BLUF: A military standard to make writing more powerful
animalz.co
animalz.co
> BLUF is a military communications acronym—it stands for “bottom line up front”—that’s designed to enforce speed and clarity in reports and emails.
...thus following its own advice. One sentence in and I know what it's talking about.
Bottom Line Up Front: A military standard to make writing more powerfulWith BLUF the burden is on the writer to be clear and concise, not on the reader to make the connections the writer hopes the reader will make. Leading with BLUF and expanding the acronym later in the sentence leads with the form in which you are most likely to encounter BLUF discussed in a professional context rather than expecting the reader to read the expanded form first and make the connection that “BLUF” is the contracted form of “Bottom Line Up Front” and “Bottom Line Up Front” is the expanded form of “BLUF”.
I’ll own that mistake and leave my original comment up unedited as a testimony to my unobservant off the cuff commentary.
And that's were I stopped reading, because I don't believe there is anything more interesting for me after that inital sentence. For me it's a win, I learned something new in almost no time. Now for the author or publisher it's a win too if they solely want to inform their readers.
If the intention is to keep the readers on the site as long as possible it's completely different though. Good long-form articles that keep the suspense till the end have their place too.
Where it gets muddy, and this is my opinion the majority of blog posts nowadays, is when the authors can't make up their minds. I understand that a lot of authors have a journalistic background or at least some journalistic training, where the "Inverted Pyramid"[1] (which is similar by idea to BLUF) is held in high regards. On the other hand they are pressured by the metrics to keep readers on the site. Add to that the common SEO wisdom that Google loves long pages better than short ones[2] you end up with Chimera articles where one half want's to build suspense and the other is afraid to bury the lede.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
[2] I don't know and don't claim it's true.
> Army writing will be concise, organized, and to the point. Two essential requirements include putting the main point at the beginning of the correspondence (bottom line up front) and using the active voice (for example, “You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year”).
"The time you spent in training last year entitles you to jump pay [for that time]."
Although style guides like this one usually advise against using passive voice because it makes things harder to read, clarity should be the goal, not just active voice. This is a good example of a reason you might prefer passive voice: because the verb's subject isn't the focus. Passive voice can also be clearer than active voice when there's no relevant or meaningful actor to use as the subject.
Honestly, though, this is a case where the usual purpose of active voice rules (to avoid deenohasizing or obscuring responsibility) is not actually frustrated even though the sample is in passive voice so while I wouldn't use it as an example of active voice I wouldn't necessarily avoid it even given an avoid-passive-voice guideline. (And I've reviewed documents under publication manuals with such guidelines.)
But a passive sentence is one where the subject is absent - but in this sentence, the subject is 'you'. 'Entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year' is an adjectival phrase. The sentence makes an active statement about the recipient:
You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.
is no more passive than
You are a fine soldier.
A passive version of this sentence would be more like
You are being granted jump pay for the time you spent in training last year.
Active; "applicable regulations" are doing something:
"Applicable regulations entitle you to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
Passive; "applicable regulations" are still doing something:
"You are entitled by applicable regulations to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
Still passive; vague about what's doing something:
"You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year."
As you point out, "entitled" is often used as an adjective. I think you're right that the sentence can be read that way, and in that case it is indeed active.
After consideration, I think the passive read is more correct, but I can't yet put my finger on why.
You are entitled to jump pay for the time you spent in training last year
You are familiar with this aircraft
Nobody would argue that that second sentence is a 'passive sentence', and it consists - in this analysis - of exactly the same grammatical elements.
But this all just comes down to the fact that 'to be' is a weird verb and it screws with a lot of grammatical assumptions; that the way participial adjectives are used blurs the question of what is the 'verb' in a sentence, and even that the verb 'to entitle' is a strange one in that it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb.
I think we can all agree that it's basically a terrible choice of a sentence if you want to provide a clear example of how to favor the active voice in writing :)
It's an infinitival clause ('to' is not a preposition here).
It isn't difficult at all. E.g. in "This coupon entitles them to cheese", "this coupon" is clearly the subject. You may be thinking about thematic structure more than grammatical relations.
