This paper examines a workplace situation in which the author sought to address unresponsive communication habits of an executive editor by using management couching techniques to frame the request constructively. The author reflects on the power imbalance between the editor and writers, the approach taken via email, the mixed results, and alternative strategies that might have been more effective. The paper explores the psychological and interpersonal challenges of initiating change conversations with authority figures and considers how both parties process feedback differently depending on their organizational position.
The situation I sought to address involved the executive editor at my organization, who is responsible for assigning articles to different writers. Typically, writers pitch articles to her, and she responds with acceptance or rejection. Recently, however, her communication has become inconsistent and selective. When a writer pitches an article, she does not decline it—she simply does not respond. Yet if a writer emails her about other matters, such as payment inquiries, she replies promptly. This selective non-responsiveness is problematic on multiple levels. It is not only discourteous and an inappropriate use of her authority, but it also undermines article quality because writers lack feedback on what content resonates with the publication. Without her response, writers cannot learn or adjust their pitching approach.
I decided to address the issue by sending her a polite email outlining what I perceived as the effects of her lack of responsiveness. I employed classic management communication techniques, often called "couching," in which I framed every point of criticism with something positive about her work. I opened by expressing gratitude for the opportunity to write for the organization, then explained how her non-response to pitches complicates the writer's ability to craft effective future submissions. This approach is designed to soften criticism with acknowledgment and context, making the recipient more receptive to the message rather than defensive.
I felt genuinely nervous while drafting and sending the email, primarily because of the power structure inherent in the organization. The editor holds nearly all the authority; writers hold very little. Most critically, the editor can terminate a writer's involvement with the publication at any time. This asymmetry made the conversation particularly tenuous. I was essentially asking someone with power over my continued employment to change behavior, with no guarantee she would be receptive or that there would be no professional consequences.
The editor responded immediately, stating she is busy and prefers to assign articles rather than field unsolicited pitches. However, she did not address the core issue: by failing to comment on pitched articles, she provides no insight into how writers might better align future submissions with the organization's goals. Although she did not appear offended, her lack of substantive engagement suggested she had not committed to changing her habits. More tellingly, her immediate response to this email starkly highlighted the contradiction in her communication patterns—she responds quickly to emails that suit her agenda but ignores those that don't.
"Assessing the editor's response and considering alternative approaches"
"How individuals process and internally react to requests for behavioral change"
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.