Here's the secret, right up front: first determine how much time a task should take; then, communicate your expectation clearly to the employee assigned that task. Sound simple? Well, let's look at some background, because this secret is not simple to implement -- and unimplemented, its absence is a frequent source of turmoil in an organization.

Some Background

Pete is on the editorial staff of a professional magazine. He is responsible for editing 19 magazine pages each issue. He feels he's doing a great job and producing a lot. You, on the other hand, want him to do more. Pete insists that he's already pulling his load. Conflict arises whenever you both discuss productivity.

Lisa spends part of her working day editing material for another publication. On average, she spends about 10 hours per printed page, what with all the activities that go into developing an article: soliciting it from the author, checking facts, getting the illustrations ready, not to mention the editing itself. You are pleased with her work and view her as a talented and productive member of the staff.

Are Pete and Lisa working productively?

"A fair day's work for a fair day's pay" is a familiar expression. We've all heard it. So when it comes to editorial jobs like Pete's and Lisa's, it’s an interesting concept to ponder, too. Indeed, what is a fair day's work? How much is a fair day's pay? In this special report, we'll look at the first side of that equation: a fair day's work. We'll cover compensation matters in a subsequent report.

How Long Does It Take?

As an editor, or as a supervisor of editors, how do you know if one's level of productivity is appropriate? If an editor or group of editors is investing over 50 hours of time in each printed page, is that appropriate? What if it's fewer than 5 hours per page?

According to research, almost any amount of time spent on a page -- 5 to 50 hours -- is perfectly appropriate! This may seem like a very wide range to fathom. But the correct number really depends upon your publication and its special characteristics and requirements.

A number of variables affect the hours-per-page time requirement. They include:

1. The size of the page (digest, standard, tabloid, etc.).

2. The size of type, leading, and illustrations.

3. The percentage of staff-written vs. outside contributed material.

4. The need for review by multiple editors or experts.

At BusinessWeek, for example, the average story is read by 10 to 12 people before it goes into print, according to its managing editor. That practice certainly adds to the number of hours that go into each of their editorial pages. But for quite a few magazines, that kind of extensive content review is an important requirement.

What Research Says

For some time now, the staff at Editors Only has been asking editors and publishers about the number of editorial hours that go into their issues. Then, based on the average number of editorial pages per issue reportedly published, we compute the number of editorial hours represented by each page they publish. With only a limited group of case studies, it's hardly an exhaustive work at this point. But the results do provide a perspective from which to consider your own staff's performance. See Table I for a compilation of the data.

Table I: Editorial Hours Spent Per Published Page

Publication	Hours per Page
Optimist Magazine	2.2
Sea Kayak	4.1
Candy Wholesaler	4.2
Detroiter	8.4
Bodyshop Business	10.2
Veterinary Economics	10.3
Lady's Circle	10.8
Popular Electronics	11.5
Hydro Review	11.7
Maine Antique Digest	11.9
Training	11.9
Grower Talks	12.7
Manufacturing Eng.	15.5
Farm Chemicals	16.1
Creative Woodworks & Crafts	17.5
Trade Show Week	17.5
Meetings & Conventions	20.7
Southern Homes	21.7
Parenting Magazine	26.9
Fine Gardening	27.6
Golf Digest	31.3
Fine Woodworking	34.0
Computerworld	40.0
Engineering Times	50.0
Essence	86.0
Forbes	99.2
Special Report	102.4

Overall, the average time spent per page is 26.5 hours. And if we ignore the high and low extremes, the average becomes 19.9 editorial hours per editorial page. Over half of the publications fall within the range of about 10 to 25 hours per page. And the highest concentration is in the 10 to 20 hours per page range.

How does your publication compare with that?

Keep in mind that the 19.9 hours is an average based on few pieces of data. But whether the average is 10 or 20 is not critical. Rather, these numbers can serve to provide a general idea of what you might expect from your editors -- or from yourself!

What Does It Mean?

First, let's look at what it doesn't mean. It does not mean that 19.9 hours of writing and editing actually went into that "typical" page. Why not? It's because the number of editorial staff hours that the publications reported includes many activities besides editing. The hours also include time spent planning, making trips, drinking coffee, soliciting articles, taking vacations, etc. Everything an editor does during his or her nominal 40 hours per week.

