When we request information or action from others using email to convey the request, we are too often disappointed by the length of time required to receive a response, if in fact we do receive a response. Most people tend to lay the responsibility for this disappointing performance at the feet of the recipient of the request, and sometimes that is justified. But I believe that some of the responsibility belongs to the requestor. There are phrases and patterns we use that enable recipients to make choices that are inconsistent with our expectations.
In this post I review some of those nonconstructive patterns, and suggest alternatives that might improve communication between sender and recipient. In what follows I'll use the name Sam for the Sender, and Rocky for the Recipient. And when I refer to Sam (or Rocky) I'm referring only to some senders (or some recipients). Here are some phrases or patterns that I believe do depress the probability of satisfactory results.
- Let me know if "X"
- This construction seems like a straightforward There are phrases and patterns we
use in email that enable recipients
to make choices that are
inconsistent with our expectationsrequest to reply about something affected by the status of X. Sam expects that if X has happened, Rocky will respond about the situation in that case, and if X hasn't happened, Rocky will respond about that case.
- But Sam's expectations might not be consistent with Rocky's interpretation of Sam's request. Rocky might interpret the request as, "If X then tell Sam X happened. Otherwise there is no need to do anything." And so, if X doesn't happen, Rocky doesn't reply, and Sam sits waiting for a reply that never comes.
- The fix for this is simple. Sam could instead send the message, "Let me know what's happening whether X or not X."
- Absence of "please"
- The "tone of voice" in senders' heads as they compose their messages isn't always the same as the "tone of voice" in recipients' heads as they read those same messages. Some recipients experience messages as rude even though they weren't meant to be rude at all. When this happens, some recipients decide to intentionally delay their responses.
- Adding a please to a request reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the incidence of unintended rudeness.
- Indirect questions
- A direct question in an email message is of the form, "When did the requisition go out?" An indirect question is a statement about a direct question, as in, "I'm curious about when the requisition went out." When Sam includes an indirect question in the message, Rocky might not feel compelled to respond to it.
- If you have a question, ask it directly.
- "Do you agree?" and other yes-or-no questions
- When Sam's message contains a yes-or-no question, Rocky is more likely to answer yes or no or something equally terse, even when Sam actually wants a more informative reply. For example, Sam might ask, "Has the requisition gone out yet?" What Sam really wants to know is more like, "When (date/time) did the requisition go out?"
- There are people who will supply terse responses to whatever questions you ask, but you're more likely to get the information you actually want if you actually ask for it.
- Omitting the deadline
- If Sam needs a response by the close of business today, but doesn't include that important fact in the message to Rocky, then Rocky is free to delay responding until tomorrow (or beyond).
- By including the preferred response timeframe in email requests, Sam provides the guidance Rocky needs for setting response priorities.
- Too many addressees
- The chance of receiving a helpful response to an email request can be affected by the number of addressees who receive the message. Research by Barron and Yechiam has shown that compared to responses to messages with multiple addressees, responses to messages addressed to a single recipient are more numerous, more helpful, and lengthier. [Barron 2002]
- This phenomenon is believed to be related to the bystander effect, which causes us to be less likely to lend assistance when others are present who could also lend assistance. [Fischer 2011] Also related is extensive work on diffusion of responsibility, though the research on that phenomenon does emphasize emergencies. [Darely 1968]
- The addressee was in the CC field
- If Sam sends a request to multiple people, the addressees in the CC field are less likely to respond to Sam's request than others are.
- To some people, "CC" is equivalent to "FYI" (For Your Information — no action required). Take care, because addresses sometimes appear in the CC field even when the sender didn't make a conscious choice to put them there. For example, suppose that Sam is replying to a message that was sent to multiple recipients. If Sam issues a "Reply All" command, most email clients would insert in the CC field the addresses of all recipients other than the sender of the original message and possibly Sam. To reply to a message sent to multiple recipients, with only selected recipients in the CC field, the sender must manually move the other CCd addressees to the To field.
- But a personal message to each individual is more effective. See "Too many addressees" above.
There are some more fundamental reasons why people might not respond to email requests. Many messages are too long, too ambiguous, and contain too many requests. Keep it simple, make it clear, and focus on what's most important. Top Next Issue
Are you so buried in email that you don't even have time to delete your spam? Do you miss important messages? So many of the problems we have with email are actually within our power to solve, if we just realize the consequences of our own actions. Read 101 Tips for Writing and Managing Email to learn how to make peace with your inbox. Order Now!
And if you have organizational responsibility, you can help transform the culture to make more effective use of email. You can reduce volume while you make content more valuable. You can discourage email flame wars and that blizzard of useless if well-intended messages from colleagues and subordinates. Read Where There's Smoke There's Email to learn how to make email more productive at the organizational scale — and less dangerous. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Writing and Managing Email:
- Email Antics: III
- Nearly everyone complains that email is a time waster. Yet much of the problem results from our own
actions. Here's Part III of a little catalog of things we do that help waste our time.
- Email Ethics
- Ethics is the system of right and wrong that forms the foundation of civil society. Yet, when a new
technology arrives, explicitly extending the ethical code seems necessary — no matter how civil
the society. And so it is with email.
- On Badly Written Email
- Even those who aren't great writers do occasionally write clearly, just by chance. But there are some
who consistently produce unintelligible email messages. Why does this happen?
- Notes to Self
- Many of us jot important reminders to ourselves on sticky notes, used envelopes, scraps of paper, and
whatnot. Often we misplace these notes, or later find them too late to serve their purposes. Here's
a low-tech alternative that works better for some.
- Significance Messages
- Communications about important matters must provide both the facts of a situation and the significance
of those facts. The facts often receive adequate attention, but at times the significance of the facts
is worthy of more attention than the facts.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming November 30: Avoiding Speed Bumps: II
- Many of the difficulties we encounter when working together don't create long-term harm, but they do cause delays, confusion, and frustration. Here's Part II of a little catalog of tactics for avoiding speed bumps. Available here and by RSS on November 30.
- And on December 7: Reaching Agreements in Technological Contexts
- Reaching consensus in technological contexts presents special challenges. Problems can arise from interactions between the technological elements of the issue at hand, and the social dynamics of the group addressing that issue. Here are three examples. Available here and by RSS on December 7.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info