How Do I Tactfully Manage Emotional Writers

June 18, 2010 6:45 PM

I'm responsible for all the documentation at my workplace. I receive a few documents per day, and invariably they're somewhat badly written. So part of my process is that I edit them and clean them up before I post them on our intranet. Most folks like that I do this, but there are some who take it personally and consider the document to be "theirs" - because they wrote it. However, the document is really for other people, and if it's difficult for others to understand, or there are steps missing, or at worst it causes confusion, then it is not a good document and requires modification. How do I tactfully manage this?

I understand that some folks can interpret my edits as a criticism of their documentation skills - or worse, their English skills - but these folks also do not get that just because *they* understand their doc, it doesn't mean that others will.

I need to be able to edit these documents without provoking conflict, but I also do not really have time to go back and forth - maybe I just need to clarify that this is part of the process. Any other suggestions?

posted by forallmankind to Work & Money (23 answers total)

What about getting your boss, or other higher-up/s to get behind this? Can you also get written policy that you can point to when questioned?
posted by cestmoi15 at 6:51 PM on June 18, 2010

If these documents are all similar, you can come at it from a "standardizaion" perspective. that makes it less about the quality of their work and more about making everything "standardized". That way, it's something that needs to be done to EVERYBODY'S work not just theirs.
posted by cosmicbandito at 7:06 PM on June 18, 2010 [5 favorites]

It's either a job "requirement" that you do it, or it's not. If it is, then people will just have to be informed or reminded of that, and let it be. If it's not, then it may take a conversation between your supervisor and theirs to clarify whether the purpose of their document requires your editing or not. Maybe perfect spelling and sentence structure doesn't matter to them since it's internal. It may be that letting the confusion happen once or twice will get the higher ups on board and you will be seen as a needed step. Show your supervisor some examples of the documents you receive and leave it to them.
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 7:10 PM on June 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

(1) Create a style guide.

(2) When people submit files, say that part of the new workflow is for you to edit all documents to make them conform with the style guide so that all documentation is consistent.

(3) Try to frame all your changes as necessary because of the style guide.
posted by ifandonlyif at 7:14 PM on June 18, 2010 [4 favorites]

Do you have a style guide? If not, it might be worth looking to produce one - which might improve the quality of writing in the documents submitted, or at least provide objective justification for edits.

Is there any way you can identify common problems? (eg: use of internal jargon, overly detailed technical language, ambiguity, missing steps) You could run short sessions on "writing for your audience" or similar - again, working to improve the initial product while also helping to publicise why you make the changes you make.

You say that there isn't time to go back and forth - but would there be time to at least send the document back to the author before publication? Not to approve it, but in an "if you have any problems with my edits, please let me know by 5pm" kind of way. I get a lot of documents written by techies supposedly for an end user audience and they always need editing before sending out - I send a copy of the final version to the author as a courtesy and while I think it's rare that they actually review the changes, it's an easy way of making them feel that it's still their document.

(From the other perspective, our external comms go through a separate team who make changes to comply with the style guide. I remember writing something about an upgrade on 31st March, which according to the style guide should have been 31 March. Unfortunately in their edit, they removed not only the "s" and "t", but also the "1". They didn't check their changes with us first. It caused a few problems...)

Having a written procedure in place could also be helpful, so that people submitting documents understand that the reviewing / editing process is standard and not specific to their document (i.e. don't take it personally!). A more formal process may also help to create the time for the author to review changes - "if you want your document published on a Friday, please submit by Tuesday" (I don't know the industry you're working in, so this may not be possible)
posted by finding.perdita at 7:16 PM on June 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

You could find examples of the special relationship between great writers and their editors, of the significant changes made by editors to improve great prose that were unappreciated until after the Pulitzer was awarded.
posted by Pamelayne at 7:19 PM on June 18, 2010

Nthing the creation of a style guide, emphasizing that this is to ensure that these documents are useful for posterity and standardized, and that everyone's documents go through a process.
posted by desuetude at 7:31 PM on June 18, 2010

Yes on style guide, yes on "brand identity", yes on "right of review" with no right of approval.

You're the editor, you get to make the call. Get your boss behind this: write up a proposal from soup to nuts so that all the work your superiors have to do is give it their imprimatur and let you go on with their support/topcover. A proposal will also solidify the job in your mind as a regular work duty and give you an opportunity to standardize things. Roll writing the style guide into the proposal.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 7:58 PM on June 18, 2010

I am the type of guy who gives you the problems you're talking about. I've dealt with people who have the same job as you numerous times, and it frequently goes badly. Here's why:

You perhaps don't have a feeling for how much effort has gone into the document that someone is submitting. This writing process may have taken weeks, and the drafts reviewed by a large number of people. Also, the terminology in the document may be very particular. Some words may be capitalized for a reason (ie: words that have a Special Meaning in the context of the document). A lot of care has gone into the document. And then you show up, and edit the document trying in good faith (I assume) to make it better. But you frequently break things, or make them less clear, or undo a lot of good work that has gone into the document. Also, there is the possibility -- unintentionally, obviously -- that you've changed the meaning of some parts of the document.

