Why can’t we all get along? Because we’re animals, meaning that conflict is inevitable as long as food, mates, and territory are limited. (In the case of humans, add money to that list.) These conditions are aggravated at work because the workplace is commonly a small, closed system where recognition, promotions, and raises are in great demand but extremely short supply. In other words, no matter how effective a firm’s leaders believe their management systems may be, people and their different personalities, ethics, and outlooks create situations that make it impossible to minimize conflict. NOT! In fact, effective management can reduce conflict, and – that being the case – one can surmise that employee conflict can be a sign of ineffective management, frequently associated with the following issues.

Centralized functions like HR, IT, and marketing can create conflicts because they put all the related resource eggs in one basket. Try to put enough eggs in the basket to meet all usual needs, or possibly consider an alternative or supplementary resource-distribution method.

Lack of accountability can leave people lost, resulting in finger-pointing, backstabbing, and other forms of conflict. (“She got the promotion I should have gotten, because….”) Lack of accountability commonly manifests itself when poorly defined objectives and/or metrics result in poorly constructed bonus, compensation, and promotion programs.

Shared or unclear responsibilities are blueprints for conflict. If responsibilities are to be shared, they must be clearly circumscribed: In fact, who is responsible for what? For that matter, any responsibility should be closely delineated, to help prevent people from stepping on one another’s toes.

Unstructured compensation and review systems are perennial conflict creators, because employees have little knowledge of: how they’re regarded by superiors, peers, and other coworkers; what they need to do to improve; the objectives management would like them to achieve in the upcoming months.Unstructured systems take on a veneer of structure by rewarding tenure rather than merit or embracing criteria that are vague and subject to interpretation, resulting in more exceptions than rules.

Overly structured compensation and review systems can be just as problematical, especially when their lack of flexibility prevents managers from recognizing rising stars by giving them a career ladder that helps them rise faster.

Poorly managed growth can create conflict when it results in an organization holding on to fundamental processes – like those associated with forecasting, operational and strategic planning, and budgeting – that worked well for the smaller organization that used to exist, but no longer does.

The “Peter Principle” holds that some people get promoted to a position they are not qualified for, and they stay in that position until they finally get it right. Which they usually never do. The result?Qualified individuals get stuck working for a boss or coworker they disrespect, creating conflicts between the qualified and the unqualified, as well as the decision-makers who, for whatever reason, are unwilling to replace the unqualified with those who are capable.

One of the nicer features of GBA’s webinars is the speakers’ willingness to answer questions. An important question came in after the webcast of “Think. Be Accurate.”, a John Bachner-led presentation focusing on commonly used words and phrases that can be dangerous. What follows is an edited version of the Q&A exchanges involved.

Tim wrote:
Good afternoon, John.

We just finished watching “Think. Be Accurate.” at our office and I have a question with regard to one of the phrases you brought up. We often use the phrase “in general accordance with project plans and specifications” in our field reports. We aren’t typically on site full-time and we therefore don’t want to make a guarantee that the work we observed was performed in full accordance with the project plans and specifications. However, it seems reasonable that we ought to tie our observations to the project plans and specifications, because if not, why are we even out there? In your experience, is there a phrase that is more suitable than “in general accordance with”?

Thanks for the lively presentation. I appreciate the ways you push the geo community towards excellence.
– Tim

John’s response…

Thanks for writing, Tim. Here’s how I see it.

If you were on the witness stand and opposing counsel asked, “What exactly does ‘in general accordance with project plans and specifications’ mean?” what would you say? I guess it would have to be along the lines of, “Well, it means we don’t have enough knowledge to know if full compliance was achieved, because we are not on site to look over everyone’s shoulder 24/7.”

Fact is, though, what you do is a far cry from that. You are providing that level of service the owner selected to satisfy the owner’s desire to assess whether or not a constructor is fulfilling its QC obligation to achieve certain specified conditions. I believe “in general accordance with project plans and specifications” creates an unwarranted sense of security and, therefore, is something you should not be saying. And why are you making that assessment when, in reality, it is the client who should draw the conclusions, because the client specified the extent of security it wants?

