Recently, I submitted a document for review alongside a colleague. Both of our drafts were similar in tone, content, and structure. Yet, while my colleague’s work sailed through with minimal feedback, mine was heavily criticized. Every sentence was picked apart, and every choice was questioned. It quickly stopped feeling like constructive feedback and started feeling personal.
As technical writers, we expect our work to be reviewed critically—that’s how we grow. But when the same standard isn’t applied to everyone, the process feels unfair. Was the issue truly with my content, or was I up against someone’s personal preference? Or worse, bias?
In moments like these, it doesn’t matter if your writing is technically perfect. What matters is that someone’s preferences or opinions can overshadow collaboration and fairness. It’s an uncomfortable reality: great work can be stalled, not because of its quality, but because of who wrote it.
This experience left me asking tough questions:
- How do we ensure feedback stays objective?
- How do we prevent editorial bias from stifling collaboration?
- And when the process no longer feels fair, is it time to consider a new team or environment?
One thing is clear: feedback should build, not break. It should focus on the work, not the writer. When that balance is lost, we all lose—the writer, the team, and ultimately, the user we’re writing for.
Top comments (0)