We also seem to use "entitled" to mean that someone thinks they are owed things when they aren't - you often find this in rants about individual jerks or millennials in general. There's no subject to be had in that use because the entire point is that it is not legitimate.
I think the latter sense is always an adjective. The former sense clearly can be a transitive verb, and I have not found a seemingly grammatical utterance that can't be described that way (I think - IANALinguist). The fact that the subject can be left unspecified is a feature of the passive construction in general, and an often-stated motivation for some of the criticism it receives.
My post was in response to the claim that "it is often tricky to pin down what would be the subject of an active sentence using entitle as a verb".
> "entitled" is being used as an adjective
But... I think that's always kinda what's going on with the passive? I can call someone entitled (although it usually takes a different connotation), but I can also call something "thrown" (eg. "The thrown ball strikes the catcher's mitt."). I think it's nonetheless uncontroversial that "the ball was thrown" is passive voice.
FWIW, checking a couple dictionaries (MW and AHD, chosen for being freely searchable online rather than quality) both list "entitle" as a transitive verb and seem (harder to be sure of with the interface) to omit separate mention of "entitled".
You run quickly.
You are a good boy.
You are entitled to receive praise.
?
Ed: but "you qualify for pay" might be better active voice here?
Ed2: I see jameshart made a similar point more eloquently about "adjectival phrase"
"You are smart" is a better analogue, clearly active voice. "You are hit" is another analogue, clearly passive.
I still believe that we can read the original sentence in the latter way - with "entitled" a verb used passively. I remain unsure as to whether we can read it the other way - with "entitled" as adjective.
Your suggested improvement is in the active voice, but it’s still wordy. Using can weakens a statement, so look to eliminate this worthless verb. Prefer will or in this case get to the point with “Claim jump pay on Form DDXXXX for the time …”
https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/p...
There are a decent number of long-form articles posted on Hacker News that don't follow this standard and don't have a last paragraph (or two, or three...) that's any more helpful. They typically have an intriguing click-bait title that fails to fully parse and I wind up clicking on them just to figure out what they're about. I read three or four paragraphs in and it becomes clear the article is going to do a painfully slow reveal of it's point, if it even has one. So, I scroll alllll the way down to the bottom, noting that it will take a good twenty minutes to read that far, and find the last few paragraphs to be utterly unhelpful ramblings rather than a summary or conclusion. Giving up, I read the comments here and it is frequently the case that a lot of people are just commenting on the title without having figured out what heck the article is about either.
I find this absolutely infuriating.
I apologize for venting.
I'd much rather them just tell me what problem they are having up front, so I cat least give them an answer and get back to work.
— ut?
— Ugh what? [ Stare at screen for what feels like an hour. ]
— nvm
Then close the app/tab and crank up that Led Zeppelin so you can GSD
Example:
Did you ask him if what the results were? -> Did you ask Jim what the results of the 2019 Survey are?
It's really helped me avoid being that person, and I've asked it of others with varying results.
I think of it as resolving all references.
(Can I make up a new TLA? RAR!)
He's a very chill person, but the problem was getting out of hand, so he started pasting users back with just a link to a page explaining why one does not simply do that. Some people took offense, but mostly the situation improved.
It was along the lines of [1], but not sure if it's exactly the same.
"Don't ask to ask, just ask" is their rule, and the frequently repeat it.
This military communications standard probably goes a long ways towards explaining why people seem to either think I'm rude, crude and socially unacceptable or refreshingly direct with no BS.
Very polite communicators actually can have trouble processing a situation that's fully laid out before without the protocols of etiquette. It's heck of annoying but one can learn to adjust to it also.
I actually think that sort of thing is a major underlying problem in male-female communication. When a woman says and does the same things as a man, it can get interpreted completely differently due to either the simple fact that she is female or due to subtle differences between "male culture" and "female culture" so to speak. (as just one example.)