I believe a better statement might be:

“Our [observation and/or testing], as documented via the daily field reports included in Appendix A, indicate that the specific work portion we [observed and/or tested] met specifications of the contract. Please recognize that construction observation and testing conducted for quality-assurance purposes customarily involves direct observation and/or testing of less than one percent of the overall work that the observation and testing data are applied to evaluate. As such, you must base your conclusions about the overall work’s compliance with specifications on inferences you draw from the data we have developed, in accordance with the scope of service you authorized. If you believe the data we have developed are insufficient, we will be pleased to recommend and conduct additional observation and/or testing.”

Bearing in mind that I am not an attorney, Tim, this may be enough to get the point across. The conclusions to be reached should be reached by the client, not you. You’re there to provide data. The client has restricted the amount of data it wants, based on its own risk/cost evaluation. If you say “general compliance” and it’s not in compliance – general or otherwise – I believe you would be creating a risk for yourself that doesn’t really belong to you.

To which Tim responded…

Thanks for your thoughts on this topic, John, I agree with you that trying to defend that phrase on the witness stand would be uncomfortable, to say the least. Often, both the local municipality and the owner are looking to us for confirmation that the work was completed according to plans and specifications. If we put in too many limiting phrases, it’s likely the municipality would balk and direct us to complete enough field observation to be able to make a conclusive statement. We’ll need to talk about this internally and see how we can more accurately portray our work. Thanks for taking the time to get back to me.

John then offered…

Hi, Tim. Feasibly you could try something like what follows. It’s shorter but still explains the risks involved; i.e., you are doing what doctors do when they obtain informed consent from a patient. Your clients need to know that they DO NOT want you to say anything stronger, because that could make you liable for the contractor’s work, something for which you are not insured.

“Based upon inferences we have drawn from our [observation and/or testing], as documented by the daily field reports included in Appendix A, it is our professional opinion that the constructor is achieving specified conditions. Please recognize that construction observation and testing are sampling functions that involve direct observation and/or testing of less than one percent of the overall work that the observation and testing data are applied to evaluate.”

Dear Sir:

I read your article in the July/August NewsLog promoting the newly released PowerPoint template focusing on the value of geoprofessional services. Here at TTL, the geotechnical-engineering side of the house has used this PowerPoint with some success. We have given our adaptation of the presentation four times over the last year, twice to client representatives and once each at ASCE and AIA meetings. At each of these, we were well received and sparked interest that led to some healthy conversations.

As in any endeavor, we learn as we go. I have a few tips to share with those who use this resource going forward:

• Address the value you provide in the beginning. Often, linear-thinking engineers and scientists bury the lead, thinking we must give all the background first and then reveal the outcome. Not so: Make your value statements first and say them with strength.
• Put your best presenter on this, one that engages and connects easily with people and speaks authoritatively from a position of leadership. This may not be your ace technical guru. No matter, your technical gurus can go along should questions arise outside the presenter’s expertise.
• Practice, both alone and in front of your staff. Also, take time to predict questions and come up with possible answers to prepare for this portion of your talk.
• Offer PDHs and AIA credit (this takes having your version of the presentation vetted through AIA). If you offer CEUs, you’ll always have groups wanting you to present.
• Finally, success will live and die in follow-up. Always reconnect later to capitalize on solid opportunities to prove your value, putting your words into action.
• Thanks for making these resources available. Best of luck to the member firms that put them to good use.

Richard D. Heckel, P.E.
C.O.O.
TTL, Inc.

Good times just have to be around the corner and, when they hit, your number-one need is going to be employees whom you can trust to get the job done well. But why settle for good when you can have extraordinary? The problem is finding them, of course. As it so happens, you can make that problem far less severe by taking some of the advice offered at a recent leadership conference summarized by Geoffrey James in Inc. Online.

Define “Extraordinary”

Among your own employees and others’ you know, who’s extraordinary? And more to the point, why? What are they able to do that makes them so special? Which of their attributes make them that way? Are they perfectionists? Are they focused on pleasing others, including client representatives and coworkers? Are they good “schmoozers”? Is it all of the above and then some? Figure it out! Write it down. And then identify observational methods that help you spot the traits you’re looking for. And be sure to also develop interview questions that may reveal what you need to know about a candidate’s attributes that might comprise or at least lead to the creation of “extraordinary.”

Develop a Candidate Pool

Mr. or Ms. Right is not likely to walk in the front door ten minutes after you tack a “position available” sign to it. That’s why you should make it clear that your firm is always on the look-out for top talent. Use your website, social media, newsletter, blog, and person-to-person contact to encourage people to learn more about your company and possibly come in for an “informational interview” at any time, whether or not you have a position open. If the interview makes you believe that “this is a person I want on our team as soon as we have a position open,” then you can bet the individual is extraordinary. Use the same types of tools – social media, et al. – to stay in touch with the person. Then, when the time is right….

