I'd submit the piece and we'd have a meeting. I can guarantee you that, had I met with each person individually to get their feedback, I would have got "This is great. Just one thing here. Oh, and another thing there."
but have a meeting? It was there opportunity to -- I swear -- make shit up because they each felt the need to prove they had actually prepared for the meeting by coming up with criticisms of the writing. After awhile, I figured out that what I needed to do was make some glaring errors. Everyone was happy that they found something to complain about and score points in the meeting. Meanwhile, I'd already prepared what was needed, and maybe had to change a few minor things as typically demanded by the lawyer or CEO -- since I was usually ghostwriting for the CEO.
Christ. Had I gotten "better" by anticipating what they needed, they all just would have been on a wild goose chase to find the slightest little thing to whine about, just to score points. heh.
>If they go to a meeting and don't say anything, they feel like they
>haven't contributed (sat on the bench). I've had conversations with
>Europeans who have been through the training classes at US investment
>banks, and they say that the US men speak just to be heard, even if they
>don't have anything to say or -- worse -- what they have to say is wrong
>or off-topic.
>
>They are rewarded for this! It's a bad feedback loop.
>
>Women at meetings, in my experience, have no patience for this. When this
>kind of thing starts to happen, many women zone out and stop
>contributing. I often get feedback later from women who follow up after a
>meeting with something they could have said aloud but didn't have the
>stomach for.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org