The following column elicited a mixed response from readers.

Some readers, like readability consultant Mark, found it helpful; others, like Katherine of Fort Worth, found it offensive, an affront to public servants. Tom, Deputy Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, objected because he thought it reinforced negative stereotypes of government workers. He also found it ill timed, given Commissioner Michael O’Keefe’s leadership in improving the quality and style of the department’s correspondence with the public.

My intent in writing the column was not to attack writers in any particular sector, public or private, but to take a satiric look at a type of writer who offends the reader by writing in a style that is commonly referred to as “bureaucratic.”

What’s your take? Did I miss the mark? What do you think of my follow-up columns, which appear below. If you care to register your opinion, please send me a message.

Of all the on-the-job writers, the bureaucrat is perhaps the most misunderstood and maligned. Although many people assume that anyone can write like a bureaucrat, truly accomplished bureaucratic writers have devoted many long hours of study and practice to learn their craft.

To write like a bureaucrat, you must learn to think like a bureaucrat. You must cultivate a healthy disdain for others based on the belief that human beings are a despicable lot, a species worthy of your contempt, and that somehow you stand apart from the mob.

The best way to declare your separateness from others is to demonstrate, both in your writing and in your manner, that you are devoid of all human feelings and emotions. The more emotional the situation is for others, the colder, more detached, more distant you show yourself to be.

Once your mind is right, you’re ready to start learning the techniques of bureaucratic writing. Here they are:

■Never say please or thank you. Politeness undermines your position of superiority. As the person with power, you have
no need for social graces. Rather than “Thank you for your letter of October 1, 2000,” write “Your letter of October 1, 2000, is acknowledged.” Rather than “Please return the enclosed form by October 15,” write “Return the enclosed form by October 15.”

■Say no abruptly. Don’t beat around the bush. Your reader might mistake indirection for diplomacy. Bad news delivered
without preamble will make your reader feel discounted and unimportant. Rather than “Thank you for your letter requesting an exception to our policy,” write “Your request for an exception to our policy is denied.” Can you hear the difference?

■Quote policy rather than provide rationale. The best no is an arbitrary no. If you must offer a reason for your decision,
quote policy rather than explain your decision. An effective technique here is to quote long policy statements and to present them in single-spaced text, indented from the left margin. If possible, find some rule or regulation that, on closer examination, doesn’t apply to the situation at hand.

Note that policy manuals, often drafted by committees, are a wonderful source of bureaucratic language. Accomplished
bureaucrats have memorized any number of useful passages that they can slip seamlessly into their own writing as the occasion demands.

■Don’t explain a deadline. Never offer an explanation for something you are requiring of your reader. Remember,
explanations are a sign of weakness.

■Use nouns rather than verbs. Avoid action verbs. They convey movement, and movement is antithetical to the
bureaucratic mind. Think of yourself as a boulder standing in the way of your reader’s goal, not as a swinging door through which any dolt can pass.

Rather than “You must meet these requirements before we can approve your request and issue a permit,” write “Satisfaction of these requirements must occur prior to approval of any such request and issuance of any such permit.”

■Avoid using personal pronouns. You’ll find it easier to avoid action verbs, as well as to remain aloof and distant, if you
avoid using personal pronouns, especially I, we, and you. Note the effect of removing you, we, and your in the revised version of the preceding example.

■Use language that directs your reader’s attention elsewhere. Especially useful is language that points, such as
above-referenced, below-listed, herein, therein, heretofore, and undersigned. Language that directs the reader’s attention away from the writer supports the illusion that as a bureaucrat you do not exist in time and space. It’s as if you are saying, “Look somewhere else, not here, not now. I have no physical embodiment, no face, no voice, no mind.”

The bureaucratic mindset is a wondrous thing. Arrogance mixed with insecurity – what a powerful combination.