Hire for Attitude

Experience can be overrated, especially because it may have involved methods you’re not too keen on. Besides, experience may not be all that valuable when your work environment is subject to change or when the next few years may bring an individual opportunities that will require development of new skills. Developing new attitudes is far more difficult, of course, and it’s attitude that truly makes people extraordinary. What is a person’s attitude? Does the individual possess the traits you’ve already identified as extraordinary?

Ask Extraordinary Questions

You’re not likely to learn a whole heckuva lot about a person’s traits or find extraordinary candidates by asking ordinary questions during an interview. You need to ask questions that folks cannot easily prepare for and that reveal character. Here’s an approach we really like: Rather than asking people about their greatest achievements, ask them to write down their two greatest achievements from grade school, two from high school, two from college, and two post-college, with at least one related to business. Then ask the candidate to identify the one that is the source of greatest satisfaction. This should give you a glimpse into what makes a prospective hire tick.

Look for Resiliency

No matter what the job, it will entail frustrations and disappointments. Extraordinary workers typically are able to learn from these and move forward. The not-so-extraordinary decide to move on. “What are some of the biggest disappointments you’ve ever experienced?” may be a good question, with follow-ups designed to indicate to what extent candidates were able to dust themselves off and move forward. “How’d you overcome that? How long did it take?”

Look for Self-Motivation

Extraordinary employees don’t need constant motivation the way some top performers do. While, certainly, that doesn’t mean you should withhold frequent “attaboys,” it does mean that you shouldn’t have to constantly oversee a person, hold the person’s hand, and so on.

Speak with Real References

Plenty of people are likable and that trait can encourage others to give them a good reference. “She’s just a heckuva great gal” is encouraging, of course, but how likely is it that a candidate would identify references who may say negative things? Don’t limit your references to those identified on a candidate’s resume. Dig about a bit. For example, if a person worked on a certain project whose design team included a person or two you know, call them and ask about interactions they had with the candidate. When you hear “Great. I wish I had an opening for him,” then you know you have a winner, even if you don’t happen to have a spot just now.

We’ve written about the difference between “which” and “that”; how “which” tends to be more specific than “that,” but “that” usually works well and is easy. But what about the difference between “that” and “who”?

In fact, the two pronouns are not interchangeable at all, given that “who” refers to people and “that” refers to everything else (except for those folks who like to invest humanity in their pets, like Boston Terriers).

It seems to me that people would rather say “The lying, hired-gun expert that angry geoprofessionals virtually beat to a pulp” rather than “The lying, hired-gun expert whom angry geoprofessionals virtually beat to a pulp” because “that” doesn’t impose the quandary, “Is it ‘who’ or ‘whom’?”

The fact is, though, that “who” and “whom” are for people, and “that” isn’t. And as for “who vs. whom,” bear in mind that “whom” is merely the objective form of “who,” to be used as the object of a transitive verb or the object of a preposition.

“Including” does not mean “limited to.” Nonetheless, some people seem to write as though “including” doesn’t exist. What does? “Including, but not limited to.” How dumb does that sound? As dumb as eschewing “The alphabet includes A, B, and C.” in favor of “The alphabet includes, but is not limited to, A, B, and C.”

If you stated, “The alphabet comprises A, B, and C,” you’d be wrong, because comprises implies a limitation, which is why “The alphabet comprises 26 letters.” would be correct.

Of course, there are those who would also point out that “The alphabet currently comprises 26 letters,” in case you might confuse today’s alphabet with one that may come into existence sometime in the future.

And there also are some who would say, “The alphabet does not comprise 46 letters,” without indicating how many it does comprise. And, by all means, let’s give a big shout-out to those afflicted with PVA (passive-voice addiction), who would state, “The alphabet is comprised of 26 letters.”

Herodotus of Halicarnassus, the fifth-century BC Greek researcher and storyteller, is generally recognized as the world’s first historian. In his book The Histories, as translated by A.D. Godley in 1924, he supposedly wrote,

“It is said that as many days as there are in the whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and man at the interval of a day’s journey; and these are stayed neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed.”

