Faulty Parallelism

You've fired off this email, or one horribly like it, at 4:55 on a Friday: This role requires attention to detail, communicating clearly, and that you are able to work under pressure. You read it back once, decide it's "close enough," and hit send. Every word in it is correct. And yet it doesn't read like something a competent professional wrote — it reads like something assembled under pressure and never checked.

Let's be honest — that clunky feeling has a cause, and it's not vague "bad writing." It's faulty parallelism: the parts of your sentence that are supposed to match, don't. It's everywhere in professional writing — job ads, CVs [US: résumés], reports, the bullet points on a slide nobody proofread. The good news is that once you can see the pattern, the fix usually takes about five seconds, and the payoff is real: your writing suddenly reads as more careful, more competent, more like someone who checked their own work before it went out the door.

Before you read on, here's where we're heading. By the end you'll be able to: - Define parallelism and spot faulty parallelism in your own writing. - Match structures across lists, comparisons, and correlative pairs like "either… or." - Repair awkward sentences quickly — no full rewrite required. - Use parallel structure deliberately, as a style tool, not just a "don't get caught" rule.

Beginner (Foundation)

Let's clear up the term first. Parallelism means using the same grammatical structure for ideas that sit side by side — in a list, in a comparison, or in two halves of a longer sentence.

Say you're drafting bullet points for your CV [US: résumé]:

• Key skills: managing projects, to lead teams, and communication with clients.

Three "skills," three completely different shapes: managing projects (-ing), to lead teams (infinitive), communication with clients (noun). Visually and rhythmically, it's a mess — and on a document where a recruiter spends six seconds per page, that mess costs you.

Now the parallel version:

• Key skills: managing projects, leading teams, and communicating with clients.

Every item now follows the same pattern: -ing verb + object. That's parallelism doing its actual job — turning a scruffy list into a clean one, which, frankly, is most of what good editing is.

What "matching" actually means

"Matching" doesn't mean identical words. It means same grammatical type:

• Three verbs: We plan, design, and test new features.
• Three nouns: Our values are honesty, curiosity, and patience.
• Three infinitive phrases (with the repeated to dropped): The role involves planning projects, managing budgets, and reporting results.

What doesn't work is mixing types in one list:

• Our priorities are growing revenue, to cut costs, and that customer satisfaction improves.

That's a verb phrase, an infinitive, and a full clause jammed into the same sentence — exactly the kind of jumble that makes a reader stop and re-read, which is the last thing you want in a proposal you're hoping gets a fast "yes."

Common Mistake: Assuming that as long as the ideas in a list belong together, the grammar doesn't matter. For professional writing, the structure is doing just as much work as the content.

Parallelism in simple lists

• In my new role, I'll write reports, attend meetings, and manage a small team.

Three plain verb phrases. Fine.

• In my new role, I'll write reports, attending meetings, and manage a small team.

The middle item breaks the chain. Fix:

• I'll write reports, attend meetings, and manage a small team.

Parallelism in simple comparisons

• Working from home is easier than commuting every day.

Two -ing phrases — working, commuting — sitting neatly on either side of than.

• Working from home is easier than to commute every day.

One -ing, one infinitive. Wobbly. Match them:

• Working from home is easier than commuting every day.

Quick recap: - Parallelism means matching grammatical types, not just related ideas. - Faulty parallelism happens when a list or comparison shifts pattern halfway through. - In lists, keep every item in the same form; in comparisons, match both sides of than or as… as. - Most fixes are small — you rarely need to rewrite the whole sentence.

Intermediate (Development)

Once you're catching the obvious slips, the real traps are longer lists that drift, correlative pairs, and comparisons where it's genuinely unclear what's being compared.

Longer lists: keep the chain intact

The more items you pile into a list, the easier it is for the grammar to quietly change shape while your attention is on the content.

• The workshop aimed to inform staff, raising awareness, and that people would share best practice.

Infinitive, -ing, full clause — three different animals wearing the same list. Straighten it:

• The workshop aimed to inform staff, raise awareness, and encourage people to share best practice.

We only write to once, but it still governs all three verbs — that's ellipsis working correctly, not a shortcut that breaks the pattern.