I get that there is no single standard that works everywhere all the time. But I've personally found it very helpful to realize that low context culture is not somehow "socially worse" than high context culture. Viewing it that way implicitly promotes xenophobia, which ends up being justification for things like white supremacy -- ie "You people who are not like us are fundamentally Doing It Wrong because you are doing it different from how we would handle it."
It was helpful to me to realize this is a legitimate form of communication that faces specific pitfalls in the world and not some sort of character defect on my end. That helps me make judgment calls about when to approach things one way versus another and also helps me make my peace with "You can't please all of the people all of the time."
Which is to say that some guys can completely shift gears and accept the woman communicating as just one of the guys. And some can't. And it's not divided in some liberal/conservative fashion.
Also indeed there is no correlation between both styles and whether the people talking like that are polite or impolite. Massive impoliteness can also be hidden behind polite phrasing and intonation and vice-versa.
BLUF, as a generalized communication style, is a way of thinking that impatiently violates the social pleasantries of socializing for the sake of being social.
As in all communications, knowing your audience and their norms is of utmost importance to avoid miscommunication or giving offence.
1) BLUF statement of the subject at hand.
2) Details section that gives in-depth explanations and references to relevant military regulations as to why BLUF statement is correct / best course of action.
3) "The Way Ahead" section that gives recommended next steps or possible future issues to be aware of.
Beware of the potential pitfalls of "stating the key first":
1. The key point might be complex and requires a build up – rushing to the point could confuse your readers;
2. What's "most important" depends on the reader and if you write for a wide audience, it is not always obvious;
3. If you design your writing to be "modular", readers could be more likely to abandon your work prematurely;
4. Sometimes the most important detail is that you are taking the time and being patient to communicate, and making a point with little context could alienate;
5. You could feel lazy and not control the complexity of your article because "I already made it easy for the readers to skim and skip!".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
[1] https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.scip.org/resource/resmgr/White_Pap...
Probably there is a good reason why people usually talk the way they do: build up a context, make the listener (or reader) familiar with what is going on and why we are talking about this. And then explain what we are actually talking about.
This inverted pyramid talking style is so artificial and makes me question whether the advocates of it are just using it as an excuse to not read or listen to anything. It makes people indeed just hurry through communication.
I have had the experience of working in an environment with ex-military folks installed in leadership positions, the BLUF style of communication was standard issue.
One problem this style of communication has when applied to a non-military work environment is that top-down communication ends up taking the form of commands, as opposed to actually conveying information that would enlighten the reader.
That's a key observation. BLUF is most used when officers are talking to non-officers. The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. Between officers, BLUF is not nearly as common. The assumption is that officers shall have wider latitude, the ability to even disobey the specific instructions, and so need greater background information.
Captain to corporals: All pickup trucks shall carry a fire extinguisher. [BLUF]
Captain to Warrant Officers: Provide fire extinguishers in all the pickup trucks because local law requires it. [BLUF + context to encourage compliance]
Captain to lieutenant: A new law was just past that looks to require fire extinguishers in all pickup trucks on public roads. Please make sure none of our trucks leave the base without one. [No BLUF. Explanation of situation and commander intent. Specifics of implementation left in hands of reader]
I have seen it used by staff officers to quickly convey important information to commanders who need to make decisions and don't have time to read a novel of details.
Commanders need important information first and supporting details second. BLUF is an ideal format for this since it emphasizes concise, prioritized communication.
I spent almost 2 decades in the Army. Its a terrible assumption. Except for combat situations, other emergencies, or really trivial tasks, everyone should know why they are doing something. It is physically impossible to make a non-stupid person care about a thing of which they have no knowledge. From my experience, the one thing that has the greatest impact on a person's ability to do a good job is a genuine desire to accomplish whatever their objective is. If they don't know what that objective is, they simply aren't going to give a shit. They might get it done adequately, but the military is a self-proclaimed meritocracy, so one would think that isn't enough.
It has been at least 50 years if not 100 since the majority of enlisted people didn't have a decent education. Now its incredibly common for enlisted Soldiers to have an undergraduate degree. Education isn't a guarantee of competence, intelligence, or even anything remotely useful, but that goes for officers and enlisted personnel.