Here's what is does mean. If you are doing a standard-size magazine with average type size and leading, and if you have no special requirements that everything be checked thoroughly by multiple editors or experts, then you might compare your average with this one. It won't necessarily be the same. Indeed, it may be very different. If it is, however, you might want to look into the reasons for the difference -- and ask yourself whether they are acceptable reasons.

Calculate Your Average Editorial Hours per Page

To figure your average for comparison, here's what to do:

1. Add up the number of editors on your staff. If you have part-timers, count them as fractions, i.e., 0.5 for a 20-hour-per-week person. When counting editors, don't include layout people or support staff.

2. Multiply the number of editors by 2,080, the number of potential working hours in a year (40 hrs. per week times 52 weeks). The product will represent your annual editorial staff time. (Keep in mind that some of that time is devoted to vacations, sick days, etc.)

3. Count the number of editorial pages you published in the last 12 months.

4. Divide your annual editorial staff time by the number of editorial pages you published in the last year.

The result of these calculations will represent your average number of editorial hours per page.

If Your Average is Higher Than the Norm...

—Do you have an unusually large number of words per page?

—Do you use few photos and graphics?

—Is considerable time being spent for the purpose of approving copy?

—Do some things have to be done over and over again before being done acceptably?

—Is your subject area very technical?

—Are you over-editing?

—Have you passed a point of diminishing returns considering the time invested vs. the result?

Any of these considerations can account for a higher-than-average number of editorial hours per page.

If Your Average Is Lower Than the Norm...

—Do you use mostly material from outside contributors?

—Are your pages highly illustrated?

—Are you adequately checking facts?

—Could your editorial quality be greatly improved by investing some extra time?

Any of these indicators could result in a lower-than-average number of editorial hours per page.

Getting Employees to Produce According to Expectations

So now you know how much time goes into an average page. But what if you don't like that number? What if your employees aren't producing according to expectation?

With long-term employees, it is likely that you have a good understanding regarding productivity levels. After all, you probably wouldn't still be working together if there were long-standing differences of expectation. New editors may be another story.

An editor once wrote me: "It seems like it takes years for new editorial staffers to learn the ropes around here. Either they're not turning in copy by deadline or their work doesn't meet our standards -- or, they're looking for perks that aren't consistent with our policies.

"I try carefully to explain our policies to new editors. And I expect them to observe how we do things and to follow suit. But whenever I have to confront them with what our policies are, they act as if they're being treated unfairly. How can I get new employees to catch on faster?"

What's the Answer?

The training of a new editor usually has two sides. You're glad to have the job filled. On the other hand, you may feel some frustration as your new hire grapples with the rules and procedures that facilitate an efficient editorial operation.

A big part of the problem is usually in the communication and understanding of expectations. What you say and what the new editor hears may be two different things. It may seem like the new person is trying to confound the system. Chances are, though, that you each just have a different set of expectations.

How Can Miscommunication Be Minimized?

There are three aids you can use to facilitate the acculturation of a new editor: (1) a job description, (2) an editorial guide or plan, and (3) an employee handbook. They won't substitute for managerial leadership -- but they can be a big help in clarifying your expectations.

The Job Description

There are a number of elements that an effective job description should contain. They include answers to these questions:

—What is the overall job function?

—To whom does the editor report?

—What are the specific responsibilities?

—What authority does the editor have in order to carry out the responsibilities?

—What quantitative and qualitative results are expected if the job is performed satisfactorily?

If a job description for an employee is being created for the first time, or if an existing one is being revised, it should always be done cooperatively between the employee and the manager. It never should be prepared by the manager and then presented to the employee as an accomplished fact.

There are two reasons for this: First, the employee will likely be aware of many details of the job that the manager might overlook. And, second, there will be far greater employee acceptance of the job description if he or she had a role in creating it.

A job description should be comprehensive enough to serve as the basis of periodic employee performance appraisals. This will lend objectivity to that process and avert unpleasant surprises when it comes to discussing salary adjustments.