Pro-Tip: Plug each item back into the stem before you finalise a list. The workshop aimed to… inform staff / raise awareness / encourage people… If an item doesn't slot in cleanly, that's exactly where the parallelism has gone wrong.

Correlative pairs: both… and, either… or, not only… but also

These conjunctions all but announce that two things must match, and then writers let them drift anyway. (For the full breakdown of how these conjunctions work, that's covered in Pillar 2's Coordinating and Correlative Conjunctions — I'm assuming you've got that in hand already.)

• You can either call me tomorrow or sending an email today.

Bare verb after either, -ing after or. Fix:

• You can either call me tomorrow or send an email today.
• The upgrade will not only improve performance but also reducing costs.

Fix:

• The upgrade will not only improve performance but also reduce costs.

Common Mistake: Letting subjects and verbs tangle inside correlative pairs: ❌ Not only the manager but also the team were pleased with the results. ✅ Not only was the manager pleased with the results, but the team was also impressed.

The second option — two full clauses — is always the clearest way out when the shorter fix starts feeling forced.

Comparisons: making sure the right things line up

Comparisons go wrong when it's unclear exactly what's being set against what.

• My job is more stressful than my partner.

Read literally, you're comparing your job against your partner — which is a strange comparison to be making in a work context, or any context. You mean:

• My job is more stressful than my partner's.

Now both sides are jobs, which is presumably what you meant all along.

Another common one:

• Managing remote teams is different to when we were all in the office.

Managing remote teams is an -ing phrase; when we were all in the office is a time clause. Different shapes, blurry comparison. Fix:

• Managing remote teams is different from managing a team that's all in the office.

Pro-Tip: Whenever you use than, as… as, or different from, ask yourself: what two things am I actually comparing here? Then put those two things in matching grammatical slots. The clarity that buys you is worth the extra ten seconds.

Parallel clauses in business writing

• We need to agree a budget, that the timeline is realistic, and how we'll measure success.

Infinitive, clause, clause — inconsistent. Tidy it into one pattern:

• We need to agree a budget, confirm that the timeline is realistic, and define how we'll measure success.

Quick recap: - Longer lists drift easily — run each item back through the stem to check it fits. - Correlative pairs demand matching structure on both sides — don't shortchange one half. - In comparisons, make sure you're comparing like with like, in meaning and grammar. - When listing clauses, pick one structure and hold to it, rather than mixing fragments and full sentences.

Advanced (Mastery)

Once you're catching and fixing the routine errors, the interesting question becomes: how strict do you actually need to be? Real professional writing lives in the gap between textbook parallelism and natural flow — and knowing where that gap is, is what separates competent writing from writing that actually sounds like you know what you're doing.

Dropping repeated words — and when it's fine

Writers often drop repeated words to avoid sounding stiff, while keeping the underlying structure intact:

• You will be responsible for managing a small team, meeting weekly targets, and reporting to the head of department.

Technically that's for managing, for meeting, for reporting — but once for is clearly understood, repeating it three times just adds clutter. The pattern's still parallel; you've simply trimmed the fat.

Push it too far, though, and the pattern collapses:

• You will be responsible for managing a small team, meeting weekly targets, and that reports are sent to the head of department.

The last item switches to a full clause. Pull it back:

• …managing a small team, meeting weekly targets, and sending reports to the head of department.

Common Mistake: Thinking "I know what I mean" is enough of a test. The real test is whether a new reader, with zero context, can see the pattern without having to work for it.

Loose parallelism in conversation versus formal writing

Casual writing tolerates loose parallelism without blinking:

• I'm tired of writing reports, updating spreadsheets, and that no one reads any of it.

In a ranty message to a colleague, fine. In a report to your manager, it reads as careless — and carelessness is exactly the impression you don't want attached to your name. Tightened:

• I'm tired of writing reports, updating spreadsheets, and seeing that no one reads any of it.

For anything that represents you professionally — CV, cover letter, performance review — tightening these structures is a small, cheap way of signalling "I know how to write clearly," which, let's be honest, is most of what a hiring manager is actually assessing in the first thirty seconds.

Tricky patterns: "rather than" and negatives

"Rather than" ties sentences in knots faster than almost anything else in this article.

• We decided to invest in training rather than hiring more staff.

