
Revising work we've already completed should be easier than doing it the first time, because we know so much more about it. But many have trouble getting motivated to actually make the revisions. They resent rework. They regard it as frustrating, boring, or beneath them. If you're one of these, you might hear things in your head like, "I don't have the patience for this," or, "I'm a trail blazer, not a trail maintainer," or "Not again," or "Time for a coffee break." But unless we can give rework the best of ourselves, what we created can never be the best we can do. How can we generate a desire to do revisions well?
For situations like these, instead of creating the desire, what might work better is removing the revulsion. That is, find ways to remove or alter any perception that makes the work of revising repellent. In the examples that follow, I'll pretend that I'm advising the person making the revisions, and I'll refer to the people providing feedback and requesting revisions as reviewers.
Here's Part I, focusing on workplace politics.
- They're making me redo this just to demonstrate their power
- The signature of this scenario is the utter triviality of the requested changes, which arrive in a staccato stream faster than they can be fulfilled. One trap here is assuming that when a revision request arrives, it's the last one, and so the time has come to prepare a final draft. Frustration sets in when you're about to deliver that draft, and a new revision request arrives, possibly contradicting an earlier request.
- Turn the tables on the power game by avoiding responding to requests one by one. Let time pass, and accumulate several revision requests into each revision. If the reviewer complains about the slow pace of your responses, explain that you're packaging them, and suggest that things will speed up if the reviewer can notify you when a package of requests is complete, to enable you to start implementing revisions. This tactic might move the interaction in the direction of joint problem solving, which might resolve the power game.
- To revise would be to concede to a political rival
- When a political When a political rival is driving
the demand for revisions, confusion
between the work and the self can
dominate the situationrival is driving the demand for revisions, confusion between the work and the self can dominate the situation. It's easy to make the mistake of experiencing the requests for changes as personal attacks. - Here the politics is probably the real issue. A political concession need not be a defeat — it can be the wisest available option. At an opportune time — possibly later — address the politics politically. Meanwhile, resenting the revising won't help. Do a superior job of revising.
We'll continue next time with a focus on differences about the work itself. Next issue in this series
Top
Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.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 Workplace Politics:
Extrasensory Deception: II
- In negotiating agreements, the partners who do the drafting have an ethical obligation not to exploit
the advantages of the drafting role. Some drafters don't meet that standard.
What Insubordinate Nonsubordinates Want: I
- When you're responsible for an organizational function, and someone not reporting to you won't recognize
your authority, or doesn't comply with policies you rightfully established, you have a hard time carrying
out your responsibilities. Why does this happen?
The Utility Pole Antipattern: II
- Complex organizational processes can delay action. They can set people against one other and prevent
organizations from achieving their objectives. In this Part II of our examination of these complexities,
we look into what keeps processes complicated, and how to deal with them.
Grace Under Fire: IV
- People can be astonishingly inventive when trying to harm others. Some strategies involve driving to
distraction the target of their malevolence by humiliating the target and lying about the target's character,
deeds, or abilities. Targets who recognize these methods are more likely to be able to maintain composure.
On Begging the Question II
- Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated
our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the
trickiest is called Begging the Question.
See also Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming July 16: Responding to Unwelcome Events
- Unwelcome events have two kinds of effects on decision-makers. One set of effects appears as we respond to events that have actually occurred. Another set manifests itself as we prepare for unwelcome events that haven't yet occurred, but which might occur. Making a wrong decision in either case can be costly. Available here and by RSS on July 16.
And on July 23: Microdelegation
- Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.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
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