Also, your process sounds pretty one-sided. Someone sends you a document, you change it, and then "publish" it. This is not how it's supposed to work. You say that you don't have time to go back-and-forth with the author, but that doesn't really respect the amount of time that the author took for the document. He's spent many, many hours on writing and reviewing this thing; you've spent a couple of hours on editing it. Frankly, it's disrespectful of the author for you to think that you can't take a little more time to make sure that you got your edits right. This may be what your authors are getting pissed off about.

Additionally, you may be accustomed to dealing with certain people who don't really understand grammar well, or may not care much about formatting. So you do what you need to do for those documents. However, some people do take a lot of care for both, and you need to make sure that you don't treat all authors as though none of them is good about grammar or cares about their product. Approach each author differently. If you have the same guys sumitting reports over and over, learn what each one typically does wrong and concentrate on that. Maybe give some feedback and suggestions for their next document.

Finally, many people do take it personally, even though they should realize that it's not personal. This is where your person skills come in. You need to make the authors realize that you are there to help them make their document as good as it can be, and not just to be an English teacher one-sidedly marking-up their documents. Take time to meet with them, discuss it a little. Communicating the suggestions/changes by email (or worse, not at all discussing the changes before publishing) is likely to leave the author feeling like you're taking a dump on his work. A quick phone call or meeting in person (not necessarily formally) can go a long way towards avoiding any hard feelings.

Wow, that was cathartic. I've dealt with this type of situation too many times from the opposite side of yours. Maybe I'll copy-and-paste this into an email next time this type of problem comes up at work!
posted by Simon Barclay at 8:06 PM on June 18, 2010 [12 favorites]

I believe the OP said that Most folks like that I do this.
posted by apartment dweller at 9:13 PM on June 18, 2010

Response by poster: Simon Barclay - there are numerous presumptions and unsubstantiated conclusions in your response which are perhaps relevant to your situation, but completely incorrect with regard to mine.
I am thrilled that you have had a cathartic release, less so that you've had to $hit on me to do it. As you say - this is not how this is supposed to work. Flagged.
posted by forallmankind at 9:31 PM on June 18, 2010 [3 favorites]

Also nthing the style guide. It's also good to keep a standard grammar text on hand; sometimes what authors think they know about punctuation, spelling, word usage, grammar, etc., is simply incorrect (e.g., it is not a stylistic matter).

Good technical writers are good precisely because they are careful not to change the author's intent or meaning; they serve as a fresh set of eyes, often identifying key points missing from the originally submitted work.

It's always good to explain this process to the original author. Even after the fact, if deadlines mean that publication has to happen before the one-on-one with the author.

Much depends on the size of the organization, the nature of the documents in question, and on the expectations of your [the OP's] boss.

(30+ years experience here in being on both sides of the situation.)
posted by apartment dweller at 9:34 PM on June 18, 2010

Hmm, forallmankind, I thought Simon Barclay's response was reasoned, polite, and insightful.

You say that you "don't have time to go back and forth", but I think that if you are editing a document, you need to take time to go back and forth. If something in the document is— by your own description— confusing or hard to understand, then it's inevitable that you will sometimes misunderstand it and make things worse in your attempts to clarify. From your description, it doesn't sound like the kinds of things that go in a style guide (word choices, grammar, etc) are the things that cause most of the friction. Having a style guide is good, but whenever you are making edits that go beyond simple conformance to style, grammar, formatting, etc., you need to treat it as a collaboration with the author.

I think that if you treat the authors with greater respect, then they are likely to treat you with greater respect.
posted by hattifattener at 12:05 AM on June 19, 2010

As someone who routinely edits written material from volunteers and staff, I can say that the single most important ingredient to avoiding dashed hopes and hurt feelings is setting expectations in advance, whether through a style guide or other policy. If your writers are taken by surprise or see your edits as an intrusion, this part of your job will always be harder than it needs to be.

I can't tell if you are taking it upon yourself to clean up these documents, or you've been asked to, but your path will be easier if your writers understand that your edits *help them look good and make their documents more effective*. Enlist them in the review process, even if it's just "I made some small edits so this conforms to our new style guide - could you look this over by tomorrow and let me know if it's ready to be posted?"

The more you can use this task to cultivate allies, the easier it will be. Good luck!
posted by deliriouscool at 6:21 AM on June 19, 2010

I'm struck by your use of "invariably." Every single document you receive is "somewhat badly written?"

You might want to ask yourself whether every edit you make is required for clarity. If some are just to make the document better match your tastes, consider not making those, as those seem the most likely to be interpreted as criticism of the writer's skills.
posted by bac at 7:04 AM on June 19, 2010

As a tech writer and editor, I always worked with a formal review process, where the subject matter expert (who sometimes drafted the original document) had final sign-off on the technical details, but not on style/grammar/editing details. In your shoes, I'd get management sign-off on both a style guide and a process that clarifies both final responsibility for edits and approvals. This should cut down on the level of personal conflict, and in cases where you still end up in conflicts, you can refer them to the policy and the managers who signed off on it.

