by Multi-author writing is the backbone of reports, funding applications and project approvals in government and for-purpose comms. But is it quietly sabotaging your impact?
Reading time: 5 mins | By Lee Ellwood | Copyedited by Kylie Howard
It’s report time, and your contributors have been hard at work. Your policy expert drafted the background, and your data analyst compiled the findings. The frontline teams summarised their activities, and your communications officer put it all together in the template. Your report – vital for getting sign-off, or funding, or eyeballs – is complete.
Complete, but not finished. You have words, but do they work?
When you read through the report, you have to admit they don’t. The document’s tone jumps from academic to conversational to bureaucratic. Key terms are defined differently in each section. Some pages use Australian English spelling, while others follow US conventions. The executive summary promises outcomes the body of the report never delivers, while the conclusion overlooks the most important achievement.
Just like Frankenstein, multi-author writing has created a monster: a horror stitched together from mismatched parts into something that won’t do what you want it to.
The risks of multi-author writing
Collaborating isn’t a problem in itself – that’s how you leverage everyone’s perspectives and expertise.
Government departments rely on cross-functional teams to develop policy documents. Annual reports draw on input from every part of the organisation.
Research papers and grant applications are often compiled by people from multiple institutions, departments and disciplines. Social impact organisations need input from program staff, evaluators and fundraising teams to create compelling impact reports.
The issue lies in the assumption that multiple expert contributions will automatically blend into a cohesive, professional document. They won't, and here's why.
- Everyone has their own personal writing style and habits, so whatever your contributors hand in will vary in language, tone and voice from everyone else’s.
- Everyone has different computer settings and app preferences, from default US English to the old Word vs Google Docs argument.
- Contributors work in isolation, so they may not understand how their section fits into the report, what form it should take and whether their piece contradicts or connects to everyone else's.
- Roles and responsibilities within the project are often assumed and ill-defined, meaning duplications, omissions and blame games disrupt workflows and confuse everyone.
- Sorting out the inconsistencies and duplication uses up valuable project time; corners – and quality – are cut to meet the deadline.
- One person needs to have a bird’s-eye view of the whole document so they can make sure it is ‘whole’, but often there are multiple stakeholders further up the chain who have their own ideas.
What a collaborative document can cost you
It's not a matter of a bit of weak writing. Your Frankenstein report can cause big problems for the success of your purpose-led work, costing your organisation:
- Credibility. When your impact report switches between ‘programme’ and ‘program’ or defines success differently across sections, readers notice. If you can’t get the basics right, should they trust your data? Your conclusions? Your organisation?
- Reader engagement. The Australian Government style manual points out that clarity and consistency are essential for ensuring government content is useful and engaging. This is true for any writing: when readers encounter jarring shifts in tone or contradictory information, they stop reading. For purpose-based documents, that’s a big problem.
- Time and money. You’ve already spent weeks coordinating contributions from busy SMEs. Now you’re spending more time emailing revisions, smoothing out inconsistencies, clarifying contradictions or managing arguments. And your deadline is getting closer and closer.
- Hoped-for outcomes. The grant application with the muddled methodology section gets rejected. The impact report that doesn’t clearly articulate your achievements is filed and forgotten. The policy brief that buries its recommendations in jargon is ignored by the minister’s office.
How professional editing can save you
Writing documents and compiling information are one thing; ensuring impact and connection is another.
You need SMEs to provide the ideas and data. But to ensure everything works together, you also need someone with expertise in creating coherent, consistent, professional documents from multiple inputs. Someone who can preserve each contributor’s expertise while ensuring the final product speaks with one clear voice.
That ‘someone’ is a professional editor.
When you engage an editor, they will ask about the purpose of the document, its intended audience and what issues you think need attention. Only then will they start on one or two rounds of reviews of the text, identifying and fixing issues as well as suggesting improvements you might not have thought of.
How your organisation wins
If you’re in government, research or the social impact sector, effective writing is critical – and collaboration is how work gets done. Policy briefs, grant applications, impact and evaluation reports, research papers and annual reports all require input from multiple SMEs.
Professional editing is the difference between a document that achieves its purpose and one that undermines your credibility while wasting everyone’s time. Instead of a Frankenstein, you’ll have:
- A well-structured, flowing document. Sometimes the problem isn’t that each section is poorly written but that they’re in the wrong order, or certain points are buried, or the document would flow better with a completely different structure. An editor can see these issues and develop a structure that works.
- An audience-appropriate tone. An editor can moderate between the researcher who wants to list every reference, the CEO who wants to shine, and the communications officer who wants snappy socials, delivering a tone that’s both credible and appropriate for your target readership.
- Cohesive messaging. Professional editors look at how ideas flow across sections. They eliminate redundancy, resolve contradictions and ensure your introduction promises – and your conclusion reinforces – what your body delivers.
- Consistency in the details. Your editor will ensure your document uses one variety of English, defines terms consistently and has consistent formatting. And it matters: the Australian Government style manual exists precisely because consistency across written communications builds public trust.
- Bonus prize: harmonious working relationships. When your colleague points out problems with your section of the document, it can feel personal. When an external editor points things out, it’s just part of the process. Bringing in an editor allows everyone to focus on their expertise without the friction of critiquing each other’s writing – or, inadvertently, work.
How not to Frankenstein your documents
Here’s a better way to approach your next writing project.
- Before work starts, create a clear style guide for the project. The Australian Government style manual is your best resource, or your editor can create one for you.
- Assign clear project roles. Decide who will accept, reject and rework the contributions, and give them the authority to do it properly.
- Provide context. Provide everyone with an overview of the final product’s structure and templates for sections to guide them in the shaping of their writing.
- Engage a professional editor. Factor editing into your timeline and budget from the beginning, and you’ll be thrilled with your foresight!
Your work deserves to be read, understood and acted on. Your credibility depends on your ability to communicate clearly. That means clear, cohesive and consistent reports and documents.
That’s what your editor wants, too.
Looking for help with your next multi-author writing? EllWords specialises in long-form editing and writing for government, research and social impact organisations. We turn complex collaborative documents into clear, consistent, and credible communications.
Get in touch with us and avoid another Frankenstein.
Leave a Reply