A journey to learn how to communicate with people effectively........
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Correspondence Critique..........
From:
XXX
Sent:
Tue 2/3/2009 5:07 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject:
ARO position in XXX
XXX(Mr) :: Executive, XXX Undergraduate Program Committee :: National University of Singapore :: c/o XXX Admin Office XXXXXX :: XX-XXXX (DID) :: XX-XXXXXX(Fax) :: XXXXXX@nus.edu.sg (E) :: www.XXXXXX.nus.edu.sg (W)
----- Forwarded Message -----
Assistant Research Officer
An immediate vacancy for Assistant Research officer is available at Plant Systems Biology Group in XXX
Work:
1. Molecular and genetic study on plant stem cell regeneration,
2. Ordering chemicals,
3. Maintenance of laboratory and growth spaces
Requirements:
BSc or higher degree in Biological Sciences or related fields.
Highly-motivated person who is interested in plant developmental biology.
Lab experiences in cloning - design and construction of plasmids, PCR and other basic molecular biology techniques - is essential.
Prior experience in plant sciences is advantageous, but not essential if he/she is enthusiastic about learning plant molecular genetics.
The salary given is commensurable to educational qualifications and working experience of the candidates. Benefits include annual leave, medical and dental benefits, etc.
This is the e-mail I have received a few weeks ago which is related to the employment of Assistant Research Officer by one of the research laboratory. I think it is a bad example of business correspondence which did not convey the message clearly.
The subject of the e-mail is not clearly stated. People who receive this e-mail may not know the meaning of ARO as this short form can mean other things instead of Assistant Research Officer. Besides that, the e-mail did not state who were the target recipient and this will confuse the recipients as the recipients do not know the purpose of this e-mail.
The opening of this e-mail is considered inappropriate as it consists of the information of the sender. Although it is a forwarded e-mail, the information of sender should be written at the end of this e-mail or before the line forwarded e-mail. In my opinion, the opening of the e-mail should be written in the following way:
“On behalf of XXX Laboratory, I would like to inform you that XXX laboratory is urgently recruiting an assistant research officer. The following are the details and criteria about this position. If you are interested, you can contact XXXX@XXX.org.sgfor more information.
With regards,
XXX”
The content of the e-mail is not well written as it did not properly describe the job scope of assistant research officer and this will create confusion to the recipients. Besides that, the requirements for the position was very brief and the grammar used were inappropriate.
Lastly, the closing of the e-mail did not state the person who sent out this e-mail to Mr. XXX, which means that it did not state who the recipient should direct to if there were any queries. Besides that, this e-mail did not state the deadline for the application for the position and this might confuse the recipients.
In conclusion, I think this e-mail is not a good business correspondence and it did not fulfill the 7Cs of writing in effective communication and did not convey the message well to the recipients.
This email definitely does not make the cut in fulfilling the 7Cs of writing. However, I could understand it and if I'm not wrong, job applications don't come with application deadlines.
I find that it meets the mark of basic courtesy though it would've been nicer with a proper closing.
Other than the opening of the email (placing introduction at the top) and the abbreviated subject, I think the email is fine.
The sender did mention of the job scope. I agree that perhaps it would be better to give a more detailed description.
I think that when it comes to job advertisements; there is no need to state the intended recipients. By forwarding it to NUS students, it is understood that the email was meant for students from the relevant courses.
Even so, interested parties themselves would take the initiative to find out more about the job position. Otherwise, the email would not have concerned them in the first place.
I felt that the letter was quite to the point and complete in terms of the 7C's. And like Nadiah, I felt that the only problem with the email was that the the person's signature was at the start of the message due to the forwarding. More care on the forwarding person's part could have been done to ensure that the NUS students also get the email the same way it was received.
Despite being brief in the extent of which the job scope of an ARO was discussed I believe that it was actually clear about his/her main responsibilities. I also believe that this was made up for by requesting that interested applicants email the prof had they any other questions, which I'm sure that would have had, had they been interested.
Nonetheless, I think you were very meticulous in trying to follow closely to the 7C's. (:
I agree with you that ARO could be misunderstood for another position or people may not know what does it stand for. In this way, clarity was not attained.
On the whole, I think that the email was concise, to the point and complete because necessary information just as job scopes, job requirements and contact details were provided.
I think you did a very thorough analysis of the 7Cs here! :)
Hi Pooi San,
ReplyDeleteThis email definitely does not make the cut in fulfilling the 7Cs of writing. However, I could understand it and if I'm not wrong, job applications don't come with application deadlines.
I find that it meets the mark of basic courtesy though it would've been nicer with a proper closing.
Just my two cents worth.
Cheers!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Pooi San,
ReplyDeleteOther than the opening of the email (placing introduction at the top) and the abbreviated subject, I think the email is fine.
The sender did mention of the job scope. I agree that perhaps it would be better to give a more detailed description.
I think that when it comes to job advertisements; there is no need to state the intended recipients. By forwarding it to NUS students, it is understood that the email was meant for students from the relevant courses.
Even so, interested parties themselves would take the initiative to find out more about the job position. Otherwise, the email would not have concerned them in the first place.
Good analysis by the way! =)
Hi Pooi San,
ReplyDeleteI felt that the letter was quite to the point and complete in terms of the 7C's. And like Nadiah, I felt that the only problem with the email was that the the person's signature was at the start of the message due to the forwarding. More care on the forwarding person's part could have been done to ensure that the NUS students also get the email the same way it was received.
Despite being brief in the extent of which the job scope of an ARO was discussed I believe that it was actually clear about his/her main responsibilities. I also believe that this was made up for by requesting that interested applicants email the prof had they any other questions, which I'm sure that would have had, had they been interested.
Nonetheless, I think you were very meticulous in trying to follow closely to the 7C's. (:
Thanks, Pooi San, for posting this example, and for your detailed analysis, which has received lots of feedback.
ReplyDeleteHey Roy, Nadiah and Jane,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments and suggestion!!!=)
Hi Pooi San!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that ARO could be misunderstood for another position or people may not know what does it stand for. In this way, clarity was not attained.
On the whole, I think that the email was concise, to the point and complete because necessary information just as job scopes, job requirements and contact details were provided.
I think you did a very thorough analysis of the 7Cs here! :)