It’s understandable.
You empowered your team. You set them up with all the resources you could have possibly set them up with to get the job done correctly. You gave them the style guide, external links, and a brief including all the relevant keywords.
But the deliverable doesn’t meet expectations. So, naturally, you feel you have the right to come down hard on your team. “Do this, change that, why wasn’t this explained better,” and so on.
Indeed, approval is a process, and the first draft isn’t always the spitting image of perfection incarnate. Some patience is required during the editing phase.
But there is a point at which you’re crossing a line from editing and polishing into nitpicking and torturing.
I always find it funny when a client wants me to delete a comma. It would have been quicker for them to use their own time for discretionary editing.
What was supposed to be a 1,200-word post suddenly balloons into 1,500 words. All the while, the back and forth isn’t necessarily getting all the rather subjective issues resolved.
Who is the final decision maker? Once the project has reached 80% integrity, it would be in the best interest of efficiency to have a designated master editor make the final tweaks.
Everyone wants things a certain way. But no one person would ever agree on all changes and revisions. That’s why you need a designated master editor. Once the project has passed the editor’s filters, it should be considered complete.
Think about how this applies to your projects and leadership. Is there a structure missing? What is your plan?
Don't die with your music still in you. Accomplish more with the Productivity, Performance & Profits Blackbook.