Sound familiar? Of course it does: That’s what some anonymous U.S. Post Office official decided was a pretty good description of mail carriers of the day, and so had inscribed on New York City’s James Farley Post Office, “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds,” a sentence often misrepresented as the U.S. Post Office motto. (From all appearances, the real motto is “Postage Due.”)

And it’s a good thing it’s not the real motto, because it comprises (just as Godley’s translation, we assume) a language error, given that neither, just like either, is restricted to a couple; i.e., not one or the other of two or, in either’s case, one or the other of two. The corrected version?

“Snow, rain, heat, or gloom of night doesn’t stay these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” (This kind of harkens to “unalienable” vs. “inalienable” as used in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote “inalienable” and John Adams edited it to “unalienable,” which some people say is not a real word (like “reoccur”) and thus stands as proof that Harvard liberal-arts graduates like Adams are just a bunch of poorly educated liberal nitwits. As it so happens, however, either “inalienable” or “unalienable” is correct.)

Remember the “good old days” when interns were little more than free labor? (If you were an intern during that time, you may disagree about how good the old days were.) In fact, so many employers abused the internship concept that the U.S. Department of Labor stepped in to establish the following six criteria that you must meet to prevent an internship program from running afoul of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) and triggering FLSA’s minimum-wage and overtime provisions.

• The internship experience is designed principally to benefit the intern.
• Interns do not displace regular employees, but each works under the close supervision of existing staff.
• The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the employer’s facilities, must provide training similar to that which interns would receive in an educational environment.
• The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the interns’ activities and, on occasion, interns’ activities may actually impede the employer’s operations.
• An intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship.
• The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

But that’s not all you need to consider:

A recent report reveals that a major publishing company – Condé Nast – has revised its mandates for unpaid interns in an apparent response to recent unpaid-internship lawsuits reportedly filed against Hearst Corporation and Fox Searchlight Pictures. Condé Nast’s rules hold that unpaid interns:

• Must receive college credit for the internship.
• Must be assigned to an official mentor.
• Must complete an HR orientation about where to report mistreatment or unreasonably long hours.
• May not intern at the company for more than one semester per calendar year, unless cleared by human resources.
• Must only work on tasks related to their internship assignment; personal errands are not allowed.
• Can only work until 7:00PM.
• Will be paid stipends of about $550 per semester.

While these rules seem to comport with DoL criteria, they go beyond it. Should you do the same? You may want to check with an attorney to be sure. In the meantime, you may want to obtain the DoL internship factsheet (https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm)

Selling professional services is different from selling products. People can look at, touch, and otherwise poke, prod, test, and evaluate a product before they decide to buy. And while whom they buy it from may be important, the fact is that the product itself usually takes primacy.

• Not so with professional services, where the decision to buy must be made before the service can be evaluated. So what does the client representative really buy? In a word, YOU. If the buyer likes you and trusts you, in part because you make the individual feel important to you, the sale is yours.
• So, what do you do to make the person feel important to you? We can tell you one thing you shouldn’t do, and that’s have your cell-phone number printed on your business card. What does the card say about you to a prospective-client rep when your cell-phone number is printed on it?
• It says, “I don’t care who you are. Call me any time of day or night. I don’t care. I don’t have a life.” Now imagine a situation where you take your card without a cell-phone number on it and write your cell-phone number on the back of the card just before you give it to the prospective-client rep.

What does the card say? It says, “Here’s my private number. Call me when you need me to help. You’re important to me.” Especially when it comes to relational sales, little things don’t mean “a lot.” They mean everything.

If you’re like many individuals who learned English in the U.S. school system, you were probably told that, when it came to titles, you should not capitalize “little words,” like “to” and “is.” In my humble opinion, such guidance is absolutely wrong (and no, that is not how I “really feel about it,” because how I “really feel about it” isn’t printable in this august (actually July and August) publication). Here’s the rule you should follow.

The first word of a title is always capitalized, except when the word begins with a letter that maybe shouldn’t be capitalized, like “e-mail.” (Note that “e-mail” is far preferred to “email” because “email” has more than one meaning, with the lesser- known meaning (but only after the development of e-mail) being a hard enamel obtained by heating special paints in a furnace.) In that case, e-Mail may do, although, because that looks somewhat strange, most people seem to be using E-mail; it’s your call. But I digress.

All other words in a title should be capitalized, with the exception of:

• articles (a, an, the);
• coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, nor, or, so, yet), and
• prepositions (to, on, from, beneath, around, et al.).