Yet the military still insists on operating like they did in olden times when the average enlisted person was an illiterate farm hand. Their primary business is the physical enforcement of political interests (AKA combat), so in some ways it makes sense for them even though it also hurts them. However, businesses should be careful when evaluating their methodologies for civilian use, because there are certainly a ton of drawbacks.
The reason the US military is one of the most capable fighting forces in the world has more to do with technological sophistication (created by civilians) and a near unlimited budget than it has to do with the leadership of the military, the horrific bureaucracy that the leadership created/maintains, or the frequently alleged magical, inherent superiority of the American soldier.
One thing that most leaders ignore is that explaining a decision to people who have no real input into that decision can often be really bad for moral. It makes the decision maker look less than confident, like they are seeking reassurance in their decision by explaining all the background behind it.
> It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done.
From my experience this mostly happens when the explanation is either blatant lying, or if its true and reveals that incompetence at a higher level than the officer delivering the message has generated a bunch of unnecessary work for the unit.
More commonly I hear Soldiers saying "This is stupid, why are we doing this?" to their comrades and NCOs. Usually followed by the Soldiers doing whatever it is to the minimal accepted standard.
Another problem is that it’s not suitable for marketing. How are you going to hook the reader if the copy is clear? Same in private life: How do you get loved if you communicate clearly your intentions? That’s what people hate the most! The whole left brain is high on imagination (or emotions fed by imaginated expectations), as are most people, and as an Asperger it is very hard to talk to people on this channel.
I’m serious. Marketing mostly relies on unclear information when needed. Example with the front page of Atlassian: “Atlassian helps teams work smarter and faster, together.” is not BLUF at all. BLUF would be “Atlassian sells an intranet, an issue tracker, a Git repo and a build engine”...
Well, at least I was made aware of this particular conceit by some rhet profs at Berkeley. But really, anyone, myself included, who writes inductively in a professional setting should be fired for having wasted their readers' time. Luckily, HN is not a professional setting.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_to_action_(marketing) [2] https://hbr.org/2016/11/how-to-write-email-with-military-pre...
Now it seems that the important things are buried at the end of the article. The idea seems to be to hook you in and make you keep reading. You hope to find what you're looking for, and in the process stay longer on this page, possibly getting distracted by ads and (intrasite) links.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-12/medical-eq...
If every blog intro followed BLUF, then maybe I'd be actually interested in reading them. Storytelling intros only inspire me to lose interest immediately and close the tab.
1. Here's an interesting puzzle.
2, 3, 4, 5. These are the steps I took to solve it.
6. Hence the solution is X.
1. Here's an interesting puzzle.
2. I found the solution is X.
3, 4, 5, 6. These are the steps I took to find that solution.
TLDRUF?
0. Statement of fact that constitutes the solution.
1. Here's the issue
2. The solution is X because (preview of analysis.)
3, 4, 5, 6. This is how we determined that.
Example:
BLUF: CONCUR, WITH CONDITIONS- The civilians may participate in the breacher training, but there are requirements to meet.
You asked whether civilian law enforcement agencies (CLEAs) may participate in breacher training on a space- and time-available basis. I have no legal objection, provided the CLEAs certify that receiving the training from commercial or other non-DoD sources would be impractical due to cost or time, and provided the request is routed for concurrence through the chain of command for approval by ASN(M&RA). Additionally, anything beyond marginal costs must be paid by the CLEAs.
Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. § 273
(b) DoDI 1325.21
(c) SECNAVINST 5820.7C
(d) DEPSECDEF Memo of 29 Jun 96, DoD Training Support to U.S. Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies
(e) 10 U.S.C. § 2012
Authority. Reference (a) grants authority to SECDEF “to train . . . civilian law enforcement officials in the operation and maintenance of equipment.” In paragraphs 1.f and 5.c of enclosure (3) to reference (b), SECDEF granted approval authority to the service Secretaries. SECNAV issued guidance in reference (c), including the requirement for cost reimbursement beyond marginal costs. Under references (b) and (c), ASN(M&RA) – in consultation with ASD(HD&GS) – may authorize the use of up to 49 DoD personnel for training; installation commanders or commanders of unit training centers may authorize the use of DoD equipment and facilities.
