Reflections on the Craft of Clear Writing

EDITOR’S COMMENTS:REFLECTIONS ON THE CRAFT OF

CLEAR WRITING

Writing is hard work. A clear sentence is no ac-cident. Very few sentences come out right the firsttime, or even the third time. Remember this inmoments of despair. If you find that writing ishard, it’s because it is hard (Zinsser, 2006: 9).

Most of us struggle with our writing. Wethrash and hack our way through paragraphs,writing and editing and rewriting until we thinkwe’ve made some progress on that God-for-saken manuscript. The next morning we turn onthe computer, read the file, and realize that ourwork of art is a muddled mess. We curse, hit thedelete key, and start again. It can be a frustrat-ing process, particularly for theory papers,which are all about the writing.

But we hang in there. We finish the manu-script and submit it to AMR. We wait. We waitsome more. We get the reviews. The rejectionstings, but the reviewer’s comments are worse:“I’m puzzled as to what exactly you are trying toaccomplish here.” “The first twenty-three pagesare an endless literature review.” “I had to readseveral pages into the manuscript to get a hintabout what you are trying to achieve.” “Whatexactly is this paper about? After reading ittwice, I’m still not sure.”1

We open the freezer and reach for the Häagen-Dazs. We think, “What is wrong with these re-viewers? Why couldn’t they understand thepoint of my manuscript? It was so clear . . . orwas it?”

The first challenge of clear writing is to un-derstand your reader. With this in mind, I polledcurrent and past AMR board members, associateeditors, editors, and special issue reviewers to

get their insights and recommendations on thecraft of clear writing, particularly as it applies totheoretical articles. I asked them to share (1)their pet peeves about the writing style, organi-zation, and presentation of theoretical manu-scripts; (2) their thoughts on why authors engagein poor writing practices; and, perhaps most im-portant, (3) their advice and recommendationsfor writing clear theoretical articles. This simplerequest opened a floodgate: sixty-seven review-ers responded with over a hundred pages ofadvice and reflections on the craft of writing.I’ve selected a few of the most common themesand practical recommendations, which I hopeyou find interesting and helpful.

I’d like to accomplish a few things with thisessay. The first is to share the reviewers’ in-sights and reflections about the craft of clearwriting. These people are not just the gatekeep-ers of AMR; they are also peers who read, use,and hopefully cite your work. As seasoned read-ers who see more than their share of manu-scripts in various stages of readiness, they havesound, practical advice for those who are writ-ing theoretical manuscripts for AMR.

My second objective is to add the topic of clearwriting to the growing conversation about theimportance of writing in our profession (cf.Dane, 2011; Fulmer, 2012; Grant & Pollock, 2011;Hollenbeck, 2008; Huff, 1999). Writing is not just asupport-level activity; it is the primary way inwhich we develop and disseminate knowledge.I hope this essay will spark dialogue and per-sonal reflection about our shared challenges ofwriting clearly and the importance of clear writ-ing in our profession.

So here’s the road map for this essay: I beginwith a definition of clear writing, followed by ashort description of the informal poll so you canget a sense of what was done and why. I thenpresent three of the most common pet peevesidentified by the reviewers, their views on whyauthors engage in these practices, and their rec-ommendations and advice for authors who wantto improve their writing. I end with some

Many thanks to the AMR reviewers who shared their per-sonal reflections and insights on the craft of clear writing. Ialso thank the editor, associate editors, and my doctoralstudents (Dianne Murphy and Kyle Ehrhardt) for their com-ments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript.Most of all, I thank my husband, Erik Thelen, for encouragingme to write this essay and for being my sounding boardthroughout the process.

1 These are actual reviewer comments that were sharedby one of the reviewers who participated in the infor-mal poll.

� Academy of Management Review2012, Vol. 37, No. 4, 493–501.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0165

493Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

thoughts and reflections about the process androle of clear writing in our profession.

WHAT IS CLEAR WRITING?

