MAKE IT BETTER
Writing development, refresh and editing service
You've written it. It just needs to be better.
Sometimes you don't need someone to write something for you. You need someone who can look at what you've already written and make it clearer, tighter and more interesting.
I've spent 25 years writing, editing and communicating about people, organisations, change and work. I'll take your existing piece, improve the structure and language, remove the waffle and help the important points land — while keeping it sounding like you.
Up to 1,500 words — £150
Articles, reports, web copy, professional profiles, LinkedIn pieces and internal communications.
Send me what you've got and I'll tell you whether I can help.
I can offer a rewrite, edit or refresh of existing work, or simply develop a new article for your business.
Article writing — from £350
You have the expertise. I'll turn it into a clear, engaging article that sounds like a human being wrote it.
Article editing & redevelopment — from £150
Already have an article, report or piece of professional content that isn't quite working?
I'll restructure, sharpen and polish it while retaining your voice and ideas.
PREVIOUS PROJECTS - WHAT I MEAN BY MAKING IT BETTER
Below is a small project I have worked on, with a brief of turning a generic text into a thoughtful and engaging article. The new article presents with:
Clearer argument
Less generic language
Stronger voice
On the left is the original text with the new version on the right for comparison.
The Problem With Trying to Solve People Problems With Processes
Organisations are complex places and people are complex as well. This means that when organisations have problems, it can sometimes be difficult to understand exactly what the problem is and what needs to be done to resolve it.
One of the things that organisations often do when they have a problem is to introduce a new process. This can be understandable because processes can give people a clear way of doing something and can help to make sure that things are done consistently. However, sometimes processes don't actually solve the problem and can actually create other problems.
For example, if an organisation has a problem with sickness absence, one response might be to introduce a new sickness absence procedure. The procedure might set out what managers need to do when someone is off sick, when meetings should happen and what documentation needs to be completed. This can be useful, but it doesn't necessarily address why people are absent in the first place.
There could be many reasons why people are absent. They might be experiencing stress. They might have a difficult relationship with their manager. They might have too much work to do. They might not feel valued. They might have problems outside work. There could also be genuine physical or mental health problems.
A process can deal with what happens after someone becomes absent, but it doesn't necessarily deal with the underlying causes of the absence.
This is one of the challenges for organisations. Processes are relatively easy to create because they provide something tangible. A new policy can be written, approved and communicated. Training can be provided and managers can be told what they need to do. It can then be said that action has been taken.
The problem is that taking action isn't necessarily the same as solving a problem.
The same thing can happen with recruitment. If an organisation is struggling to recruit people, it might introduce a new recruitment process. It might change the application form, introduce a new recruitment system or provide recruitment training to managers.
Again, these things can all be useful. But if the organisation is struggling to attract people because the salary is not competitive, the organisation has a poor reputation or the jobs are difficult to do, changing the recruitment process may not make much difference.
The process may become better while the recruitment problem stays exactly the same.
Organisations can also respond to employee engagement problems by introducing engagement surveys. Surveys are useful because they provide information about what employees think and can identify areas where organisations need to improve. But simply carrying out a survey doesn't improve engagement.
If employees complete a survey and then nothing changes, the survey can actually make things worse. People may feel that they have been asked for their opinion but that their opinion doesn't matter.
This is why organisations need to think carefully about the problem they are trying to solve before deciding what action to take.
A useful question to ask is:
What problem are we actually trying to solve?
This sounds like a simple question, but it is not always asked.
Sometimes the problem is described in terms of the thing that is happening rather than the reason why it is happening. For example, "we have a sickness absence problem" describes an outcome. It doesn't explain the cause.
Similarly, "we have an employee engagement problem" or "we have a recruitment problem" may describe a symptom rather than the underlying issue.
The challenge is to understand what is happening before deciding what to do about it.
This can involve talking to people, looking at data, understanding what has happened previously and considering different perspectives. It can also involve asking questions that people may not always want to answer.
Sometimes the problem may actually be caused by something that the organisation has control over. This could be management behaviour, workload, organisational culture, poor communication or a process that makes it unnecessarily difficult for people to do their jobs.
This is where organisational development can play an important role.
Organisational development is not just about introducing new initiatives. It is about understanding organisations and helping them to work more effectively. This means looking at people, structures, processes, culture and behaviours and considering how they interact with each other.
This can be more difficult than writing a new procedure because there isn't always a simple answer.
It can also take longer.
However, spending time understanding a problem can prevent organisations from spending a lot of time implementing solutions that don't actually address the issue.
This doesn't mean that processes and policies are not important. They are important and organisations need them. The point is that a process should be a response to a problem rather than the automatic response to a problem.
Before introducing another policy, process, framework or system, organisations should stop and ask themselves what they are actually trying to achieve.
They should also ask whether the proposed solution is likely to address the cause of the problem or simply manage the symptoms.
This may sound obvious, but organisations are often under pressure to do something. A new process provides evidence that something has been done. It gives people something to communicate, something to implement and something to measure.
Sometimes, however, the most useful thing an organisation can do is to stop and think before doing anything.
