“Who is the author?” — writing, bylines and accountability

After several hours of work on an article, Maja sends the finished text to Samuel.

— I assume it’s published under my name as the author?
— No. We’re publishing it under mine.

Maja thinks of authorship as the right to be named for the words she created. Samuel thinks of the text as an official statement by the person representing the company.

What really happened

Maja wrote the entire text, so being named as the author feels natural to her. Samuel sees the document differently: it is supposed to appear as the official voice of a person in a particular organizational role, so to him the byline primarily means “I am publicly accountable for this message.” They are both using the word “authorship”, but they are talking about two different things. For Maja, the key question is who actually did the work and created the words. For Samuel, it is who appears publicly as the sender and takes responsibility for the content. That is why a practice that may be routine in executive communications can look like appropriation of authorship to someone coming from publishing or academia.

What the research says

In research publishing, authorship is strongly tied to contribution, recognition and accountability. Contemporary guidance stresses the need to make clear who contributed, who receives credit and who is accountable for the work. Authorship rules nevertheless vary across disciplines and institutions, and research ethics is especially critical of hiding people who substantially created the work—often discussed as ghost authorship (National Academies, 2017; Creating a responsible authorship culture in science, 2026). These sources concern science and publishing rather than executive or brand communications, where ghostwriting can be a normal professional service. The underlying issue is therefore not that one side knows the “correct” definition of authorship. It is that different professional environments use different conventions for assigning contribution, visibility and responsibility.

How to handle it

Agree on the rule before the writing starts: “this will be published under your name”, “this will be my authored article”, “we will use a joint byline”, or “your contribution will be recognized in another way”. Then the writer knows whether they are creating work that will receive public authorship credit or providing writing for an official spokesperson. The general rule: when the person named and the person who actually created the material are different, do not leave that arrangement as an unspoken norm. Clarify who gets credit, who carries responsibility and whether both sides understand the arrangement in the same way.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can help Maja and Samuel clarify what a signature or byline means in a particular document: authorship of the words, responsibility for publication, or both. A psychometric profile cannot settle that question because it is primarily a matter of role and organizational convention, but Em can quickly surface the fact that the two people are using “author” in different senses. Before publication, it can suggest a simple rule: separate the person who created the material from the person who formally approves and represents the organization when those roles differ. That protects Maja’s recognition for the work while preserving Samuel’s accountability in his formal role. Micro-lessons help leaders understand that visible credit and formal responsibility can belong to different people—and that this should be made explicit before anyone feels their contribution has been taken.