Clear writing is a technique that was firstpresented in Robert Gunning’s classic 1952 text,The Technique of Clear Writing. His advice hassince been embodied in other classic texts oneffective writing (e.g., Williams & Colomb, 2010;Zinsser, 2006). There is no formula or template;clear writing involves a commitment to express-ing ideas with clarity, directness, and precision.When using a clear writing approach, the authorscrutinizes every word and sentence for mean-ing and purpose. As Zinsser explains:

The secret of good writing is to strip every sen-tence to its cleanest components. Every word thatserves no function, every long word that could bea short word, every adverb that carries the samemeaning that’s already in the verb, every passiveconstruction that leaves the reader unsure of whois doing what—these are the thousand and oneadulterants that weaken the strength of a sen-tence. And they usually occur in proportion toeducation and rank (2006: 6).

The beauty of clear writing is that it createsnearly effortless reading. The reader should beable to understand your key points and followyour logic without having to reread the manu-script. This allows the reader to focus on thecontent and meaning of your message, ratherthan how it is presented. The better the writer,the more invisible he or she becomes as his/herideas are “transferred clearly from one head toanother” (Gunning, 1968: 11). When writingclearly, the focus is never on the writer; it isalways on the reader. Clear writing may be el-egant, but it is never pretentious. The goal is notto show the reader how smart you are but,rather, to take the reader with you on a journeythat is clear, logical, and direct.

Clear writing is about writing simply, but it isnot simplistic. In fact, the more complex theidea, the more important and difficult it is towrite clearly. Clear writing is a special chal-lenge for authors who write theory, since theconcepts and relationships being presented areoften complex. But readers can’t use your ideasand reviewers can’t evaluate them unless yourwriting is clear and accessible. In the words ofone reviewer, “The authors may have a brilliantidea, but if they can’t articulate that idea logi-

cally and coherently, we can’t evaluate it.” An-other reviewer described his reaction to unclearwriting: “I am simply tired of reading passagesof manuscripts two and three times just to figureout what the authors might be trying to say.” Aswe will see, the reviewers point to a core prin-ciple of clear writing that was first identified byGunning over forty years ago: “Clear writing isbased on clear thinking” (1968: 11). It’s impossi-ble to present an idea clearly if it is not clear inyour own mind. The process of writing can helpyou clarify your ideas, but, in the end, the clarityof the manuscript reflects the clarity of yourthoughts.

THE INFORMAL POLL

I invited current (2011–2013) and past (2009–2011) editorial board members, associate edi-tors, editors, and special issue reviewers to par-ticipate in this exercise. I received responsesfrom 67 reviewers,2 who reported 483 years ofcombined experience reviewing for AMR. Thesereviewers have read and reviewed thousands ofmanuscripts, and they are clearly passionateabout the topic of writing. Their answers weredetailed, thoughtful, and perceptive. Many re-flected on their personal philosophies and ap-proaches to writing. One reviewer listed seven-teen pet peeves, and another wrote nearly fivepages of advice for authors. I was overwhelmedby the quality and breadth of their responses,which totaled over a hundred pages.

There was some variation in their pet peeves,which ranged from typos and grammatical er-rors to the use of lifeless, “emotionally gray”text. I also found quite a bit of overlap in theirresponses. I selected three pet peeves that werefrequently cited and, in line with the develop-mental focus of this essay, accompanied bystraightforward remedies. Some of the review-ers recommended writing resources that theythemselves have found helpful, and I’ve in-cluded these books and articles in the referencesection of this essay.

2 To maintain anonymity, I use the term reviewer whenreferring to respondents, including associate editors andeditors.

494 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

THE THREE PET PEEVES: PROBLEMS,REASONS, AND REMEDIES

Pet Peeve 1: Foggy Writing

The problem. One of the most common petpeeves cited by the reviewers is the use of need-lessly complex language that obscures meaningand keeps the reader in what Gunning (1968)would call a fog. One reviewer captured boththe problem and root of foggy writing:

My biggest pet peeve is when authors hide theirthoughts behind opaque language—arcanewords and dense sentences. I’m a firm believerthat the better one actually knows what one istrying to express, the more simply and clearlyone can express it.

Many other reviewers voiced their frustrationand annoyance with authors who “use overlycomplex language to describe straightforwardconcepts” and those who write with “needlesscomplexity—e.g., by using more than one termfor the same concept, by not using parallel con-struction, or by showing off with ‘big’ or ‘impres-sive’ words.”