Analysis. CLEAs may participate in training if all of the following criteria are met:
- Extent. The training cannot be large-scale, elaborate, or advanced military training. Advanced military training, defined in reference (d), is “high intensity training” pertaining to interactions with a “criminal suspect” or “when the potential for a violent confrontation exists.” The breacher training will satisfy this requirement.
- Resources. Non-DoD training must be unfeasible or impractical due to cost or time, and the training cannot compromise military preparedness. You indicated that we have sufficient “depth” to accommodate the CLEAs without compromising preparedness, but the CLEAs must show that non-DoD options are unfeasible or impractical.
- Role Limitations. DoD personnel must not directly participate in fundamentally civilian law enforcement operations, and there must be no reasonable likelihood of confrontation between law enforcement and civilians during the training. This is standard military training, not fundamentally civilian law enforcement-related in nature. Additionally, it is unlikely that unaffiliated civilians will be present.
Alternatives. Reference (e) authorizes “Innovative Readiness Training”; however, subsection (i) of reference (e) precludes using that authority for “civilian law enforcement purposes.” There is very little guidance as to whether that might apply for a mere training program; however, the legally safer course of action is to avoid using this authority.
Conclusion. References (a) through (d) authorize us to permit civilian law enforcement participation in our breacher training, but we must first receive a request from the civilian law enforcement participants explaining why alternatives are not feasible or practical. Additionally, the request for authorization for the training must be routed to ASN(M&RA).
Otherwise it's unclear if there is missing content.
I'd also suggest one more thing: do not send emails on which you expect a response on Friday evening. It'll be gone and forgotten by Monday. Send it on Monday morning instead. OTOH if you'd like to bury some mildly bad news, Friday evening is a perfect time to send it out, for the same reason.
Executive summary: Summary: In general: Specifically:
Now I feel all sorts of validated for being pedantic about the whole thing.
In most of the companies I work with, there tend to be large email threads. It's not uncommon for a dozen people to be on a thread once I get snowballed into it. There are not only engineers but usually C-level folks as well.
By the time I make my reply, I usually end up writing "bottom up" just like you are saying... I write the detail, then summarize it above and then try to answer the top 1 or 2 questions I know the top-level folks will want answered at the bottom—even if it's just "we know what the problem is and it's been fixed or will be fixed shortly".
I think it's comforting for the top-level folks to see the respect that answers their questions quickly and it also makes them feel good that additional detail is available for those who care.
I think this is a relic of gradeschool essay writing rules (i.e, Say what you are going to say, say it, say what you said).
I almost alway stop reading an article once I sense I've reached the conclusion. That means I've learned what the author wants me to learn, and all I'm going to get next is a pithy sign off.
It's interesting to see known patterns applied in different environments and named differently but the essence is the same.
TL;DR: <Main point>
<Long explanation>
However, when writing comments on HN or other forums I go for what I call a "fireside chat" approach. Complete with metaphors, euphemisms and lots more sarcasm. Mostly because I find it more entertaining and enjoyable.
BLUF works when the power relationship between the speaker and listener/reader/writer was established prior to the communication.
The "purpose at the top" principle could be useful even for scientists or artists, though.
For example:
Purpose of email: evaluate yesterday's experiment.
Unfortunately, yesterday's experiment's results were bullshit, because I forgot to recharge the carbon dioxide canisters ... (etc).
This video is geared more towards academic writing, but, I've found it helpful even outside of that space.
So much time wasted 'handshaking' before an actual point is made before I can determine if I can spend time on the query or need to pass it on.
Just like the early returns in programming.
Write better, and be widely read. Good article.
As a participant in this arena, I can say my observation has been that the real experts often omit the term BLUF because it gets in the way of their message. Omitting BLUF is not a sign of expertise. Far from it. But the really expert empaths know when to break the rules.
It is a standard, see elsewhere on this discussion.