Learning from sending thousands of emails
Lately, I’m writing fewer emails at work. To me, email authoring can be torture. It’s the time-sunk cost of carefully crafting the message. And when I do send an email, I avoid Reply All. If possible, I would like the conversation to be between just us.
Over the years, my perception of how to use Reply All has changed. Earlier on, my understanding of its intoxicating power invoked a sense of urgency to all those addressed. But after being scrutinized in these exchanges and me targeting others, it has soured. Mix this in with selectively adding in authoritative figures; I now consider it harmful for the outcome of the ask and the long-term relationship for those involved.
You and I But Rarely Anyone Else
While participating in Reply All threads over the years, I’ve learned the concept of a directly responsible individual who is accountable and owns a possible outcome. And when replying all, this can muddle who is directly responsible for the ask. And suppose the message is poignantly addressed to a particular person. In some business cultures, the receiver may find it combative, comical, or downright ignore the ask while having an unfamiliar audience watching them. The perception of resistance is real when trust does not exist between them.
Reply All has the potential to scorch-the-earth. For select email clients, it is a dangerous default function. I’ve seen it become the nuclear button when context-sensitive information was released to an unattended audience. While I won’t reveal the example to protect the innocent, exposure to sensitive information clearly destroyed trust through teams and leaders. The result: potential sales loss, team members distrust, and leadership perceived as evil. It had been inadvertently misused in a downright embarrassing way. Yikes.
But it’s not all bad. There are good points to Reply All that are helpful and effective. An essential function of Reply All is to broadcast information, not directed to the individual but the group interested in the information. Where there is a call to action, this is acceptable if all recipients are a trusting team.
And job roles that require the use of the tool extensively, connecting disparate groups or gathering more perfect information that is useful for business outcomes. But in my opinion, these moments in time are rare. They are better served elsewhere, such as in physical proximity, a direct instant message, and thoughtfully crafting a smaller target audience for a higher percentage of success.
When I use Reply All
I’ve summarized when I typically use Reply All. While it is a tool I avoid, there is utility.
- When the information is vital to a broad audience without commitment to a call to action.
- When a call to action is essential to a trusting group of individuals.
- When urgency is needed to a critical item that requires escalation in good faith.
When I Avoid Use of Reply All
More importantly, here are my reasons why I do not use Reply All.
- Avoid detailed information being released to an unintended audience.
- When the information is essential, a call to action is required, but the directed individual is not trusted.
- When urgency is needed in an unjustified or repetitive matter.
- Removing someone's voice by prematurely adding high-level authority to a fresh unresolved matter.
- Replying to a long threaded email to obtain visibility without adding value.
I’ve sent many emails in my career, and now Reply All is one of those tools reserved for exceptional cases. I prefer to defuse, whereas I understand the individual who can help myself, my team, and the project and product. I continue that conversation privately. Once we have closure, it’s fused back into the Reply All as broadcasted information.
While this may seem like common sense, this was a long journey for me to understand. I’ve reflected on my abrasive Reply All exchanges. Whether it’s a company of hundreds of thousands of people or just a startup between two, it’s always a conversation with another person. To me, it’s better to discuss with the individual to build a relationship and obtain results with time privately. And then give them chances to do their craft before the proverbial balloon is popped. The people I work with have come to respect this approach.
And for those in the past who have suffered from my nefarious Reply All dealings, I’ve learned to do better.
Top comments (4)
That's right, never give the work of one person to two persons or more.
I also feel like the issue here is that any medium of communication alone sucks big time. Whether it's face to face, phone, email, wiki, whatsapp, slack, every medium sucks in its own way.
The only salvation is to combine different medium of communication so that you use them for what they are good at.
Like instead of long email and everyone replying all, which the definition of infierno, you should put the long information inside a Google docs,. Then it's completely fine to share the link via email and reply all later that the document is now final, congrats everyone.
I like the idea of sharing Google docs for knowledge share such as documenting concerns. Taking it a step further, a group can have decision documents. In practice, it requires discipline to keep them updated.
I've had my fair share of awkward situations caused by Reply All mishaps, so I completely understand the author's caution. It's crucial to use this function sparingly and only when it truly benefits the entire group.
Indeed, proceed with caution with Reply All! IMHO, it has considerable amount of communication risks.