The reasons. The reviewers offered a numberof reasons for why authors engage in foggy writ-ing. Some hypothesized that authors may betrying to “position their contribution as novel bydescribing it differently,” while others sus-pected that the authors were simply trying tosound impressive.

In line with these reflections, Gunning ob-served that foggy writing often stems from “writ-ing to impress rather than express” and offeredthis perceptive insight:

Many new terms are necessary, of course. Butmuch of this special jargon is designed to im-press rather than express. It rests on the mostludicrous of follies—the concept that complexityis the badge of wisdom.

Quite the contrary is true, of course. Wisdomgoes arm in arm with simplicity. The keen mind isone that can absorb a complicated problem, thenstate it in simple direct terms that will transferthe idea quickly and accurately to the minds ofothers. To put complicated ideas in simple lan-guage is not child’s work. It calls for sophistica-tion (1968: 9).

Gunning’s insights from forty years ago stillresonate today and are reflected in these re-viewers’ comments:

Perhaps some authors think that the use of more“esoteric” words makes their manuscript seemmore “theoretical” or “deep.” I prefer to read ar-

ticles that use simple language regardless ofhow complex the ideas they are trying to convey.

Good authors don’t try to demonstrate that theyare more intelligent than their readers by losingthemselves in overly complex formulation or us-ing a jargon that might be comprehensible intheir narrow scholarly community but incompre-hensible for management scholars in otherdomains.

The reviewers agreed with Gunning’s (1968)observation that “clear writing is based on clearthinking” and observed that dense and need-lessly complex writing “may indicate the lack ofclarity in the author’s own mind.” The reviewersalso pointed out that the writer’s own insecuri-ties and faulty assumptions about writing maycontribute to the problem. One reviewer wrotethat authors may “think that papers must soundappropriately scholarly—and that clarity some-how detracts from this goal.” Another reflected,“Perhaps they think content is all that is impor-tant in writing—they forget that if the paperis not clear and concise, content will not matter.”Another reviewer raised this intriguing point: “Ithink sometimes that people are afraid to revealjust how simple some of our ideas and theoriesare—that somehow it devalues them.”

Gunning pointed out that writers who useneedlessly complex language lose sight of theirreaders and explained that some writers en-gage in this practice because “they think com-plexly and will not take the time or trouble tocard out their thoughts before trying to commu-nicate them” (1968: 21) . He went on to note that“almost any writer, if he can get away with it,will write less simply than readers prefer” (1968:21).

Foggy writing may be due to writers’ insecu-rities, their misperceptions about writing, ortheir lack of clarity about what they want to say,why they want to say it, and who their reader is.However, there is another simple reason forfoggy writing. As one reviewer pointed out:

It’s more difficult to write clearly. It takes timeand a good deal of effort. Every time I read one ofmy papers I find ways to improve it. That meansI read my papers over and over again until I’mnearly bored to tears.

The remedies. The reviewers offered quite abit of advice on how to eliminate foggy writing.They also emphasized that there are no easyfixes or formulas for eliminating the fog of writ-ing—it takes work.

2012 495Editor’s Comments

The primary antidote for foggy writing is totake the time to really think through your ideasbefore you start to write. As Gunning advised,“To write well and simply you must train yourmind to cut through the surface details and getat the bones of your thought” (1968: 9). The re-viewers agreed: “I believe that if an author hasreally thought through the ideas in the manu-script, then she/he will be able to use relativelysimple language to express them.” One re-viewer described the process and prerequisitesfor tackling the first draft of an AMR manuscript:

If you know exactly what your story is before yousit down to write it, and know exactly who you aretalking to in telling this story, and know exactlyhow you want your perspective or theory tochange how people think, write, and do researchgoing forward, and know why it’s so critical forothers to know about your perspective, then youare ready to go. This can take years. It can takeweeks. But until you’re ready, the paper willnever come together on its own.