The “little word” most commonly – and improperly – lower-cased probably is “is,” which should be capitalized because it’s a verb. “But it’s so little,” die-hard wrong-thinkers might say. Of course, the word “pi” is just as little, too, but even most die-hard wrong-thinkers wouldn’t think of belittling it via lower-case-in-a-title status.

Besides, if you’re going to lower-case “is,” then – logically – you would also have to lower-case “isn’t” (which in its uncontracted form in an improperly rendered title might otherwise have to look like “…is Not…” given that “not” is an adverb, unless one wants to argue that three-letter words also are little, which would open the floodgates), and, possibly, “would have been,” given that the latter, too, is just a variant of the verb “to be.”

Interestingly, the “to” of “to be” should be capitalized, because a word becomes a part of speech only when used in a sentence, and when “to” is used as part of the infinitive “to be,” it is not a preposition.

What part of speech is it? It could be an expletive, which is a word that otherwise has no meaning (such as “there” in “There is no reason for…” or “it” in “It is a wonderful day today.”) or an oath of some kind (a cuss word, if you will, a definition that emerged thanks to the Nixon tapes).

It could also be a particle, an old word given a new meaning by people who evidently were unaware that “expletive” already existed to fill the bill. In either case – expletive or particle – “to” would be capitalized. Thus, were one to have as a title “To Sing and To Dance” (or To Sing and To Dance were it a book), the “to” of “To Dance” would be capitalized, whereas the “to” of “Walking to Memphis” would be lower-cased, because “to” in that usage is a preposition.

If you have questions about English usage, send them along to Dr. English at info@geoprofessional.org…if you dare.

Thanks to the magic of electronic communication, it’s possible for the good doctor to make house calls. Make your needs for visitation known by sending your request to info@geoprofessional.org. Here’s a recent exchange.

Member:

Help us, Dr. English! We are debating the use of “a” or “an” before REC, the acronym for ASTM’s “Recognized Environmental Condition.” The controversy stems from whether one pronounces the acronym as a word or individual letters.

Dr. E:

Glad to help! The article you select – “a” or “an” – indicates how you believe the acronym should be pronounced. Phonetically…

A rec or An are-ee-see.

Thus A NASCAR fan and An NCAA Final-Four fan. Phonetically, NASCAR begins with the letter N while NCAA begins with the letter E (En See Ay Ay).

Member:

Thanks for the quick response, Doctor. Looks like we need to decide for our purposes if REC should be an acronym (a “wreck”) or an abbreviation (an “are – ee – see”), or – to avoid confusion – if we should simply spell out “recognized environmental condition” throughout the report as is done in the ASTM standard.

Dr. E:

Bear in mind that acronyms were created in the age of typewriters, to make things faster and simpler at a time when one mistake on a page meant retyping the whole page. Now, with global editing, you can change 6,284 RECs to 6,284 recognized environmental conditions in about what? 2 seconds?

And so it goes.

The good doctor has written about this issue before, with little effect. Now the good doctor is getting angry and may be ready to start making unrequested house calls. The topic: Expressions that have gotten twisted about, like the one that suggests we should hone in on one issue or another. But people do not hone in; they (as trained pigeons) home in. Hone in is just plain wrong.

People also continue to flesh out when they mean to flush out and vice versa. When one fleshes out, one (metaphorically) adds flesh to the bones, or words and sentences to an outline. When one flushes out, one gives exposure to something otherwise hidden, like a pheasant. Similarly, people confuse plan on and plan to. “I plan on going” actually means “I plan to go,” and professionals should express it as such. Plan on identifies the factors used to establish a plan; e.g., “When developing my system to win the state lottery, I plan on the frequency of sun spots. I haven’t won yet, but I plan to.”

Next, first right of refusal. Nope. What’s a “first right”? The real expression is right of first refusal, something usually gained by contract and meaning that party A is given the first option to refuse (or accept) a deal.

And if you want to debate any of this, you do not have another thing coming; you have another think coming.

“Farther” and “further” have for many years been considered interchangeable, but they are not the same. “Farther” is associated with physical distances. As such, if you can substitute “more distance” (e.g., more yards, more laps, or more miles) for “farther,” you probably have used “farther” correctly.

As examples:

• I wanted to run farther, but my knee started to hurt.
• My house is farther from school than yours.
• The new car goes a lot farther on a tank of gas.

