Editing for subject matter experts
Documents written by subject matter experts are edited through a working relationship with each expert, which turns on reading how the expert prefers to work, agreeing a way of working, noticing when the expert has had enough, handling competing projects and becoming useful beyond the edit.
Why the relationship is worth building
Many editors rely on the authors for information that is accurate and appropriate for the audience. One editor in the medical device industry, who edited the procedures and other documentation used to operate the business, manufacture products and comply with regulations, found that management assigned the writing of these documents to individuals on the strength of their knowledge of the topic, not their writing experience, ability or interest, so the authors' familiarity and comfort with working with an editor varied. To improve the editing process, an editor can build mutually beneficial, productive working relationships with those experts, in which editor and expert work together to ensure the accuracy, clarity and quality of the documents.
Building such a relationship takes time, patience, perseverance and an open mind, and the returns are worth the effort: a productive relationship contributes to quality documents, a positive environment makes collaboration easier and increases the opportunities to use an editor's skills, and the editor may find openings to expand their influence in the organisation. What applies to on-site working arrangements also applies to virtual teams.
Reading an expert's working style
Identifying an expert's working style and finding ways to complement and work with it turns the working relationship into a productive, mutually beneficial partnership. An editor reads an expert's working style with the observational skills used as an editor, watching how the expert interacts with the editor and with colleagues. Factors that contribute to an expert's working style include the following:
- Personal characteristics. Personality and learning preferences make each person different; a self-described morning person is more likely to be alert and eager to discuss a project at 7:00 AM than at 4:00 PM. On a virtual team such insights are harder to gain but not impossible: the editor listens to the expert's interactions in virtual meetings, looks for chances to make a personal connection outside regular work meetings and, when the expert visits the editor's site, invites them to lunch or coffee.
- Cultural background. Learning about colleagues' cultural backgrounds strengthens working relationships, and a company may offer diversity resources such as training or online cultural reference guides. The Hofstede Centre website offers resources on the subject, among them a free "Compare Cultures" tool that gave information on 100 countries in 2017, and others for purchase.
- Profession. People in one profession often share similar personalities and communication styles. One editor new to the medical device industry noticed that engineers sketched diagrams and process flows when explaining their projects to her, and by using that approach in review meetings she often received the information she required.
- Writing and editing experience. An expert may not have much writing experience or knowledge of formal editing terminology, and the expert's comfort with the editing process affects the relationship. With an expert the editor has not worked with before, the editor learns how the expert has found working with editors, helps the expert feel comfortable by explaining how the editor will support them and asking what else would help, and clarifies any editing term with examples.
- Organisational culture. Mostly unwritten, it strongly shapes how people interact, so an editor new to an organisation takes time to learn it.
Agreeing a way of working
Everyone has their own preferred working style that helps them perform at their best. Adapting to an expert's working style does not mean abandoning the editor's own preferences or trying to be someone else; the goal is a mutually beneficial, productive working relationship. The editor begins the discussion by asking the expert about their work style preferences. It is important for the editor to guide the conversation, because the subject may be new to the expert, and a guided discussion ensures that the expert is involved in setting up a relationship that is meant to be a partnership. The editor uses what has been observed to ask focused questions rather than general ones such as whether the expert prefers email, and offers an example of a possible approach, which lets the editor explain how it would benefit the expert and gives the expert a chance to give feedback.
It is also important for the approach to work within the organisation's established processes and culture, which, depending on the organisation, may be hard to change. Where there is resistance, the editor identifies and addresses its reason: if a manager worries that working differently with the experts in the department will delay the documents, the editor acknowledges the concern and agrees actions that protect the deadlines, for example reverting to the existing review process if the timeline starts slipping. Changes should be introduced incrementally where possible, so that they cause fewer disruptions and are more easily reversed, when necessary, than a whole process change. Adapting is ongoing: mergers, acquisitions and reorganisations, and transfers, terminations and retirements, affect the working relationships, and the editor reviews the arrangements set up and adjusts them as needed.
Expert fatigue
However the edits are communicated, face to face, by email or another way, an editor must be mindful of avoiding overloading the expert with numerous changes, which can lead to fatigue and decreased communication. Authors can feel overwhelmed when faced with pages of seemingly unrelated edits. The keys to addressing fatigue are preparation and awareness of the expert's other responsibilities, deadlines and workload. The techniques for face-to-face meetings and email apply to other methods of communication as well.
The work for a face-to-face meeting starts beforehand, with questions prepared and a thoroughly edited document. In the meeting itself, an editor can try to prevent fatigue in these ways:
- Briefly outline the meeting's purpose and topics at the start; engineers and other experts feel more comfortable with structure.
- Discuss first the issues that need or benefit from personal discussion, while everyone, the editor included, is fresh, and if the meeting ends before every topic is covered, give the expert the remaining items that do not need personal discussion.
- Complete the meeting within the scheduled time. If the review is not complete, the editor can ask whether the expert is available to stay beyond the scheduled time, but this should be the exception and not the rule; many experts are generous with their knowledge and time but become rightly frustrated when meetings run beyond their scheduled times.
Body language in a face-to-face meeting is a cue to fatigue with the topic: restlessness, a stressed or tired look, and a glazed look that shows the expert is overwhelmed are signs of losing interest. An editor should not ignore their instincts: one who feels the expert's attention going is probably right. On seeing signs of fatigue, the editor reprioritises the agenda or suggests another meeting to complete the review.
Preparation is also the key with email. The review should be complete before any comments are emailed; just as experts may become frustrated with multiple meetings and follow-ups, they may find multiple emails counterproductive and annoying. The organisation of the email also matters: the editor prioritises the review and organises the content in a way that encourages the expert to read the comments, using bulleted lists and avoiding large blocks of text.
Competing editing projects
Editors often manage several projects, and sometimes the projects have conflicting priorities, which may affect the relationships with the experts. Some organisations formalise how document reviews are prioritised; where an organisation has no such policy, the editor identifies the people with enough knowledge and authority to assign priorities, because a project's priority may be an organisational question rather than an editing one. Where a review will run past its scheduled completion date, the editor contacts the expert with a status update and options, such as extending the deadline or sending a partial review, which is not ideal but is sometimes necessary.
One editor balances time against thoroughness and puts some types of document before others, such as grants before manuscripts, and gives authors an editing time estimate that already includes the work queued ahead of the new project. Another can ask the editors on her team to help when an internal client's deadline cannot otherwise be met, emails internal clients monthly about their upcoming work, and her team gives authors a calculator to estimate their project before submitting it. A third underpromises and overdelivers, so that she has a cushion if things do not go as planned and leaves clients happy if the work goes well. All three find it helpful to discuss the levels of edit with authors and clients and which level the timeline can accommodate.
Contributing beyond the edit
Editors have skills they can use successfully in other initiatives, and an editor can look for opportunities to use their communication, organisational and analytical skills to help the experts be more productive. An editor can increase their contribution to an organisation in the following ways:
- Become a resource beyond editing: an editor who works with a broad spectrum of areas can use knowledge of the company to become an organisational resource, and knowledge of specific software programs can position the editor as the local specialist.
- Offer to present skills training, such as a class on good writing practices.