The most frequent and emphatic piece of ad-vice offered by the reviewers is to make abso-lutely sure that your manuscript is peer re-viewed before submitting it to AMR. As stated byone reviewer, “Never, ever, ever send a manu-script to a journal that hasn’t been peer re-viewed by people who will give you blatantlyhonest feedback about not just the theoreticalcontribution but the clarity of your writing.” An-other reviewer cautioned that

if your “friendly reviewer” is too friendly (i.e., hasfew negative comments), get another one. It maybe someone who didn’t take the time, or else isafraid of hurting your feelings, or is in a powerrelationship with you where they worry that theycan’t be honest (i.e., your Ph.D. student).

The reviewers also point out that goingthrough the motions of a peer review is notenough; it’s what you do with the review thatreally matters. Ignoring comments or trying to“tweak” papers that need a major overhaul di-lutes and destroys the value of peer reviews.There are two barriers that keep writers fromgetting the full value of peer reviews. The first isour tender ego and our tendency to internalizethe critique of the paper as a critique of our ownability. As one reviewer counseled, “Don’t getdefensive about negative feedback—treat it likea gift (you’d rather have it now before you sub-mit, than get a paper rejected over thesethings).” The second is that we are hopeless

romantics when it comes to our writing: we fallin love with our words and we just can’t cut themloose. But as Zinsser advises:

Look for the clutter in your writing and prune itruthlessly. Be grateful for everything you canthrow away. Reexamine each sentence you puton paper. Is every word doing new work? Can anythought be expressed with more economy? Isanything pompous or pretentious or faddish? Areyou hanging on to something useless just be-cause you think it’s beautiful?

Simplify, simplify (2006: 16).

Clear writing not only reduces the clutter; italso shortens the paper. Given the belt-tighten-ing page restrictions adopted by many journals,clear writing has moved from a desired to arequired style of writing.

Pet Peeve 2: Read My Mind

The problem. This writing pitfall is the evilcousin of foggy writing. The reader is presentedwith concepts, jargon, and acronyms that are notdefined or are used inconsistently in the manu-script. As one reviewer put it, authors assumethat the “reader is inside their mind.” Anotherreviewer elaborated:

Introducing too many concepts . . . without ade-quately defining/contextualizing them . . . is oneof the things that I find most notably detractsfrom the quality of . . . a manuscript. It is muchharder to read a paper if one is continually hav-ing to try to work out how a term is being used,particularly if one concept is being used as afoundation for another.

Other reviewers also expressed their annoy-ance with the excessive use of jargon and in-comprehensible text. “There is nothing worse,”wrote one, “than needing to learn an entire lan-guage to follow the point of the article.”

The reasons. The reasons for the “read mymind” problem are relatively straightforward.The first is that authors may be too close to thematerial. As one reviewer explained, “They‘know’ the topic so well that they assume otherswill.”

Another reason is lack of empathy and per-spective. The authors fail to put themselves inthe shoes of the reader. As Williams and Co-lomb explain:

What we write always seems clearer to us than toour readers, because we read into it what wewant them to get out of it. And so instead of


revising our writing to meet their needs, we call itdone the moment it meets ours (2010: 7).

One reviewer suggested that lack of claritymight even be self-serving: “[The authors] thinkthat if they don’t define their key concept, re-viewers cannot criticize the definition. Also, byleaving the definition ambiguous, they canstretch the concept while using it in theirtheorizing.”

The remedies. The reviewers offered straight-forward advice for addressing this problem. Asone advised, “Jargon should be introduced foronly 2–5 variables; the rest should be colloquialwords. Do not wholesale incorporate the jargonof other literatures. . . . just incorporate their rel-evant meaning.” Another reviewer offered a lit-mus test for eliminating jargon: “If spell checkthinks it isn’t a word, it probably isn’t needed.”

The reviewers gave other practical sugges-tions and techniques for improving the clarity ofmanuscripts. One advised, “Leave a written pa-per for a few days and reread it. If you don’tunderstand any sentence or other part of it, beassured that the reader won’t either.” Anotheroffered this useful approach: “One technique forimproving succinctness and readability is fortwo coauthors to read the paper together aloud.Reading aloud also catches typos.”

Underlying these recommendations is a fun-damental piece of advice: never lose sight ofyour reader. Each and every sentence has to beconstructed with the reader in mind. As one re-viewer observed, “In good papers the sentencesand paragraphs flow naturally from one to thenext without the reader having to pause to con-sider how points are connected.” Another re-viewer nailed the point with this advice:

My advice to authors is to use their imaginationsto take the perspective of an intelligent but naïvereader who has limited time and resources inreading their own manuscripts. Make their pa-pers worth the reader’s effort and don’t make thereader work harder than necessary to getthe point.

