Per my last Memo….

The Lost Art of Memorandum Writing

** Applications for the Harding Fellowship are open through 10 September. Learn more here and apply! **

Years ago, before even many of our most esteemed Department of the Army (DA) Civilians were in the swing of their careers, memorandums (memos) were the information currency of the Army. Whether by typewriter or word processor, the internal staffing of short form writing on letterhead enabled non-verbal communication between offices and organizations. An office would type up the memo, slip it in an intra-organization envelope and have a runner take it to the addressed office (those odd letters in the top left of the memo) and slide it in the organization or office’s inbox for action (sometimes, with a DA Form 200 to as a “delivery receipt”).

With the advent of the internet, electronic messages quickly displaced memos for basic communication. This more timely and less regimented format aided the Army in becoming an organization of rapid action and change, defeating the tyranny of distance in communication. The memo didn’t die; instead, it was relegated to a tool to record official action (like policy actions) or endorsement (memo to get a Soldier into a Troop School). However, the gain in speed caused an eventual sacrifice of reflection and editing.

The loss of the memo has made our Army worse at communication–and is due for a relook.

With this shift towards email, a certain art was lost. When we write emails, the tone is “business conversational.” The voice is a reflection of our everyday verbal communication, usually without the profanity you may find in a battalion’s training meeting. Though email communication can sometimes cause confusion due to a lack of revision and editing in email, it allows for timely transmission of information. 

With the elevation of the email, memos have become mystified. Unlike email, there are strict formatting requirements. This formatting, though clearly laid out in Army Regulation 25-50 (Preparing and Managing Correspondence), often leads to emotional events when memos are turned back for correction by well meaning staff members and commanders, leading to one proven pre-formatted file being used over and over again. This is not to mention the seemingly strict administrative content requirements our bureaucracy has adopted. So often our memos and other writing—event oriented counselings come to mind—have “magic bullets” appended to them in the fear that without the correct sequence of incantations, the memo won't actually count. This causes one of two outcomes; either writers will seek pre-formatted memos without conducting any analysis of what they should be writing, or they abstain from writing at all.

So now what?

First, I am not proposing that we get rid of the disciplined use of email. It is too useful a tool and the momentum of the method is too great to overcome. It may be helpful for the Army to consider adapting AR 25-50 to give basic guidelines for email etiquette and use, especially with group addressing and mailing lists synced with the larger Army Information Management Office (with the aim of reducing catastrophic “reply-all” bombs). Though I would like to assume everyone is sincere when they hit me with the “v/r” in an email, the term has lost meaning at this point, and signature blocks vary from single name lines to thirty lines of points of contact and links or ASCII formatted pictures that are next to contextually inappropriate quotes of General Patton.

Second, leaders should encourage subordinates to write memos and seek opportunities for them to do so. Memos are to emails as professional writing is to social media: requiring deeper thought and revision to make a more substantive point or recommendation. When memos are submitted, we should focus our critique on content, providing guidance on format when it detracts from understanding.  Our subordinates fear writing because of the potential negative or over-dramatic feedback they may receive, leading them to not write and get the “reps” they need to develop. Without some understanding and encouragement to write, the Army’s competent communication may crater. 

As a corollary to this point, when memorandums are required for administrative or legal purposes, we should stress that there is no “magic bullet” statement that must be used. Though the content may be important, or critical context must be accurately portrayed, halting an action due to a lack of precision in regulatory terminology will stop independent thought and encourage the use of form memos in many circumstances where it is clearly not required.

Finally, leaders should look for opportunities to turn PowerPoints into memos. PowerPoints may effectively mix text and graphics  but this often turns a visual aide for a briefing into a complex, stand-alone quagmire. Why not turn the slide into a memo where possible? If the memo is well thought out, leaders and staff can synthesize the material ahead of time, come ready with responses or questions, use the meeting for coordination rather than briefing, and hopefully reduce time spent sitting around the long table. 

This last point is something I intend to implement when I take command in the 1^st Cavalry Division Special Troops Battalion next year, and I will update this post on the results. I encourage my peers and contemporaries to consider doing similar actions or, at least, to think about how we use memos.

LTC Nate Rice is assigned to the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate at the Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth. A career Logistics officer, his duty assignments include 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 69th Air Defence Artillery Brigade, US Army Europe, 1st Armored Division, and the Mississippi State University Army ROTC.