|
Sometimes I'm called upon to review documents written
by management, and to offer corrections and suggestions
for improved readability. I have to tell you, it makes
me a little nervous. Sometimes people are not very good
with criticism, no matter how non-critical the point or
how much sugar is offered with it.
When you know what you're doing, it can be difficult at
times to come off like a "team player." People you work
with who've been writing for years without complaint
will expect to have no complaints in the future, even
though their work had never before been reviewed by
someone willing or able to offer suggestions.
I've known engineers whose work had never been *read*
at all until I came along, and they just didn't know it.
I try to be unassuming, but I also try to do what they
ask me to do -- if they want suggestions for improvement
I give 'em, and sometimes perhaps too many.
There's also a tradeoff in management style, in terms of
dealing with correction. Managers who already know
their writing skills are a little soft will accept your
help readily -- I see this often with people for whom
English isn't a first language. BUT, managers who've
been writing for years, or who are in a hurry (as they
almost all are) won't take it so well even if they ask
for it. It can be hard to know in advance which kind
of response you'll get.
Here are some management concerns regarding correction:
- The level of detail involved in correction is
too great for the manager to take time to follow.
"It's too much like work."
- Confidential or proprietary information is going
out onto the Internet, or some other external
resource, without their control. Some subscribers to
RHETENGR-L even fear letting their bosses know
openly that they use it as a resource.
- Some non-critical point can "raise a red flag"
to higher management levels, and impede the
manager's ability to run a project.
- Information going out to clients and customers
is quite different from internal distribution.
The level of review is much more detailed.
On the other hand, the engineering rhetor's concerns
-- which will not usually win out over the manager's
-- are these:
- Maybe what's happening is that everyone thinks
they can write, but everyone
thinks everyone else can't. :-)
This is one possible reason for managers who
don't themselves want to be corrected to
nevertheless demand new hires with "effective
oral and written communications skills."
- The ease of PCs has made everyone do more of
their own writing, and think they can write as
a result.
- The act of "ghost writing" for the manager
sometimes gets us "corrected" as well. (This
can be funny if the "corrections" are incorrect,
but it means more work as well.)
- We sometimes forget that the manager may actually
be more effective with the target
audience than we can be.
What You Can Do
- Be careful not to let any kind of sensitive information
reach any mailing list, Usenet newsgroup, or WWW message
board. You want to be trusted.
- If you do use Internet-based resources, check their
reliability. There's a lot of garbage out there.
- Corrections offered should be critical to the manager
making an effective argument, and should offer you a
"quick win." It's not worth fighting battles over
otherwise. Ask the manager in advance "how hard you
should be" on whatever it is you're reviewing. Then
be a little less hard than that. :-)
- Remember that two different people are
supposed to see things differently.
It's not personal, and you mustn't make it so.
- "A little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down."
Try to deliver corrections in such a way as to make
you out to be the messenger, not the source, of the
criticism. Be willing to accept feedback.
- Only give your best work to those who really want it.
Do what you can for the others.
|