Barry in his lecture and book series The Syntax of Sports. An example here: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This rhythmic pattern falls under the broader category of “same, same, different,” where the “different” can be used not just for more syllables or words, but to introduce an element of surprise. For example, former UK Prime Minister Disraeli once said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Alliteration Adds UnityThird, the three words are unified through alliteration—the repetition of the initial "G" sound in each word creates a powerful sense of cohesion. Alliteration enriches communication by adding a musical quality to the language, making it more appealing and memorable.

Putting the Rule of Three to UseThe effectiveness of the "Rule of Three" transcends languages, media, and centuries. In my coaching practice, I encourage clients to use the “Rule of Three” in verbal communication. Whether making proposals, answering questions, or presenting topics, focusing on three main points helps you craft a pointed, concise message, and ensures your audience stays with you.

What works in verbal communication often works even better in writing. Consider the following before-and-after sentence examples summarizing results from a clinical study:

BEFORE: As predicted, the study showed that the new treatment contributed to an increasing quality of life because it reduced symptoms and led to better patient outcomes. (OK, but dry and unmemorable)

AFTER: As predicted, the study showed that the new treatment reduced symptoms, led to better patient outcomes, and ultimately increased quality of life. (Stronger and more memorable)

Have the grit to embrace the “Rule of Three” and watch your communication skills grow—your audience will be grateful for the clarity and impact you bring to your message!

I can't remember ever seeing "good writing" in any list of top skills for leaders. While most leadership experts cite communication as critical, writing, which requires a knowledge base and skill set very different from verbal communication, often gets little press. That's unfortunate because leaders write every day. Here are a few examples of how leaders who write well set themselves apart.

Effective written communication allows leaders to inspire and motivate their team members. Inspirational emails, newsletters, or personalized messages acknowledging team accomplishments and expressing gratitude can boost morale and foster a sense of camaraderie. A well-written, specific performance review can inspire a team member to improve, even if the content is not always good news.

Leaders with strong writing skills can drive decision-making and achieve positive outcomes. Persuasive proposals, reports, and marketing materials crafted with clarity and compelling arguments influence stakeholders. In his book Management Communication, A Case Analysis Approach, James S. O'Rourke IV observed, "Good ideas are invariably strengthened on paper, and weak ideas are exposed for what they are."

Leaders who write consistent and transparent business updates with honest business information build trust and confidence, fostering a positive work environment and strengthening partnerships with internal and external clients.

Finally, leaders set standards to help junior team members become better communicators. When a leader is forced to spend time extensively revising the written work of a team member before it is high enough quality to be published or shared, the entire team's productivity takes a hit. When I ask leaders how they will determine if my writing training and coaching programs get results, a common refrain I hear is, "I won't have to spend so much time editing!"

While the best leaders look to develop their employees to follow them into leadership, the best employees don't wait for that day. Their leadership journey starts with their first day on the job. In my next post, I'll share how good use of language and structure in written communication can strengthen the writer's leadership reputation.

Stringing sentences together that largely repeat the same information is a writing issue I often see with scientific and technical professionals, and it hampers readability. Sometimes this tendency creeps in because the writer is focused on being precise, or overuses the technique of making a general statement before a specific one. Or it happens because they simply miss the opportunity to consolidate the information. Here's an example:

Before: Comparative biodegradation rates of drug candidates A and B in screening testing showed only minor differences, which would not be observed in higher-tier testing. There were minor differences in the initial degradation rate (i.e., the rate over the first 24 hours) and the dissolution rate, which was impacted by the salinity of the medium. The former (3% faster initial rate for Drug A) is common in exaggerated laboratory conditions, and the latter (Drug A was formulated with 10% salinity vs. Drug B with 2% salinity) is a by-product of the experimental configuration and also would not be detected in higher-tier testing conditions. As a result, we conclude that the differences in biodegradation rate would not be significant in a real-world scenario and should not be considered as a part of the final Drug selection criteria.

Relevant topic sentence? Check.

Logical construction? Check.

Repetitive? Definitely! The last sentence repeats ideas that come before, and the second and third sentences are similar enough that they cry out for consolidation. Check how these sentences were merged, and how other unnecessary words and phrases were cut, to make it much easier for the reader to follow your points.

After: Comparative biodegradation rates of drug candidates A and B in screening testing showed only minor differences, which would not be observed in higher-tier testing. The differences observed were (a) a 3% greater initial (first 24 hours) rate for Drug A, and (b) slower dissolution rate of Drug A resulting from its higher salinity (10% vs. 2% for Drug B). Both results are by-products of exaggerated laboratory conditions, so biodegradation rate need not be considered as part of the final Drug selection criteria.

When sharing information about complex topics, or presenting detailed data, the best writers know that even subject-savvy readers can get lost or overwhelmed. Our brains need help processing the deluge of concepts, statistics, and jargon that fly off the page as if being discharged from a confetti cannon.

One of the simplest, and best, ways to avoid reader fatigue is to break your content into smaller chunks. Many of us have been taught the "one paragraph, one idea" rule, but by adding more white space, you're giving your reader permission to digest one idea before moving on to the next.

Have a look at these successive paragraphs from a November 2021 report from the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council discussing the progress of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives (numbering mine, and superscripts removed for clarity):

"(1) In 2017, MassBio, in partnership with Liftstream, released a report focused on establishing why women in the biopharma industry weren’t advancing in their careers at the same rate as men. The basis of that report was a comprehensive survey of Massachusetts biopharma companies. According to those data, Massachusetts biopharma companies reported their C-Suite was 24% women and their Boards were 14% women.

(2) Four years later, gender diversity at the C-Suite remains the same, with this survey reporting 24% female representation. However, while this level remains flat since 2017, C-Suite gender diversity in the Massachusetts’ biopharma industry is at a higher level than in Massachusetts’ top 100 biggest public companies, across industries, as recently measured by The Boston Club in conjunction with Bentley University (24% vs. 21%).

(3) The major shift is at the Board level with this survey reporting 37% female representation on biopharma Boards in 2021—a 164% increase over four years.

(4) This significant shift of gender diversity at the Board level can be attributed to a range of internal and external factors. However, there can be little doubt that the many public and private commitments of life sciences companies made over the past four years toward increasing Board gender diversity have produced positive results."

The authors could have combined paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 without breaking any rules of writing since those paragraphs focus on a single shared topic of their most recent gender diversity data. But wisely, they didn't. I especially like the break between paragraph (3), which is just a single sentence, and paragraph 4. As a reader, I'm invited to first digest the truly remarkable piece of data of the 164% increase in female representation on boards. Once that sinks in, I'm ready to move on to understand the reason for that increase, addressed in paragraph (4).

By chunking your writing, you'll save your reader frustration and the time they may have wasted rereading an otherwise large mass of too-congested text.