Editor’s Comments: Reflections on the Craft of Clear Writing

Most of us struggle with our writing. We thrash and hack our way through paragraphs, writing and editing and rewriting until we think we’ve made some progress on that God-forsaken manuscript. The next morning we turn on the computer, read the file, and realize that our work of art is a muddled mess. We curse, hit the delete key, and start again. It can be a frustrating process, particularly for theory papers, which are all about the writing. But we hang in there. We finish the manuscript and submit it to AMR. We wait. We wait some more. We get the reviews. The rejection stings, but the reviewer’s comments are worse: “I’m puzzled as to what exactly you are trying to accomplish here.” “The first twenty-three pages are an endless literature review.” “I had to read several pages into the manuscript to get a hint about what you are trying to achieve.” “What exactly is this paper about? After reading it twice, I’m still not sure.” We open the freezer and reach for the HäagenDazs. We think, “What is wrong with these reviewers? Why couldn’t they understand the point of my manuscript? It was so clear . . . or was it?” The first challenge of clear writing is to understand your reader. With this in mind, I polled current and past AMR board members, associate editors, editors, and special issue reviewers to get their insights and recommendations on the craft of clear writing, particularly as it applies to theoretical articles. I asked them to share (1) their pet peeves about the writing style, organization, and presentation of theoretical manuscripts; (2) their thoughts on why authors engage in poor writing practices; and, perhaps most important, (3) their advice and recommendations for writing clear theoretical articles. This simple request opened a floodgate: sixty-seven reviewers responded with over a hundred pages of advice and reflections on the craft of writing. I’ve selected a few of the most common themes and practical recommendations, which I hope you find interesting and helpful. I’d like to accomplish a few things with this essay. The first is to share the reviewers’ insights and reflections about the craft of clear writing. These people are not just the gatekeepers of AMR; they are also peers who read, use, and hopefully cite your work. As seasoned readers who see more than their share of manuscripts in various stages of readiness, they have sound, practical advice for those who are writing theoretical manuscripts for AMR. My second objective is to add the topic of clear writing to the growing conversation about the importance of writing in our profession (cf. Dane, 2011; Fulmer, 2012; Grant & Pollock, 2011; Hollenbeck, 2008; Huff, 1999). Writing is not just a support-level activity; it is the primary way in which we develop and disseminate knowledge. I hope this essay will spark dialogue and personal reflection about our shared challenges of writing clearly and the importance of clear writing in our profession. So here’s the road map for this essay: I begin with a definition of clear writing, followed by a short description of the informal poll so you can get a sense of what was done and why. I then present three of the most common pet peeves identified by the reviewers, their views on why authors engage in these practices, and their recommendations and advice for authors who want to improve their writing. I end with some Many thanks to the AMR reviewers who shared their personal reflections and insights on the craft of clear writing. I also thank the editor, associate editors, and my doctoral students (Dianne Murphy and Kyle Ehrhardt) for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Most of all, I thank my husband, Erik Thelen, for encouraging me to write this essay and for being my sounding board throughout the process. 1 These are actual reviewer comments that were shared by one of the reviewers who participated in the informal poll. Academy of Management Review 2012, Vol. 37, No. 4, 493–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0165