In addition to having your manuscript contentreviewed by peers, you can enlist friends andfamily as nonspecialist reviewers to read yourpaper for clarity. As one reviewer advised, “Letyour partner/spouse read it. If they have no cluewhat you are talking about, your writing is toocomplex.” A number of reviewers offered similaradvice, which one even dubbed “The Mom Test.”One reviewer explained:

I often find that the best way to avoid some ofthese pitfalls is to take off the academic hat, havea good conversation with a friend or loved one,and figure out what it is you are really trying tosay without the guise and pretense of all theacademic accoutrements. I also find speakingwith real managers helps to clarify how best topresent theoretical ideas and to pass the facevalidity hurdle.

Pet Peeve 3: Story, Story, What’s the Story?

The problem. The last pet peeve involvesproblems with the manuscript’s “story line.” Asthe reviewers pointed out, papers should offer aclear, direct, and compelling story that firsthooks the reader and then carries the reader ona straightforward journey from the beginning tothe very end of the manuscript. As one reviewerremarked, “Many of the AMR submissions I readare mystery novels, where even the author isn’tsure where the paper is going to end up.” Othersechoed that concern:

Many papers are fragmented, have no thread,and tell no story. Authors have to understand thatit is not my responsibility as a reviewer to searchfor the thread but their responsibility to make itas easy as possible for me to follow their story.

Good stories start with good introductions. AsGrant and Pollock (2011) point out, writing astrong introduction is one of the most importantand challenging tasks in writing an effectivepaper. The reviewers agreed and identified anumber of common problems with introductionsto AMR papers. In the words of one reviewer,“Many papers have horrible introductions. . . .[A] good introduction tells the story in a nutshell,embeds the paper in its research context, ex-plains the contribution (answer to the ‘so whatquestion’) and draws the reader into the story.”Another observed that AMR manuscripts oftensuffer from “long and winding introductions thatfail to concisely specify the contribution andhow the research is situated within the litera-ture.” The reviewers noted that many introduc-tions lack a “road map,” which gives the readeran overview of the manuscript, and a hook,which captures the reader’s attention. As onereviewer advised, “Pay attention to your intro-duction—that first page is where you capturethe reader or kill them off. Make me want to readyour paper.”

The introduction should also provide a clearand compelling justification for the manuscript.


The reviewers identified a number of shortcom-ings in this regard. As one reviewer observed,“Many authors fail to effectively problematizethe literature and articulate a compelling theo-retical contribution.”3 Building on this point, an-other reviewer noted that authors often fail toanswer the problematization question: “‘With-out this work, what can’t we understand?’ oreven more seriously: ‘what do we get wrong?’”Many reviewers expressed annoyance with a“fill in the gap” approach to justifying a manu-script. As one wrote:

It drives me crazy when the motivation for a man-uscript is because “no one has looked at X be-fore.” Chances are that no one has ever studiedthe causal link between managers’ favoritecheeses and their leadership style, but thatdoesn’t mean someone should.

Another reviewer agreed: “It’s common for anauthor to point out that a gap exists, but oftengaps exist because they don’t need to be filled.”One reviewer described his reaction to the gapapproach as “a total turn off. . . . if there is nobetter reason to write a manuscript, there is nogood reason to read it!”

Theory papers can also become “wait for it”stories. In this case the reader is forced to wadethrough pages of introduction and meanderingliterature reviews before reaching the core con-tribution of the paper. This can be a frustratingexperience for the reader. In the words of onereviewer:

If I haven’t reached the author’s own contributionby pages 10–12, I start getting annoyed. Much ofthe literature review material can often beworked into background support for one’s theo-retical contribution, rather than needing to ad-dress all of it within a dedicated literaturereview.