Infinitive versus -ing. Not awful, but crisper as:

• We decided to invest in training rather than hire more staff.

Or flip it into nouns:

• We chose investment in training rather than additional hiring.

Negatives compound the problem, especially with "not only… but also":

• The new policy will not only affect managers but also the staff in general are concerned.

A verb phrase against a whole new clause. Straighten it:

• Not only will the new policy affect managers, but it will also worry staff in general.

Parallelism for emphasis and persuasion

Beyond correctness, parallelism is a genuine rhetorical tool — it gives writing rhythm and punch. In a cover letter:

• I learn quickly, think clearly under pressure, and communicate decisions calmly.

Three short, parallel verb phrases, and the repetition reads as confidence, not padding. On a presentation slide:

• Our product is faster, more secure, and easier to use.

In a complaint email that needs to actually land:

• We were promised clear timelines, regular updates, and a dedicated point of contact. We received none of those.

If you want more on parallelism purely as a persuasive, rhythmic device — rather than as an error to fix — that's the territory of 6.1 Parallelism and Balance, which picks up exactly where this article leaves off.

Pro-Tip: When you want a sentence to really land — the closing line of a cover letter, the key point in an email you can't afford to have skimmed — try writing it as three parallel items. It's a classic move because it works, every time.

When it's genuinely fine to bend the rule

Writers sometimes shift the pattern deliberately, at the end of a list, to create emphasis:

• The job demands long hours, difficult decisions, and the ability to let some things wait until tomorrow.

The first two items are short noun phrases; the third is longer and more specific, and it stands out on purpose. You could force it into strict parallel shape — but you'd lose the emphasis that makes the line memorable.

The real test isn't "is this technically parallel?" It's simpler: does the reader have to stop and re-read to untangle the sentence? If yes, fix it. If no, you're probably fine — and you might even be doing something rather good on purpose.

Quick recap: - Dropping repeated words is fine, as long as the underlying pattern stays legible. - Casual writing tolerates loose parallelism; professional writing rewards tight, visible structure. - "Rather than" and negatives are common hiding spots for mismatched shapes — check them specifically. - Parallelism is a persuasive tool as well as a correctness rule — use it on purpose, and bend it only when the effect earns its keep.

UK vs US Note

The rules for parallelism don't shift between UK and US English — the structures are identical. Only spelling changes, for instance organise [US: organize], practised [US: practiced], and behaviour [US: behavior]. Every fix in this article works exactly the same wherever you're writing from.

Key Takeaways

• Parallelism means matching grammatical structures across lists, comparisons, and paired constructions.
• Faulty parallelism rarely blocks meaning outright — but it makes writing feel clumsy, and clumsy reads as careless.
• In lists and after correlative pairs, keep every item in a consistent pattern.
• In comparisons, check that you're comparing like with like, in meaning and in form.
• Parallelism is also a style tool — deploy it on purpose when you want a line to land.

Check Your Understanding

1. Fix the faulty parallelism: a) The role involves managing a small team, to prepare weekly reports, and presenting at quarterly meetings. b) Our new policy is clearer, more transparent, and it is easier to enforce.
2. Choose the better parallel version: a) You can either submit the form online or sending it by post. / You can either submit the form online or send it by post. b) The project aims to reduce costs, improving efficiency, and that staff feel supported. / The project aims to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and support staff.
3. Rewrite this sentence to repair the parallelism around "not only… but also": The move to hybrid working not only changed where we work but also our expectations of work-life balance.
4. Spot the faulty parallelism and rewrite: I'm responsible for scheduling meetings, that minutes are recorded, and following up on actions.
5. Write one sentence using "rather than" with clear parallelism, in a work or everyday context.

Internal Links

• 6.1 Parallelism and Balance — parallelism as a stylistic and rhetorical device, once you've got the structural basics down.
• 1.2 Objects and Complements — for understanding how verbs and their "partners" fit together.
• 2.2 Combining Sentences — for joining clauses effectively before you start listing them.
• Back to: Pillar 2, "Coordinating and Correlative Conjunctions" — the and / or / either… or machinery parallelism relies on.

If you start noticing faulty parallelism in company emails for the next week, don't take it as a curse. It means your ear's finally doing its job.