As a manager, I’m often more of an editor. Help!

[Anonymous]

Do the employees have enough subject knowledge to provide clear summaries, narratives, etc.? Do they have enough time to put aside a first or second draft for a day, to them come back to it with fresh eyes? Have you provided an exemplar?

Truthfully, it takes a lot of restraint to not edit work to make it sound like you wrote it. Could you pull back a little and let perfectly adequate work stand rather than be rewritten?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the suggestions!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you editing it in track changes where they can just accept changes and turn it back?

Maybe try doing it in hand or on PDF where they have to make the edits themselves.

Or point out examples of errors, tell them to edit throughout the document to find similar errors, and then turn it back in to you.

Basically, try to teach, not edit.

Yes, I don't do line edits through an entire document, at least first time around, if it's a mess. I use comment bubbles:

Run-on sentence - comment says: "Can you please review throughout for grammar, including run-on sentence, punctuation, abbreviations not spelled out, etc.?"
Organization: "The reader of this is someone new to this topic. Can you reread with that lens and reorganize and add more details as needed."
Readability: "I'm not following how this section connects to the previous. Can you edit do ensure your key points are clear to a new reader?"

Etc. I have had good luck with this approach, because people don't like having to redo it. You might be making it too easy for them to just accept your edits and move on, without reflecting on them.

For some staff, I also have them to an outline of a document, so we can catch bigger issues early on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious to know what types of mistakes, because I think he's absolutely correct to expect error free work. Are you correcting spelling and tenses or are you having to rewrite and rearrange for clarity?

+1 I'm a fed attorney & supervisor. A lot of my job is reviewing work products from my team. Things they are writing to share with peer client just go out - I don't need to see or micromanage stuff (and that's the bulk of their work).

If it's something going to higher-ups, then yes I review. But they are competent and good writers so I'm not editing for every minor thing, more like sharing thoughts on organization, what to highlight etc.

[Anonymous]

Ha. I was an actual editor my first 10 years out of college before switching career fields. I have been the de facto writer for every boss I've had since then. Some people just can't write.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Identify the two best writers/editors on your team. Do you think they could take over a lot of this work? Make them a layer between you and the rest of the staff, so you only get things once they've already given them a first pass. You will still wind up doing review and editing, but things will arrive on your desk closer to a final draft. The goal should be for you to never or almost never have to correct things like basic grammar and punctuation, and to rarely have to pass something back for major structural issues. That way your review can be just to perfect it before it goes to your boss.

I'd also look at your staff and really assess their strengths and weaknesses. Can you allocate assignments in a way that better plays to their strengths. Do you have weak writers who should basically never touch long-form projects? People who are decent writers but prone to typos and other errors when they are in a rush could be shifted to projects with longer headways so they have a chance to take their time, and so on. I'd be rigorous about this -- apply a rubric to each member of the team and see if you can shift people around to maximize the staff you have.

And then I'd really emphasize writing, especially "clean" writing without basic spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors, in future hiring. Again, I know you are limited somewhat as a fed, but to the degree that you can insert some screening for writing quality into the process, do so.

Doesn't the above essentially punish one's best performing workers by giving them more work?

Depends on if you take something else off their plate. If you have a couple terrific writers on staff and everyone else needs a lot of help, I'd make the two writers your assistant editors (doing something they already excel at) and give some of their other work to someone else. Most people have some stuff on their list that is administrative and anyone could do -- give that work to the people on staff who aren't as good at the stuff that requires more skill. And bonus, the people you are elevating into this role are getting valuable experience that can go on a resume for a promotion or another job. Most competent workers will embrace that.

This is what management is. Delegating, allocating resources, facilitating your team to do their best work. Right now OP is essentially doing his or her team's work themself. That's inefficient and doesn't play to anyone's strengths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Identify the two best writers/editors on your team. Do you think they could take over a lot of this work? Make them a layer between you and the rest of the staff, so you only get things once they've already given them a first pass. You will still wind up doing review and editing, but things will arrive on your desk closer to a final draft. The goal should be for you to never or almost never have to correct things like basic grammar and punctuation, and to rarely have to pass something back for major structural issues. That way your review can be just to perfect it before it goes to your boss.

I'd also look at your staff and really assess their strengths and weaknesses. Can you allocate assignments in a way that better plays to their strengths. Do you have weak writers who should basically never touch long-form projects? People who are decent writers but prone to typos and other errors when they are in a rush could be shifted to projects with longer headways so they have a chance to take their time, and so on. I'd be rigorous about this -- apply a rubric to each member of the team and see if you can shift people around to maximize the staff you have.

And then I'd really emphasize writing, especially "clean" writing without basic spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors, in future hiring. Again, I know you are limited somewhat as a fed, but to the degree that you can insert some screening for writing quality into the process, do so.