Another reviewer wrote, “My BIGGEST petpeeve is that authors sometimes don’t get to thepoint of their paper until many pages into thetext. It’s like they are waiting for the paper toinspire THEM (rather than the reader) in terms ofits overall contribution.” The reviewers ob-served that a consequence of wait for it stories isthat the manuscript may “begin in the middle”or “begin at the end.” This leads to underdevel-oped manuscripts; the authors spend more time

building the paper’s foundation than presentingand developing their own original ideas.

The reasons. The reviewers identified a num-ber of reasons for muddled and fragmented sto-ries. The process of writing may give authorsnew insights that take their paper in a verydifferent direction. In this case they may need torewrite the paper rather than try to salvage textthat is no longer needed or relevant. Cobblingtogether extraneous text can lead to muddledand disjointed stories.

Disjointed stories may also be due to “toomany cooks in the kitchen.” The reviewers ob-served that parceling out sections of the paperto different coauthors can create a multiheadedmonster if the authors do not share a commonvision or unifying “voice” that connects the sec-tions together. Coauthors may also be unwillingto cut and critique each other’s work, whichadds to the challenge of creating a clear, con-sistent, and coherent story.

Another key insight offered by the reviewersis that story lines suffer when authors try to dotoo much in one manuscript. Authors mistakenlybelieve they need to develop “the grand epictheory” that explains every conceivable aspectof the phenomenon. The story becomes an epicnovel rather than a tightly focused short story. Inthe words of one reviewer, “Great papers areoften amazingly simple papers. They have onemessage, not five.” Another concurred: “Youdon’t have to create a model of everything in asingle manuscript.” As observed by anotherreviewer:

It’s impossible to develop a wide-sweeping, per-fectly generalizable, grand theory in 30 pages, sotemper your aspirations and focus on observa-tionally based explanations of a particular phe-nomenon of interest to management scholars andpractitioners.

The remedies. The reviewers gave a goldmine of advice and recommendations on how tocreate a clear story for AMR readers. As men-tioned earlier, authors need to immediatelydraw the reader into the story with strong intro-ductions, compelling hooks, and clear justifica-tions. Once the reader is hooked, authors needto “deliver on the promise” and not disappoint orabandon the reader. Authors should guide thereader through the manuscript—the more com-plex the story, the greater the need for guidance.As one reviewer advised, “Provide a clear roadmap to show the reader step-by-step how you

3 For further reading on problematization, please see Al-vesson and Sandberg (2011).


arrived at your theory.” Another explained howreviewers could be used to assess the clarity ofthe story:

Give your paper to someone else and ask them totell you what the story of the paper is. If they can’ttell you the story that you think you wrote, youhaven’t written it. Ask them questions, find outwhere they got off-track and edit so that the nextperson who reads it doesn’t get stuck in thesame place.

The reviewers also counseled authors to findthe right balance in AMR manuscripts betweenattempting too much (e.g., the epic grand theoryapproach discussed earlier) and doing too little.As one reviewer remarked, “An AMR paperis not the front end of an AMJ paper.” Anotherreviewer concurred. “I think there is a sweet spotfor AMR papers that isn’t always easy to find,”he wrote, “where a model is novel enough that itwarrants publication in AMR but not so novelthat the arguments can’t be supported in a com-pelling manner.” He went on to explain:

Both as an author and as a reviewer, I’ve seenmanuscripts miss on either side of the sweet spot.If you have had an AMR submission rejected withfeedback that it basically looks like the front endof an empirical manuscript, it may be that youmissed on the side of not being novel enough (orperhaps not big enough; either way the manu-script didn’t reach far enough). If you have had anAMR submission rejected with feedback that thearguments were not compelling enough, you mayhave tried to reach too far. Try to think throughthis issue early in the process of drafting yourmanuscript.

Clear stories require clear structure, and thereviewers offered a bounty of practical advice,techniques, and “recipes” for creating a focused,tightly written manuscript. I’ve listed a few ofthese tried and true recipes in Figure 1.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON THE CRAFT OFCLEAR WRITING

Writing is a craft, but when it is done well, itbecomes an art. For many of us, nothing is asbeautiful as an elegant, tightly written manu-script that conveys a complex idea in a clear,crisp way. The paper draws us in, engages us,and changes the way we think and feel. Welinger over sentences and savor paragraphs.These are the papers we treasure, print, andkeep on our desks.