Even with a formal policy, you'll never get rid of the special snowflakes who think their subject matter expertise means they're better at conveying information than tech writers and/or editors. This, along with reviewers who won't return reviews until you camp in their office, is one of the banes of documentation jobs. Good luck.
posted by immlass at 8:16 AM on June 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

As a former technical writer and publications manager, I thought Simon Barclay's points well taken. It is all too easy to accidentally introduce errors during an editing pass, especially to technical content. It's also easy to start out intending to fix a few egregious errors and end up on a fast toboggan down the slippery slope of rewriting the whole document. Setting up a style guide and a checklist of publication standards can help prevent this kind of editorial scope creep.

I also agree with finding.perdita that you should at least send the author a courtesy copy of the document with changes flagged. Otherwise you risk becoming That Annoying Editor, with just the same kind of ego-attachment to your own words that you decry in the original authors. A little more humility would serve you well here, I think.
posted by ottereroticist at 10:09 AM on June 19, 2010

Your response to Simon seemed defensive and a little superior. Is that the tone you take with the people you work with as well? If it is, I'd suggest that the answer to the question How do I tactfully manage this? is to adopt a tone of collaboration. Even if you're 100% right 100% of the time, your goal should be to help/allow them to realize that rather than force them to realize that.
posted by willnot at 10:23 AM on June 19, 2010

If there are multiple documents a day, a back and forth dialogue about the content is ridiculous. I think we have to assume that forallmankind can actually tell whether or not the people submitting documents are laboring over their work or just scribbling some stuff down in the order that it makes sense to them.

I agree that a style guide and a brand identity document are the way to go. I would send it out to everyone with a brief, friendly email letting your team know that all documents are going to be evaluated against those criteria prior to publication. Perhaps that way some of the re-work you are doing can be avoided if people begin with the understanding of the style you expect.
posted by winna at 10:37 AM on June 19, 2010

Simon Barclay - there are numerous presumptions and unsubstantiated conclusions in your response which are perhaps relevant to your situation, but completely incorrect with regard to mine.

Please elaborate.

I think perhaps a large part of the problem in the circumstances that we've both observed (albeit from different sides of the table) is a lack of understanding the other side. More of your insight may be helpful.

Unless you don't have the time. :)
posted by Simon Barclay at 5:40 PM on June 19, 2010

Are you the domain expert or the writer? This is an important distinction because if you are not a domain expert, then you need to find time to go "back and forth" because you might not have the knowledge to judge whether your edits preserve the original technical meaning.

A few years ago, I almost corrected "cancellous" to "cancerous". There's also the common horror story of recruiters changing "Java" to "Javascript". In math, "iff" is a common abbreviation for "if and only if" which I've seen corrected to merely "if". Or, as noted in Peterson and Davie's Computer Networking , "Internet" refers to the easily clogged tubes we know and love, whereas "internet" refers to any collection of interconnected networks, and "intranet" refers to a network segregated from the general Internet.

I'm not accusing you of making any of these mistakes. What I'm saying is that, if you don't send your corrections back to the author, he has no way to assure himself that you're not making these mistakes. Now his name is associated, officially or not, with a publication whose accuracy he can't actually guarantee---this is a very good reason to "take it personally."

Also, regarding the tact, I would suggest just conceding that the document is "theirs". Except in the case of editors who are themselves domain experts and employed in that capacity (in the sense that people "edit" textbooks with multiple authors, for example), the author is going consider his claim to the work superior to your own. This is true even if the final document is assembled from the contributions of multiple authors and published in the name of the department or company without any official reference at all to the people themselves. I don't see anything to be gained by arguing that point.
posted by d. z. wang at 1:38 AM on June 20, 2010

I also do not really have time to go back and forth

By which I assume you mean "go back and forth numerous times" and not "I can't be bothered to have even one single exchange with anyone about the edits I've made to their documents." Because if it's the latter, you're being unreasonable.

And yeah, I'm having a hard time imagining why anyone asking this question *wouldn't* appreciate the view from Simon Barclay's angle. The defensiveness in how you read his reasonably phrased response is raising eyebrows among a few folks here. You really might want to think at least a little bit about that.
posted by mediareport at 4:50 AM on June 20, 2010

I edit legal advice for lawyers. I am not a lawyer. A style guide, a clear work flow and a bit of respect for the authors has gone a long way to smooth out what was previously a terribly fraught process for all concerned. I supply a template to new authors and I work with them to understand their style and requirements. I make suggestions and I never dictate.

Writers get touchy because editing is as much an art as a science - you need to make your thought-process consistent and transparent to the author so that they understand why changes are being made. I mostly use MS word to track all changes, with comments added where further clarification is needed and I never publish something that hasn't had sign-off. I don't get involved in endless arguments about minor points, and I don't make edits that aren't consistent with our style guide - I respect the author's expertise and they respect mine. It might take time but if you're good at what you do your writers will trust you.
posted by freya_lamb at 7:09 AM on June 21, 2010