Drafts and the larger leadership picture.

[Steven Oppenheimer <writer -at- writemaster -dot- com>]

I'm truly astounded by some of the replies on the "Drafts" thread.  What 
amazes me is the acquiescence shown by some people (not everyone) to the 
idea that one must please the boss at all costs.  Quite the contrary, there 
are reasonable expectations to which employees (or contractors, like 
myself) should hold employers or managers.  These might not always be 
matters of law, but they are matters of common decency, common sense, and 
mutual respect.  A manager must demonstrate some minimum level of respect 
for his people, as well as some minimal level of intelligence.  A working 
partnership is a 50/50 proposition, and if managers don't demonstrate these 
qualities, then, even in hard economic times, one quits and moves on.

As for the draft issue itself -- look, this is not brain surgery   Projects 
in development are not complete, and different aspects of a project in 
development are in different stages of readiness.  An intelligent reviewer 
is obligated to read and review in a discriminating fasion.

Let's use an analogy with software.  Say it's software that supposed to be 
doing some fancy calculations;  the programmers may have the user interface 
ready, but the calculation engine may not be complete -- or, vice verse, 
the calculation engine may be in pretty good shape, but the user interface 
is still in rough form.  Either way, it's perfectly appropriate, in an 
intermediate stage, that the software engineers should to management (or to 
QA testers, or whomever) and say, "This is partly done -- we need you to 
review the part that's finished (or semi-finished), and ignore the part 
which we are *telling you in plain English is not yet finished*."  Check 
the user interface, or check the calculations -- whichever part we think we 
have working -- make sure we are on the right track here, before we dig in 
any deeper -- while we keep working on the rest.

Now, what are we to make of a manager if we come to him, as programmers, 
and we say, "The user interface is not really ready, but the program spits 
out the right numbers" -- and he or she comes foaming back and says, "This 
user interface looks like crap!"  Or, the user interface is ready for 
review, but the calculation engine is not at all ready;  we tell the 
manager this, and he or she comes back and says, "Your program is spitting 
out all the wrong numbers, can't you people program right!"  Such a manager 
is simply, plainly, categorically incompetent.

It's no different with a document.  Different aspects of a document can be 
in different states of readiness, and its often appropriate to review a 
document -- reading for some things, and ignoring other aspects -- as a 
document is in progress.  And the gripe here is with some managers -- not 
all, but some -- who are frankly either too dumb or too anal to read 
selectively.  I don't care if it's a character flaw or a lack of 
intelligence, these people have no business supervising the work of those 
who are actually being productive.

Much depends on context, and on different roles.  I'm writing this during a 
commercial break from The West Wing.  If, hypothetically, I'm a junior 
speech writer for the President, I'm not going to hand the President of the 
United States rough drafts.  The President is going to get the best 
polished drafts I can give him.  But, if my boss, the senior speech writer, 
is worth his salt as a leader as well as a speechwriter, I really ought to 
be able to hand him a rough draft and say, "The first part of the speech, 
about energy issues, I think I have that in pretty good shape, I'm still 
working on the rest -- could you help me with some feedback on that first 
part?"  And my boss the senior speech writer ought to have the intelligence 
-- not to mention the impulse control -- to be able to read just the first 
part, and stop before reading the rest.  Or if I only give him the first 
part (which would make sense, since I'm still working on the second part of 
the speech), my boss ought not to come back and say, "This speech ends 
abruptly in the middle of nowhere."  I just TOLD him I'm only giving him 
the first half of the speech!

Now, *technically* (no pun intended), the senior speechwriter has the 
following right.  He has the right to say, "Only give me polished drafts, 
just like you'd give the President himself."  However, he's not much use as 
a boss, because I'd like to be able to count on my boss to give me feedback 
as the work is in progress.  That's what I call teamwork.  So, while the 
boss technically has the right to be rigid and a perfectionist even with 
the draft stage, it's not appropriate, and he is not doing anyone any 
favors.  It's not constructive because it doesn't foster the partnership 
that could ultimately lead to a terrific final speech.  So, personally, I'd 
have to decide, is the prestige of working at the White House and having 
that on my resume worth putting up with a boss that I don't respect 
much?  The reality of my life is, I've never worked at The White 
House.  I've worked at corporations, where it's no big privilege to 
work.  If the boss can't lead constructively, I go elsewhere.

But the main point is, if the boss can't read a rough draft -- if he lacks 
either the ability or the temperament to read in a discriminating, 
selective fasion -- then he has no business holding down the job.

Mr. Plato and I have already exchanged a few e-mails privately on this 
issue, and we just have a very different view of life.  I don't want to put 
words into Mr. Plato's mouth, but he seems to feel that the goal of the 
worker bee is to keep the boss happy under pretty much *any* 
circumstances.  Believe me, I care about my work, and I have integrity.  I 
want to do a good job.  But I can only do that if the employer provides a 
context which makes that possible.  I have certain expectations for my 
leaders or managers.  The fact is -- and this too is not brain surgery, we 
all know this -- some people get into management or other leadership roles 
who just have no business being there.  My clients are fortunate to have me 
work for them, because I do quality work.  If the client, or their specific 
representatives -- the managers -- can't do their 50% of the job to make 
the relationship work, then it's the company's loss when I go elsewhere.

Some people in the thread have said that, as technical writers, we need to 
educate our bosses.  I don't accept that assertion either.  I'm a writer, 
not a business school professor.  The managers are already supposed to know 
how to do their jobs, part of which entails both being flexible, and giving 
their subordinates breathing room in which to work.

There are, of course, many, many facets both to doing a good job as a 
worker, and to being a good leader as a manager.  This issue of dealing 
with drafts is just one small issue, but it reflects on a larger matter.

Good leaders understand context, and most importantly, good leaders 
prioritize.  A rough draft is not meant to be read the same way as a 
polished draft, any more than an early attempt at a computer program should 
be evaluated in the same light as a 2nd stage beta release.  Contrary to 
what Mr. Plato says below, it's entirely reasonable and appropriate to say 
to a reader or reviewer, "Read this, but ignore certain types of things 
that are known to be wrong.  For now, address certain issues and not 
others."  Any manager who can't grasp that distinction -- any manager who 
can't prioritize what matters in an early draft from what does not matter 
-- probably can't prioritize many other important things either.  Such a 
manager is very like to have many other problems with leadership as well.

Steve Oppenheimer
writer -at- writemaster -dot- com
www.writemaster.com