FIGURE 1Clear Writing Recipes: Advice from the

Reviewers

The Hook: Creating a Tasty Appetizer

“Sell the unique, ‘value-added’ contribution early, tokeep the reader’s attention and focus. I like the lastline of the first paragraph to provide a brief preview ofthe intended contribution, with a more comprehensivestatement of the intended contribution somewherewithin the first 3 pages.”

“Once you have specified the stream of literature thatyou’re contributing to in your first paragraph, andarticulated what problem(s) you’re trying to solve inthat literature in your second paragraph, you shoulduse the third paragraph to answer the question:How will you solve the problem(s) that you haveidentified? Give a brief overview of how yourapproach differs from earlier approaches, how itworks, and why it is superior. Give the bare essentialsof the answers to these questions, and nothing more.Then, immediately end the introduction, and movedirectly to your contribution.”

“If an author can write 3–7 solid paragraphs at the verybeginning of the manuscript, they are giving both thereader and themselves a nice roadmap to whatfollows. . . . those paragraphs can work as astandalone . . . [i.e.,] a short précis that the author canshare with lots of people for informal feedback (is it acompelling reason to write paper? Have I hooked yourattention?) before they make a commitment to the fullpaper.”

“Write out the first five paragraphs (FFP) 100 times ifthat is what it takes to hook the reader.”

Creating Coherence and Cohesion: Knowing YourIngredients

“Read the topic sentence of each paragraph alone, andsee if you are developing . . . a point in each sectionillustrative of the ideas you want to develop.Everything should be driving me to an unavoidableconclusion in concert with your model or theory. Thenmake sure all the sentences under each topic sentencedrive to explain and expand on that topic sentence.”

“Write the entire story line as bullets on one page,ensuring that the different key terms and relationscover the main aspects and are related in a logical,sequential way. Afterwards, refine the key terms andrelations to come with a more fine-grained structure.”

Getting to the Core: Embracing the Lean CuisineApproach

“One exercise that I do as an author (after I have writtenthe first draft) is to go back and justify the need foreach and every one of the para[graphs] that I havewritten. This forces me to make connections betweenthe different ideas in the paper and develop a goodmap of the overall landscape–which then helps thereader and makes it easy for them to follow mythought process.”


As writers, we strive to find the art in our craft.But as the reviewers observed, foggy writing,combined with a lack of empathy for the readerand a meandering story, can lead to a muddledmess that is far from the work of art we desire.The craft of writing has to be mastered before ittransforms to art. With this in mind, I’d like tooffer a few concluding comments on the craft ofclear writing.

First, clear writing takes a substantial amountof time and effort. There are no shortcuts to writ-ing clearly. Every word needs to be scrutinizedfor meaning, clarity, and purpose. As Gunning(1968: 4) advised, we need to eliminate wordsthat don’t say what they mean, words that don’tsay anything, and words that are used merelyfor display. Every sentence should serve a pre-cise purpose and be part of a clear, concise, andcompelling story that engages the reader andbrings the reader with you on the inevitablejourney that leads to your model. Eliminate any-thing that stands between you and your reader.Reject the assumption that scholarly writingshould be esoteric; our ideas are complex, butour writing should be accessible and as clear asa bell. We are well served by Gunning’s adviceto “resist the mischief of making what you haveto say even more complex in the telling” (1968:67).

Second, clear writing refines our ideas. Weneed to think clearly in order to write clearly, butthe process of writing with the reader in mindalso helps us clarify our thoughts. As one re-viewer commented:

The most important thing about good writing isthat it helps you think. That is, there is great,great validity to E. M. Forster’s point: “how do Iknow what I think until I see what I say?” (Aspectsof the Novel, 1927).

By poring over each sentence, making sure it isclear and connected to the sentences that comebefore and after, and by not hiding behind need-lessly complex text, jargon, and foggy writing,we drill down to the essence of our thoughts. Theprocess of clear writing helps us develop, distill,and crystallize our ideas, which ultimately im-proves the contribution of our manuscript. Someauthors hire copy editors to polish their manu-scripts and correct grammatical errors. Al-though editors can be helpful, resist the urge touse them in early drafts or to depend on them toclarify your writing. You’ll miss the heuristic

benefits of the clear writing process and theopportunity to develop your writing skills.