And, finally, the job description itself should be subject to period review. It should never be considered a static document. Circumstances change, employees develop, and company goals evolve. Certainly, job descriptions should be updated from time to time to reflect these dynamics.

The Editorial Plan

An editorial plan should exist to explain how an issue is put together, and to describe any longer-term processes such as developing an editorial calendar.

Your plan should answer:

—What are the editorial objectives?

—What is the editorial decision-making process?

—What is the established work-flow procedure?

—Who is responsible for things each step along the way?

—What are the publication’s deadlines?

—How do you define "deadline" and what are the consequences of missing one?

—Whose approval is needed for what?

—What are the publication's editorial practices (style, text-to-illustration ratio, etc.)?

—What procedures are established for handling the unusual (e.g., late-breaking crises at deadline)?

Most editorial staffs know much of these processes by heart. And, because the steps are repeated issue after issue, what is the purpose of writing it all down? It is so you'll have an objective point of reference at times when someone deviates from the plan. The existence of a written plan will even lessen the chances that things will go off track in the first place.

The Employee Handbook

An employee handbook should cover all the general rules that employees should follow. It also should describe what it is employees can reasonably expect from the employer. Some of the questions it should answer are:

—What special rules apply to new employees (probationary period, etc.)?

—What are the basic responsibilities of all employees?

—What are the policies for holidays, vacations, illness, or disability?

—How is performance appraised?

—How are raises and bonuses dispensed?

—What are the office rules?

—What are the procedures for disciplinary action, termination, or layoff?

—Is there a complaint procedure?

The employee handbook sets up the basis of the relationship between the employer and employee. In a sense it is like a contract between the two. In that regard, it is usually a good practice to have your draft handbook reviewed by a legal expert.

Managerial Leadership

The job description, the editorial plan, and the employee handbook are all essential documents for effectively increasing editorial productivity.

There is another aspect to the task, too, however. It is personal leadership. If you have a vision for increasing the productivity of your staff, simply demanding compliance will only lead to resentment and noncompliance.

You will be much more successful if you share with your staff your vision and its benefits for all.

How can you do that? To start, I suggest that you read the writings and speeches of some well-known visionary leaders. Martin Luther King, Jr., is one example. His "I have a dream" speech uses the kind of techniques to which I am referring. Perhaps there is another effective leader that you admire. Read some of his or her writings and speeches. Analyze the techniques that he or she uses. I'm not suggesting that you have to use the same speaking style as someone like Martin Luther King, Jr. But apply the leadership techniques in your own way, through your own personality.

A Programmatic Approach

If you are going to lead your staff toward greater productivity, I recommend that you approach it in a programmatic way. That means activities should be part of a carefully related series of events, not just sporadic efforts.

Don't couch this as a remedial program, however. It is far better to present it as a program of training and growth for your staff.

Before you begin dealing with what has to be done to change things, start by explaining why there should be changes. Be forewarned though: most people will feel more secure with keeping things the same. Change means risk. Change means uncertainty. People will tend to see these things as the price of change -- a price they may not want to pay. But there is a price to not changing, too.

You should analyze what that is in your situation, and then explain your perspective to your staff.

Once you have made the case for change, it is necessary to share the benefits that will come from the change. Indeed, what are the benefits?

I don't know what they are in your specific case. But in general, here are a couple of examples: (1) If productivity increases, it is possible that your business will become more profitable. A more profitable business will be able to afford better salaries and benefits, and to improve the working environment. (2) Increased productivity will allow you to produce a better publication. You'll be able to provide a better service to your readers, leading to your editorial staff being held in higher esteem.

What are the particular benefits for your staff? Try to describe them in specific and concrete terms.

Anatomy of the Secret

So the secret for increasing editorial productivity at your publication involves three steps. The first is to do some research and analysis. Find out how much time is actually going into each page that you publish. Then analyze that number and assess whether or not it represents an appropriate level of productivity.

Step two is to create or revise the essential documents for editorial management: the job description, the editorial plan, and the employee handbook.

The third step is to exercise dynamic and effective personal leadership in implementing a programmatic approach to change.

Follow these steps and you will see your staff's editorial productivity start to improve.