TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Lynne Wright wondered: <<So what do you do in a situation where the
document you are reviewing is totally sub-standard in every way....
unclear/confusing/grammatically incorrect writing, diagrams that don't
make sense, document has no logical organizational structure, and its
full of technical mistakes and contradictions?>>
Perhaps you need to start by confirming your impressions with the
manager of the problem writers? If the manager doesn't agree with your
recommendations, you've got a much bigger problem: you can't work
successfully as an editor if you don't have the authority to insist on
certain changes. You can gain that authority informally if the writers
learn to respect your advice, but if they don't (your current
situation), you need to obtain formal authority. They may still not
respect your advice, but they'll have to listen to you anyways.
If the manager agrees with you that there's a problem, then there's a
powerful "dynamic" that you can rely upon: The manager should meet with
the writers, explain the problem, and make it clear that their
performance appraisals will suffer if the problem isn't solved and
soon. At that point, you become the solution to a serious problem
rather than _being_ the problem. This could be parodied as a "good
cop/bad cop" mind game, but that's missing the point: it's the
manager's role to insist that the problem is solved, and your role to
help everyone solve it.
<<This is the problem I've had with two "veteran" writers here... they
resent/resist/ignore my editorial comments because they think their
work is wonderful. My boss has put the onus on me to fix a sour
relationship by providing a list of positives with my negatives, but
try as i might... i can't find ANYTHING to complement them on!>>
Simply saying something positive will never improve a truly soured
relationship. It can prevent the relationship from growing worse, but
once the damage has been done, it becomes extremely difficult to undo
it. Sometimes you need to sit down and admit your own responsibility:
"Look, we both know that we don't get along well. I accept the fact
that some of this is my fault. Can we agree that this situation can't
continue? Great. Let's forget about the past 2 years and decide where
we want to go from here. Here's my goals from the writer-editor
relationship. How can we accomplish those goals in a way that you can
live with? What changes would you like to see in the way I interact
with you?"
In short, "forget the past and move on". Wars continue for generations
because nobody is willing to say "we've all screwed up, but that
doesn't mean we need to keep screwing up". Sometimes it's really time
to decide that the fact that the other party clearly wronged you is
less important than the fact that you want the relationship to improve
in the future. The payback from foregoing "revenge"? A better future.
At a minimum, it's usually possible to say that they've done a good job
of identifying all the necessary content and starting to provide it. Or
that they've done an admirable job at covering such portions of the
total job that they have covered. But if you truly can't find anything
positive to say, then change your slant to one of problem solving. "The
boss has identified the following problems with your writing. I'm here
to help you make those problems go away. How can I do this in the least
painful way possible, from your perspective?" Again, you're emphasizing
that your goal is to work together, not to simply point out how lousy
they are as writers.
Also, think "triage": Which problems account for the majority of the
bad writing? Which problems would provide the greatest payoff if you
solve them? Work on those problems first. Alternatively, and sometimes
more effectively in a situation like yours, ask yourself which problems
are most serious _for the writers_ even if they're not serious in the
larger scheme of things. It may seem odd to ignore more serious
problems by working on these minor problems first, but it has a huge
payoff: by solving _the writer's_ problem, you are seen as their ally.
(Deeds are more important than words.) That opens the door to them
listening to you when you identify other problems that need to be
solved.
One personal example: Several writers I used to work with had terrible
problems with organization. As a result, they had a terrible time
getting started writing because they had no idea of how to proceed. To
solve the problem, I suggested that we work together to create a
detailed outline before they even began writing. By interviewing them,
I was able to find out the key points that they wanted to say, place
those in a logical order, and turn this into an effective outline. I
then released them to begin writing following that outline. Worked like
a charm.
--Geoff Hart ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca
(try geoffhart -at- mac -dot- com if you don't get a reply)
ROBOHELP X5 - SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION!
RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward in Help authoring technology, featuring all new Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! View an online demo: http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