“Further” relates to a symbolic or metaphorical distance, depth, or height, usually measured in terms of time, quantity, or degree.

If you can replace “further” with “additional” (among other words), you have probably used it correctly; e.g.:

• I called for further discussion of the matter.
• I need to look further into the possibility of moving closer to school.
• I hope gasoline prices drop further.

If you want further discussion of this topic, we’re no farther away than your telephone or keyboard.

When you purchase a service, you make the buying decision before what you buy is “fabricated” and delivered. Some people liken this to buying a bucket of steam…and they’re not far off the mark. So, what is it that people really purchase when they buy a service from your firm via you? They buy you! And why would they do that? Because they trust you. Professional selling, then, is really a matter of building trust with client and prospective client representatives. How do you do this?

Don’t sell! Instead, try to be the representatives’ trusted professional advisor. Start by becoming intimately familiar with their industry, industry sector, and company. Use the Internet and review annual reports, financial reports (from companies like eTrade), and so forth. What are the challenges being faced? Figure it out, and then speak with your client and prospective client representatives. “I see that you guys are looking down the barrel of ——,” you might say. “Am I right?” The representative may be somewhat taken aback by your knowledge, and might respond, “Not only that, but ——.”

The question then becomes, How can you help? And the answer is, By contributing ideas. And here’s the key issue: They do not have to be ideas about services you can fulfill. You simply want to help by contributing as many good ideas as you can. Being part of a marketing circle can help in this respect.

A marketing circle is a group of colleagues who regularly work together to share market information. As a geoprofessional, you may participate with an architect, civil engineer, structural engineer, CPA, advertising account manager, attorney or two, and a financial advisor, among others.

These folks would typically meet once a month for breakfast, and share what they’ve learned. You could propose that they all provide ideas on how to help your client or prospective client rep. Note that the ideas can come from their connections and life experiences. The same approach could be used with a group of your colleagues in your firm, although the diversity of ideas will be less robust.

No matter what, you want to develop a basketful of concepts to pick and choose from, and you could share the best with the representative involved. Your goal: To be of help, thus to demonstrate that you want your client rep to succeed, which is a fundamental basis for trust.

“You don’t do any of this stuff, though,” the client rep might say about some of your best suggestions. “I know,” you could respond. “I just want to help. So when you do need my services, you’ll give me the first call.” “I will,” you hope representatives respond enthusiastically. Because they trust you.

We frequently receive inquiries from members, and sometimes we publish them. This is one of those times.

Hello, GBA! We are in the midst of a discussion that we can’t seem to resolve among ourselves.  Our discussion revolves around e-mail signatures and professional licensing. At what point does having the P.E. in a signature line become an offer of providing professional engineering services? Does having the P.E. designation after your name indicate that you are registered to practice in the state where the e-mail recipient is located?  Does the physical address with the signature indicate that the person is registered in that location and the absence of other state listings limit the representation to that state?  Should the states in which the person is registered be listed after the designation as they would in a resumé or proposal for services?

GBA’s John Bachner replied: P.E. refers to a license awarded by a state after an individual passes an exam that is more or less the same as what is offered in all other states. I do not see (personally) how indicating one has passed an exam can be used to indicate that one is illegally offering services. My own attitude is that people who have earned a P.E. should use the designation wherever and whenever they can and not worry about someone claiming a P.E. should not be allowed to call himself or herself a P.E. if the letter or e-mail may be read in a state where the person isn’t licensed.

Nonetheless, given that some firms on their e-mails include a notice about confidentiality, possible errors, etc., that is many lines long, I see no problem in adding to it, maybe as a separate item, something like:

Mr. Smith is licensed to practice in Maryland and Virginia.

OR one could add,

The P.E. and P.G. designations indicate an individual is licensed in one or more states. Because engineers and geologists lack a common honorific (e.g., Esq.), common degree (such as M.D.), or common certification (like C.P.A.) to indicate their professional status, many do so by using their P.E. or P.G. designation even in states where they are not licensed. This is done solely to indicate the fact that they are professional engineers or professional geologists; it is not an offer to perform engineering or geology in states or other jurisdictions where they are not licensed.

One could also put after one’s name, John Jones, P.E. (VA, NM), or maybe even John Jones, P.E./MD, P.E./VA

I’m a John Jones, P.E. (no matter where) kind of guy, and somewhat recklessly advise others to live dangerously in that manner. (Why do the world’s most important professionals have these problems?)