Writing internal documents that people actually read
Many internal documents in Japanese organisations are longer than they need to be, written in the passive voice, and structured around what the author wanted to say rather than what the reader needs to know. This is not a criticism. It reflects how most people are taught to write in professional contexts. But it produces documents that do not get read, which means the work that went into them is largely wasted.
Start with the reader, not the subject
Before writing anything, answer one question: what does the reader need to be able to do after reading this document? If the answer is 'make a decision', the document should present the options, the relevant information for each, and a recommendation. If the answer is 'follow a process', the document should describe the steps in the order they happen, with nothing else.
Documents that try to do both things at once tend to do neither well. A strategy document is not a process manual. A process manual is not a background briefing. Keeping them separate is not pedantic. It is the difference between a document that gets used and one that gets filed.
Length and structure
A useful rule of thumb: if a document is more than ten pages, it probably contains material that belongs in an appendix or a separate document. The main body should be readable in under thirty minutes by someone who was not involved in writing it.
Use headings that describe what the section contains, not what it is called. 'Current situation' is less useful than 'Why we are making this change now'. 'Recommendations' is less useful than 'Three things we propose to do before March'.
- One document, one purpose
- Main body under ten pages
- Headings that describe content, not category
- Named owners for every action
- A one-page summary at the front
Language
Write in the active voice. Name the subject of every sentence. 'The team will review the budget by November 15' is more useful than 'The budget will be reviewed'. The passive voice obscures who is responsible for what, which is exactly the information an internal document needs to make clear.
Avoid nominalisation: turning verbs into nouns. 'We will decide' is clearer than 'A decision will be made'. 'We reviewed the process' is clearer than 'A review of the process was conducted'. These are small changes, but they accumulate into documents that are noticeably easier to read and act on.
If you have a document that is not getting the traction it should, the problem is almost always structural rather than substantive. The content is usually fine. The format is what needs work.