Experienced editors working know that there is never enough time to perfect every sentence of every lengthy document. And even if there were, people are fallible. Give a roomful of experienced editors a year to edit any piece of writing, and it's likely that they would still overlook some embarrassing error.
But in recent years, I've seen a downhill slide toward "good enough," which is sometimes more like "barely OK."
There are several reasons for this. One is the tyranny of speed. A job done as fast as possible has become more desirable than a job done at reasonable pace with fewer errors. Another reason is a growing cadre of People Who Don't Read Good Writing. If you don't read the good stuff, you aren't likely to write even passable stuff.
Sunday
Volunteering, nonprofits, and the democratic fallacy
After years of working with nonprofits, and volunteering for several, I've come to understand how they work — or don't. A notion much beloved in the nonprofit world is that it's always important to listen to everyone.
Whether the issue is large or small, the prevailing belief is that a decision should not be made before asking for advice from all stakeholders. Decisions are postponed in the interest of compiling questionnaires and tabulating results. People who have no particular expertise related to the task -- whether developing competitive taglines or determining a chain-of-command structure -- are earnestly requested to weigh in.
And who doesn't love rendering an opinion? Our Web culture has emboldened people to feel qualified to deliver rants and raves about subjects they know next to nothing about. So a board member will remark that his nephew could write a better tagline. Or a committee member will protest that the old way is the best way. And each objection will be duly discussed . . . over hours and days and weeks.
The problems with this level playing-ground approach are that it wastes valuable time, is incredibly frustrating for those who do have expertise, burns out key players and consultants, and results in stagnation or watered-down plans of action.
A typical pacifying tactic is to ask for advice but already be committed to a particular course of action. This is unwise, because people soon realize that their opinions will count for nothing. A better approach is to carve out a limited area in which advice and opinions are requested.
All other types and levels of decision-making should be reserved for the nonprofit executive in charge, and not open to a vote by the board, or this or that committee.
If the executive has been well-chosen for the job, his or her decisions will be generally sound. And if they are not, the nonprofit surely has sufficient checks and balances in place that allow for a change of course -- whether simply a different decision, or a change of direction, or new leadership.
Whether the issue is large or small, the prevailing belief is that a decision should not be made before asking for advice from all stakeholders. Decisions are postponed in the interest of compiling questionnaires and tabulating results. People who have no particular expertise related to the task -- whether developing competitive taglines or determining a chain-of-command structure -- are earnestly requested to weigh in.
And who doesn't love rendering an opinion? Our Web culture has emboldened people to feel qualified to deliver rants and raves about subjects they know next to nothing about. So a board member will remark that his nephew could write a better tagline. Or a committee member will protest that the old way is the best way. And each objection will be duly discussed . . . over hours and days and weeks.
The problems with this level playing-ground approach are that it wastes valuable time, is incredibly frustrating for those who do have expertise, burns out key players and consultants, and results in stagnation or watered-down plans of action.
A typical pacifying tactic is to ask for advice but already be committed to a particular course of action. This is unwise, because people soon realize that their opinions will count for nothing. A better approach is to carve out a limited area in which advice and opinions are requested.
All other types and levels of decision-making should be reserved for the nonprofit executive in charge, and not open to a vote by the board, or this or that committee.
If the executive has been well-chosen for the job, his or her decisions will be generally sound. And if they are not, the nonprofit surely has sufficient checks and balances in place that allow for a change of course -- whether simply a different decision, or a change of direction, or new leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)