The answer to an organisational problem may not be another process.
It might be a conversation.
It might be a different way of working.
It might be better management.
It might be a change in culture.
Or it might be that the organisation has misunderstood the problem in the first place.
The important thing is to understand the problem before deciding on the solution.
Otherwise, organisations can end up with very efficient processes for solving the wrong problems
The Process Problem
Organisations are complex things, but not as infinitely complex as human beings. When organisations face challenges, it can be difficult to determine the source of the problem and what needs to be done to resolve it. We forget that humans actively dislike being put into a box and made to follow generic rules that simply don’t fit their circumstances.
Many organisations default to the introduction of a new process. Remember, it is people who sit behind an organisation's thought factory and boy do we have a love hate relationship with bureaucracy. It’s an understandable reaction because processes create a clear way of doing something and provide consistency. However, some processes don't actually solve the problem and much worse, actively create more.
If an organisation has an issue with sickness absence, the usual approach is to introduce or update the sickness absence procedure. The HR team starts rubbing their hands with glee. It will be beautiful, it will set out the trigger points, the stages of the process, how people should notify the organisation if they have explosive diarrhoea. What it cannot do is solve the reasons why absence occurs in the first place, it can only manage the symptoms.
There are numerous reasons why people may choose not to attend work aside from specific health issues. Stress, difficult relationships, workload or feeling undervalued. Then there is always the one that organisations dislike discussing - maybe it’s just a rubbish place to work.
Processes are relatively easy to create and they provide something tangible. Training can be provided and managers can be told what they need to do. It can then be proudly declared that action has been taken. But nothing actually changed. People are still going off sick at the same rate, albeit in line with a new set of rules.
Writing rules around an issue isn't necessarily the same as solving a problem. It lacks the evidential proof that applying the rules will make a difference.
The same thing can happen with recruitment. If an organisation is struggling to recruit people, it might introduce a new recruitment process. It might change the application form, or provide recruitment training to managers.
Again, these things can all be useful. But if the organisation is struggling to attract people because the salary is not competitive, the organisation has a poor reputation or the jobs are difficult to do, changing the recruitment process may not make much difference.
Organisations often respond to employee engagement problems by introducing engagement surveys. Surveys can be useful because they provide information about what employees think and can identify areas where organisations need to improve. Sometimes. But simply carrying out a survey doesn't improve engagement. If you are going to create a survey and ask people to spend their time completing it, you better be prepared to take action on the findings, all of them. There is nothing more frustrating than a survey identifying major flaws in management capability, who then provide free tea and coffee to its employees as a response to the survey, presumably to give them something to drink whilst hiding from their hideous manager. Don’t forget, not everyone responded to your survey, and no one knows what the hell those guys really think.
People need to feel that if they have been asked for their opinion, it was an authentic question and the responses actually mattered.
Before taking any action to handle your issue, ask this question
What problem are we actually trying to solve?
Sometimes the problem is described in symptoms rather than causes. For example, explaining that everyone is off with chronic sickness is not the same as understanding that everyone ate bad sushi at the Friday social. You understand that it is linked to an incident that won’t repeat itself (unless you keep ordering bad sushi).
Similarly, "we have an employee engagement problem" or "we have a recruitment problem" does nothing to understand the cause, only deals with the effect.
The challenge is to understand what is happening before deciding what to do about it.
This means talking to people, looking at data, understanding what has happened previously and considering different perspectives. It can also involve asking questions that people may not always want to answer.
Sometimes the problem may actually be caused by something that the organisation has control over. This could be management behaviour, workload, organisational culture, poor communication or a process that makes it unnecessarily difficult for people to do their jobs.
This is where organisational development can play an important role.
It is not just about introducing new initiatives. It is about understanding organisations and helping them to work more effectively. This means looking at people, structures, processes, culture and behaviours and considering how they interact with each other.
This can be more difficult than writing a new procedure because there isn't always a simple answer. It might get messy. There may be more than one approach to solve the issue, which takes longer.
This doesn't mean that processes and policies are not important. They provide a framework for handling the basics. But as I mentioned earlier, people are more complex than most policies can adequately deal with.
Organisations are often under pressure to act. A new process provides evidence that something has been done. It gives people something to communicate, something to implement and something to measure.
Sometimes, the most useful thing an organisation can do is to stop and think before taking action. A kind of look both ways before crossing the street approach, making sure you aren’t about to be ploughed into by the shiny new policy bus.
The answer may not be another process, controversial, I know.
It might be a conversation.
It might be a different way of working.
It might be better management.
It might be a change in culture.
Even these questions are too generic. Organisations need to get into the detail, define what you mean by different, better, change. When we use vague terms we inevitably get vague results. Having a specific purpose to actions becomes more measurable and the evidence becomes more tangible.
The important thing is to understand the problem before deciding on the solution.
Otherwise, organisations can end up with very efficient processes for solving the wrong problems or worse still, creating new problems that didn’t exist before.
If you think I might be able to help you with a project, get in touch via the enquiry form below