Dear Bob ... I appreciate your answer to Unwilling Reviewer. If that manager is just barely performing because he's lazy or just doesn't "get it", I'm in total agreement with your response (although I'd probably give him less than twice the time). On the other hand, if he's turning in things that are barely acceptable because Reviewer always re-writes everything, no matter how good or bad, and how much ti Dear Bob …I appreciate your answer to Unwilling Reviewer. If that manager is just barely performing because he’s lazy or just doesn’t “get it”, I’m in total agreement with your response (although I’d probably give him less than twice the time).On the other hand, if he’s turning in things that are barely acceptable because Reviewer always re-writes everything, no matter how good or bad, and how much time you’ve put in, I’m on the other side of the fence. In the past, I’ve worked for people that have to “wordsmith” everything you turn in, no matter how good it is. As a matter of fact, they wordsmith their own words that they added the last time they saw it. When you are submitting work to someone like this, there’s no point in doing a lot of polish, since it will be (sometimes totally) rewritten anyway. In this case, you get enough down on paper that there is a good framework and the reviewer knows where you’re going with the end result. Then you let them play with it (often as many as three re-writes are generated), until they’re tired of it or satisfied (I’m not always sure which). Eventually, something comes out the other end, not always as good as you would have done on your own, but that’s what gets sent out.Having been both, reviewer and reviewee, I can see your point, but without additional information it’s hard to agree or disagree with your response. Of course, if Reviewer is one of the wordsmithers, he may not realize how often he does it, or how devastating it is to morale. Then again, if he reads your column, we have to assume he’s above that, right?– Reviewed (and reviewed, and reviewed) Dear Reviewed …I worked for a guy like that once. I resented the whole process, too. The problem was, his comments were usually good ones, and over time they improved my business writing a lot.But, they delayed getting work out the door on deadline – meeting the schedule is a form of quality too. I finally figured out (too late) that the better answer would have been to let me get the non-critical items out on schedule, reviewing them afterward to help me improve the next one. Part of the whole problem here is that we’re talking about aesthetics, for which there are no objective standards. The best alternative is to choose The Elements of Syle as a standard (or something like it) so there’s at least a reference point for discussion.If the manager and writer have at least a semi-healthy working relationship, the writer should be able to ask for some groundrules when given the next assignment (or even better, the manager should take the initiative to do so), to reduce both of their frustration – perhaps that the reviewer cares about the quality of organization, clarity of logic and presentation, preference for active voice, and adherance to proper grammar and word use.We’re dealing with at least three issues here. The first is whether the writer is doing his job or “passing the monkey” to his manager. The second is whether the writer is, in fact, currently capable of doing the work – of writing effectively. The third is whether the manager and writer are collaborating to improve the writer’s ability to write. And the fourth of the three issues is as you described – whether the manager is just a compulsive rewriter or whether there are real quality issues that need to be addressed. The starting point for addressing any of them is to have some agreement between the two of what it means to write an effective document.– Bob ——– Technology Industry