How to Handle Editorial Disagreements With Writers Or Clients
Editorial disagreements can be challenging, but they don't have to derail your content creation process. This article offers practical strategies for navigating conflicts between writers, editors, and clients, drawing on insights from industry experts. Learn how to foster open dialogue, use data to support editorial choices, and focus on shared goals to create balanced, high-quality content.
- Lead with Curiosity in Editorial Discussions
- Align Team with Well-Written Project Brief
- Foster Open Dialogue for Mutual Understanding
- Use Data to Support Editorial Choices
- Create Balanced Content Through Collaborative Revision
- Focus on Shared Goals in Content Disputes
- Resolve Conflicts with Active Listening and Collaboration
Lead with Curiosity in Editorial Discussions
I handle disagreements with writers or clients by leading with curiosity, not ego. If someone pushes back on an editorial decision, I ask why—because behind that push is usually a deeper concern, such as voice, brand alignment, or fear of losing clarity.
One time, a client wanted to rewrite a headline I thought was SEO gold. Instead of pushing back, I asked, "What's the part that doesn't feel right to you?" It turned out they were worried it didn't speak to their audience's tone. We reworked it together—kept the keyword structure but made it feel more authentic to their voice.
My approach is always collaborative. We're not competing; we're building something that works. The tip I'd give? Validate their concern, explain your reasoning, and offer a middle ground. Most conflicts aren't creative—they're communication. Solve for that, and the content usually takes care of itself.
Align Team with Well-Written Project Brief
It always comes back to the brief, project synopsis, or assignment document.
Get the brief right, and the project is like fishing in a koi pond. Start without it, or get it wrong, and you're doomed before the outline even gets written.
When the brief is well written, and if the entire team has visibility, AND everyone has signed off before the first word gets written, the critical editorial decisions have already been made. These include the lede or tentpole statement, key takeaways, tone, and format—all of the places along the path that are most likely to lead to the assignment going pear-shaped.
Then, as an editor, your two most powerful questions about that brief are, "What here needs clarification?" and "Do we all agree?"
Foster Open Dialogue for Mutual Understanding
Personally, I handle disagreements by encouraging open dialogue. I believe that every perspective is invaluable. For instance, with a women's fashion retail client, we had differing opinions on an editorial direction. We discussed the vision, the brand's identity, and the audience's expectations before reaching a mutual understanding. I respect different views as they lead to growth and innovation.
Use Data to Support Editorial Choices
At Kalam Kagaz, we always aim for open and respectful communication when handling disagreements. In my experience, it's essential to approach these situations with an understanding mindset. For example, if a writer or client disagrees with an editorial decision, I make sure to listen to their perspective thoroughly and explain the reasoning behind our approach. We then collaborate to find a middle ground that aligns with both our creative vision and their expectations.
One tactic that has worked well is showing them data or examples that support our editorial choices, helping them understand the bigger picture. It also helps to remind everyone that we're all aiming for the same goal: creating content that resonates with the target audience. Through this collaborative approach, we've been able to maintain strong working relationships and continue delivering high-quality work.
Create Balanced Content Through Collaborative Revision
As a team lead, I focus on respectful communication and mutual understanding when handling disagreements with the writers I work with. I aim to create a dialogue rather than impose corrections. For example, I once received an article that highlighted only the benefits of AI in schools--efficiency, personalization, and engagement. I realized the article needed a more balanced perspective, including ethical considerations and potential negative consequences for students. This gap, I recognized, stemmed from a brief that hadn't clearly outlined these expectations.
I scheduled a quick call with the writer to discuss the editorial vision. Instead of criticizing, I acknowledged the strengths of the piece and explained how including potential risks would strengthen its credibility and better align it with our audience's needs. I also took responsibility for the lack of clarity in the brief. The writer revised the piece, adding a thoughtful section on responsible AI use. The result was a well-rounded article shaped through trust and collaboration.
Focus on Shared Goals in Content Disputes
When disagreements arise with writers or clients regarding editorial decisions, my approach is rooted in open communication, empathy, and a shared focus on the larger goal. Whether it's a stylistic choice, content direction, or tone, these discussions are often an opportunity to ensure that everyone is aligned and moving in the right direction.
First, I make sure to listen actively. I want to fully understand the writer's or client's perspective before responding. Often, the root of the disagreement is a difference in vision, so taking the time to listen helps uncover any underlying concerns or misunderstandings. I find that when people feel heard, it opens the door to more collaborative problem-solving.
Once I've understood their point of view, I take a step back and reframe the conversation around the end goal—whether it's engaging an audience, telling a compelling story, or promoting a product. This shift in focus helps everyone remember that the ultimate objective is to produce content that meets the audience's needs and aligns with the brand's values.
If the disagreement persists, I lean on data and evidence to guide the decision-making process. For example, we may look at metrics from similar campaigns, review audience feedback, or use analytics to see what content is performing best. I find that when we bring concrete data into the conversation, it helps ground the discussion and move past personal preferences or assumptions.
At the same time, I believe in maintaining a flexible mindset. If a writer or client has a strong argument and presents a perspective that I hadn't considered, I'm open to adjusting the approach. In these situations, it's crucial to remain adaptable and willing to find a compromise that satisfies both parties while still aligning with our broader objectives.
Ultimately, I view disagreements as a natural part of the creative process. The goal isn't to "win" the argument but to arrive at a decision that leads to the best possible outcome. By fostering a culture of respect, collaboration, and transparency, we can navigate these challenges productively and continue moving forward together.
Resolve Conflicts with Active Listening and Collaboration
The sensitive aspect of managing content creation is handling disagreements with writers and clients. Here's one effective approach to deal with it:
Active listening is the first step you can take to carefully understand the concerns and objections of the writers. Acknowledging their points and validating their perspectives is important, even if you disagree.
Clarifying objectives, identifying goals, and revisiting the objectives will help in understanding each party's thoughts about the content goals.
Share insights and explain the reasoning behind your editorial decisions. Using data and past experiences will support your perspective.
Invite the writer or client to brainstorm together on common ideas. Collaboration will pave the way towards a solution respected by both parties and the finalization of the product.
Always maintain a professional tone throughout the entire discussion, regardless of how you feel about the disagreement.
Clarify whose decision will be the final accepted one.