Doesn't the above essentially punish one's best performing workers by giving them more work?

Depends on if you take something else off their plate. If you have a couple terrific writers on staff and everyone else needs a lot of help, I'd make the two writers your assistant editors (doing something they already excel at) and give some of their other work to someone else. Most people have some stuff on their list that is administrative and anyone could do -- give that work to the people on staff who aren't as good at the stuff that requires more skill. And bonus, the people you are elevating into this role are getting valuable experience that can go on a resume for a promotion or another job. Most competent workers will embrace that.

This is what management is. Delegating, allocating resources, facilitating your team to do their best work. Right now OP is essentially doing his or her team's work themself. That's inefficient and doesn't play to anyone's strengths.

I'm the editor above.

Your logic is understandable, except it's poaching my skill set for skills I'm not paid for. I'm paid to do X, not paid to do X AND write the company letter, handle my boss's high level correspondence and stand behind him trying to catch all of his grammatical errors (many). It's shocking how many 'educated' people don't know the proper use of a semicolon, how to use a comma, the difference between effect and affect, their and there, and on and on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Identify the two best writers/editors on your team. Do you think they could take over a lot of this work? Make them a layer between you and the rest of the staff, so you only get things once they've already given them a first pass. You will still wind up doing review and editing, but things will arrive on your desk closer to a final draft. The goal should be for you to never or almost never have to correct things like basic grammar and punctuation, and to rarely have to pass something back for major structural issues. That way your review can be just to perfect it before it goes to your boss.

I'd also look at your staff and really assess their strengths and weaknesses. Can you allocate assignments in a way that better plays to their strengths. Do you have weak writers who should basically never touch long-form projects? People who are decent writers but prone to typos and other errors when they are in a rush could be shifted to projects with longer headways so they have a chance to take their time, and so on. I'd be rigorous about this -- apply a rubric to each member of the team and see if you can shift people around to maximize the staff you have.

And then I'd really emphasize writing, especially "clean" writing without basic spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors, in future hiring. Again, I know you are limited somewhat as a fed, but to the degree that you can insert some screening for writing quality into the process, do so.

Doesn't the above essentially punish one's best performing workers by giving them more work?

DP and it shouldn't - if writing well is an essential part of the job then these two people are excelling and if they are capable of being managers then they should move up the chain more quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Identify the two best writers/editors on your team. Do you think they could take over a lot of this work? Make them a layer between you and the rest of the staff, so you only get things once they've already given them a first pass. You will still wind up doing review and editing, but things will arrive on your desk closer to a final draft. The goal should be for you to never or almost never have to correct things like basic grammar and punctuation, and to rarely have to pass something back for major structural issues. That way your review can be just to perfect it before it goes to your boss.

I'd also look at your staff and really assess their strengths and weaknesses. Can you allocate assignments in a way that better plays to their strengths. Do you have weak writers who should basically never touch long-form projects? People who are decent writers but prone to typos and other errors when they are in a rush could be shifted to projects with longer headways so they have a chance to take their time, and so on. I'd be rigorous about this -- apply a rubric to each member of the team and see if you can shift people around to maximize the staff you have.

And then I'd really emphasize writing, especially "clean" writing without basic spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors, in future hiring. Again, I know you are limited somewhat as a fed, but to the degree that you can insert some screening for writing quality into the process, do so.

Doesn't the above essentially punish one's best performing workers by giving them more work?

DP and it shouldn't - if writing well is an essential part of the job then these two people are excelling and if they are capable of being managers then they should move up the chain more quickly.

Just a note that the best writers aren't always the best editors. I once had an employee whose writing was indifferent at best, but who could really pick apart others' writing in ways that were on point. I frequently outsourced review to him.

[Anonymous]

Excellent writing skills seem to be an essential requirement for the job. It appears that they are not meeting this requirement.
Your boss is unhappy, you are unhappy, even these employees are certainly unhappy.
The solution is simple. You fire them and you hire people with excellent writing skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Excellent writing skills seem to be an essential requirement for the job. It appears that they are not meeting this requirement.
Your boss is unhappy, you are unhappy, even these employees are certainly unhappy.
The solution is simple. You fire them and you hire people with excellent writing skills.

I'm not sure this is true. If it's regular developmental editing, that's an "I would have approached this entire problem in a different way" issue more than a quality of writing issue. You can say that avoidance of errors is a required metric, but organizing your thoughts in the way your boss would is not, and some projects are improved by that kind of collaboration rather than being a flaw of the writer.

If that is a major role that needs to be played and it's taking OP away from more critical work, maybe there's a business case for hiring a full time person for it, or transitioning someone into it.