Comment by mjburgess
9 hours ago
You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones. It seems more likely to me the manager tried to read it and struggled, then generated something of equivalent size or larger. I'm taking it the generated document passed around was actually at least as large as the one-pager, and hence entirely pointless to rephrase even with the malign motivations you're assuming.
Since the poster here wears his personality and writing motivations on his sleeve, it is very obvious to me that he writes at cross purposes with those who read. he says very clearly: he writes for precision, expended a vast cognitive effort per word.
Even if, in this instance, my analysis is wrong -- its a comment for the poster here worth considering. Because people don't like to read writing which has taken such effort to produce, because it then requires a great effort to read.
> It seems more likely to me the manager tried to read it and struggled, then generated something of equivalent size or larger.
Either way, it's poor management to interpose oneself between employees. As a manager you should be connecting groups of people to talk to each other directly, not injecting oneself as a go between. If they have issues understanding the material they're much better off asking the OP directly than asking the manager who doesn't understand it either. And they'll be in a much better place to do that if they have read the material OP actually wrote.
I didn't interpret mjburgess as defending the manager or even condoning the action. In fact, I read their comments as recognizing that action as a failure.
The difference is that mj was trying to give advice to donatj, and donatj can't control what their manager does. So the advice is crafted such that it gives actionable suggestions to donatj.
Yet, that might not be the correct interpretation. I don't know, I'm some third party, like you. Personally I agree that this is poor management but I don't think just blaming the problem on the manager solves anything, it just leaves the problem broken. So the things to do are either fix the problem or figure out how to work with the broken thing.
> So the things to do are either fix the problem or figure out how to work with the broken thing.
So, I will say that if you did not seen or read a text in question, there is no way for you to accurately diagnose issues with the text and give out advice on how to make it better. Such advice from someone who simply assumes the way the text was wrong based on some manager rewriting it with ai is less then useless.
It is, frankly, ridiculous to think one can give meaningful advice about text you have never seen. And then double down in comments.
2 replies →
Well, OP can learn from the experience or turn it into a hill to die on. Learning doesn't imply you were ever wrong, only that something you did produced an unintended result -- people are themselves problems to navigate around, not people whose actions you have to read as judgements.
The op is probably not the world's most reliable narrator. Based on his very, very specific preferences around writing I'm guessing he can be a bit prickly when it comes to feedback. The manager might have had a bad day and dreaded having the conversation and ended up with this. Still very stupid, but OP is not quite so clearly the martyred hero in this version.
Agreed. Anyone who believes they can write an English sentence that is clear, exact, and bulletproof is foolish at best.
This is the reason professional jargon exists: to narrowly define certain words. But even then, only a tiny fraction of words are so restricted.
> You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones.
Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
And sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I'm not seeing the point.
Bingo, it’s pointless trying to suss out beyond a certain threshold.
Just assume it’s a mix.
Or, to put another way, “never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance”
I would assume the manager's a terrible reader and writer.
Most people are. Most managers are.
It's one of those upsetting things I've learned about the world as an adult, that's sharply contrary to what I believed as a child. I kept being surprised by all kinds of things until I began really to appreciate that, simply, most folks aren't especially literate. Even ones who attend and attain degrees from universities—surely at least nearly-all of those people can read and understand "college level" texts with some fluency? But no, that's, somehow, not even close to true.
> Because people don't like to read writing which has taken such effort to produce, because it then requires a great effort to read.
I disagree, but stipulate that. Why would this be reasonable behavior when doing knowledge work?
When I read documentation, I'm not there to enjoy the experience. I'm there to find out how the documented thing works and how to use it. It's not a novel. I'm not there for entertainment.
Chasing readability without maintaining accuracy is a failure in the context of documentation no matter the motivations involved.
I'm not saying that readability can't be a consideration when making documentation. I am saying that if you discard accuracy in the process, you've fucked up quite badly.
This anecdote would likely be very different if the AI-modified version had been passed back to engineering for a review before sending it out.
> I'm not saying that readability can't be a consideration when making documentation. I am saying that if you discard accuracy in the process, you've fucked up quite badly.
You're right to elevate accuracy to a high level of importance, but that is NOT ENOUGH if the thing is has poor readability. The audience has to be able to understand the document if the document is to be useable.
There's only a certain amount of effort anyone can deliver in producing a document. But if the author can't deliver readability, they need to follow up the document with a lot of support and/or get some help to make it useable.
I've struggled through some absolutely awful documentation over the years. I'll put up with incredibly broken English and other problems as long as the accuracy is there. Just last week I encountered a pinout diagram that used emojis to indicate which pins related to which data channel. Not a choice I would have made, and I found it made the diagram harder to read. But it was accurate - I wired it up per the diagram and everything worked as intended.
Documentation lacking accuracy is useless. It can be the most readable thing ever produced, but if it describes a different thing than what was intended to be documented, it's trash. Documentation that is hard to read but is accurate still has value.
Regarding "follow up the document with a lot of support" - did you catch the part of the anecdote where the author is having to deal with support requests because of the inaccuracies?
> You're assuming malign motivations, I'm assuming misplaced ones.
And in the process, you give zero benefit of the doubt to OP. You just assume he wrote it badly.
I see this behavior in many people, usually conflict averse. In a poor attempt to mediate, spread incompetence like butter on a slice of bread. Ranges from tiring to infuriating.