Reframing Revision Resentment: II

Whether we're writing code, copy, or speeches, or designing a building, shooting a film, or laying out a landscape, our work can be subject to review. Reviewers ask for revisions. And revisions to the revisions. The experience can be frustrating, especially when we disagree with what we're asked to do. Here are some insights that might be helpful in those situations. As in Part I, I'm pretending that I'm advising the person making the revisions.

Let's not discard something that's good enough

If the required changes don't seem justifiable, maybe the problem is actually a disagreement about acceptance criteria.

Have you discussed acceptance criteria? If not, perhaps that's a place to start. But if you have discussed acceptance criteria, and didn't reach consensus, maybe that's the place to start. If the reviewers are unwilling, they might feel that they have the power to require the changes without your consent. If so, the problem might be deeper. Make the revisions, and when the reviewers are satisfied, and the dust has settled, try to determine what the real issue might be.

Let's not change it to something that's wrong

There The experience of having our
work reviewed can be frustrating,
especially when we disagree
with what we're asked to doare many ways to be "wrong." The reviewers want something that won't do what they say they want; we (or someone we know) already tried that and it didn't work; or the change will make the current piece incompatible with other pieces of the same suite. And many more.

If you've made your case, and failed to persuade the decision maker(s), revision might not be the problem — failure to persuade could be the problem. If you didn't have an opportunity to make your case, then that's the problem. Maybe you didn't seek the opportunity, or maybe you missed it, or perhaps your views aren't valued.

Because you might be mistaken about their request being "wrong," temper your response to the reviewers. For example, if what they want has been tried before, the fact that it didn't work is relevant only to the extent that the present context aligns with the prior context. See "Definitions of Insanity," Point Lookout for January 17, 2007, for more.

If your opposition to the required revisions is well known, some might anticipate that you'll resent having to make those revisions. Beware. If the effort fails, as you predicted it would, and you've done anything other than what was required, you might be accused of sabotage — possibly behind your back. Make the revisions the reviewers require. Do a superb job. Be certain that the reviewers are delighted. And then begin working on becoming more influential.

Problems of this kind frequently arise from communications difficulties. If satisfying the reviewers seems easier than untangling the communications issues, satisfy the reviewers first. Then work together to determine if or how communications contributed to the problem. Collaborate to resolve that problem before the next review.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Interviewing the Willing: Tactics

When we need information from each other, even when the source is willing, we sometimes fail to expose critical facts. Here are some tactics for eliciting information from the willing.

When You Aren't Supposed to Say: II

Most of us have information that's "company confidential," or possibly even more sensitive than that. Sometimes people who try to extract that information use techniques based on misdirection. Here are some of them.

High Falutin' Goofy Talk: II

Speech and writing at work are sometimes little more than high falutin' goofy talk, filled with puff phrases of unknown meaning and pretentious, tired images. Here's Part II of a collection of phrases and images to avoid.

Monday Morning Minute Message Madness

As a leader of a large organization, if you publish a "Monday Minute Message" to help employees identify with the organization as a whole, there are some practices that might limit the effectiveness of the program. Six suggestions can be helpful.

Gratuitous Use of Synonyms, Aliases, and Metaphors

The COVID-19 pandemic has permanently changed how we work. We're now more virtual than before. In this new environment, synonyms, aliases, and metaphors can pave the path to trouble. To avoid expensive mistakes, our use of language must be more precise.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info