Third, clear writing is all about rewriting. AsZinsser explains, “Rewriting is the essence ofwriting well; it’s where the game is won or lost.That idea is hard to accept. We all have emo-tional equity in our first draft; we can’t believe itwasn’t born perfect” (2006: 83). The process ofclear writing helps us sharpen our ideas. It canalso illuminate flaws in our logic or approach.When we drill down to the core of our ideas, wemay discover a diamond in the rough or a lumpof coal. If it is coal, don’t try to pass it off as adiamond. Start fresh. Part with your words; it ispart of the process. As Zinsser points out, “Youwon’t write well until you understand that writ-ing is an evolving process, not a finished prod-uct” (2006: 84).

The last point is to have fun and find yourvoice. Be creative in your writing—but alwayskeep the reader in mind. Look to other writersand emulate their work, but only if it fits yourvoice. As Zinsser reminds us, “Be yourself whenyou write. . . . Never say anything in writing thatyou wouldn’t comfortably say in conversation”(2006: 25–26).

In conclusion, the goal is not just to publish apaper in AMR but also to write a paper that willbe read, used, and cited. To do this, we need tosee ourselves not only as scholars but also aswriters. What does it take to become a success-ful writer? As expected, Gunning gives a crystalclear answer to this question:

In general, you can define successful writers asthose who have something to say and who havelearned how to say it simply. No writer evergained a large audience by making his stylemore complicated than his thought required. Thewriters who gain an audience—the writers youread and can name—write surprisingly simply.They observe a strict discipline, but they intro-duce within that discipline much variety. Theywrite simply but they don’t get caught at it. To agreat degree, that is the key to writing craftsman-ship (1968: 12).

REFERENCES

(* denotes references recommended by reviewers)

*Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating researchquestions through problematization. Academy of Man-agement Review, 36: 247–271.

*Ashkanasy, N. M. 2011. Advancing theory: More than just“gap filling.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32:819–821.


*Cook, C. K. 1985. Line by line: How to edit your own writing.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

*Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 2011. Building theory abouttheory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribu-tion? Academy of Management Review, 36: 12–32.

Dane, E. 2011. Changing the tune of academic writing: Mut-ing cognitive entrenchment. Journal of Management In-quiry, 20: 332–336.

Forster, E. M. 1927. Aspects of the novel. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Harcourt.

Fulmer, I. S. 2012. Editor’s comments: The craft of writingtheory articles—Variety and similarity in AMR. Acad-emy of Management Review, 37: 327–331.

Grant, A. M., & Pollock, T. G. 2011. Publishing in AMJ—Part 3:Setting the hook. Academy of Management Journal, 54:873–879.

Gunning, R. 1952. The technique of clear writing. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Gunning, R. 1968. The technique of clear writing (rev. ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.

*Hale, C. 1999. Sin and syntax: How to craft wickedly effec-tive prose. New York: Three Rivers Press.

*Hollenbeck, J. R. 2008. The role of editing in knowledgedevelopment: Consensus shifting and consensus cre-ation. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H.Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship:16–26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

*Lanham, R. A. 2007. Revising prose (5th ed.). New York:Pearson/Longman.

*Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1997. Constructing opportu-nities for contribution: Structuring intertextual coher-ence and “problematizing” in organizational studies.Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1023–1062.

*Silvia, P. J. 2007. How to write a lot: A practical guide toproductive academic writing. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association.

*Strunk, W., Jr., & White, E. B. 2009. The elements of style (5thed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

*Suddaby, R. 2010. Editor’s comments: Construct clarity intheories of management and organization. Academy ofManagement Review, 35: 346–357.

*Toulmin, S. E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

*Weick, K. E. 1989. Theory construction as disciplined imag-ination. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516–531.

*Weick, K. E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 40: 385–390.

*Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contri-bution? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490–495.

Williams, J. M., & Colomb, G. G. 2010. Style: Lessons in clarityand grace (10th ed.). Boston: Longman.

Zinsser, W. 2006. On writing well: The classic guide to writ-ing nonfiction (7th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Belle Rose RaginsAssociate Editor


Documents

Reflections on the Craft of Clear Writing