Are bosses becoming ruder - using email as a managment tool

A

Anonymous

Guest
The article says ""Senior managers are getting between 300 and 500 e-mails a week and a brusque tone is setting in," one trainer told the BBC. ...The publication quoted a study of 1,200 executives... It found that more than half spent two hours per day answering e-mail at work - which equates to about four months a year. ...As a result of lack of time, language is becoming compressed. ...Please becoming pls is just one example."

"Pls" is not brusque, it's efficient. When I see lengthy emails, I know someone's spinning his wheels and not getting work done. Email should be succinct and to the point, like voicemail; it's neither a substitute for a hard-copy memo or letter, nor a replacement for face time. Critical working relationships are too important to conduct this impersonally unless the parties have established some prior rapport beforehand, unless it's unavoidable. And time is much to precious to add personalized stroking to every email a manager sends, which is how I read the recommendation that messages be "imbued with emotional context as well as content." Any good HR department and company attorney should also counsel against "emotional" messages, since they could prejudice or compromise future relationships with that employee.

Better that the exec pops in on the employee to thank him or her for jobs well done, or at least picks up the phone and calls.
 
J

JonathanAquino

Guest
Re: Are bosses becoming ruder - using email as a managment t

Paul@Pittsburgh said:
I just read this article on the BBC News Website. It triggered a comment David makes in the GTD Fast CDs that email is the most effective way of handing across a piece of work because it is non-intrusive and complete.
Paul
Click to expand...

For this very reason, I'd like to recommend Nonviolent Communication as a companion book to GTD. It is an excellent book about connecting heart-to-heart (rather than head-to-head), which is good before making a request.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I second Non-violent Communication - great book.

In terms of people getting 300-500 emails a day my comment is that poor leadership gets exactly what it deserves!

Who in their right mind wants to work in an environment like that. I know from experience that 80% of those emails are CYA correspondence.

I am so pleased to have escaped the corporate treadmill - because now I can get stuff done and build an environment where my staff can too.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If those managers are anything like the ones I've come across, they could double their productivity by learning to touch-type. Using 'pls' instead of 'please' doesn't even save you a second if you can type properly.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
tallmarvin said:
E-mail: yet another way to avoid doing real work. :)
Click to expand...

Right on!

and meetings with no agenda or outcome!

Should right a book ... how to avoid real work ...
 
TesTeq

TesTeq

Registered
Do not treat it personally.

I think we should not take e-mails too personally. We should not expect baroque statements - especially in the intra-company communication. Clever boss sends you an e-mail only when it is necessary and makes it as short as possible (he does not want to waste his and your time). So it is rather proof of effectiveness - not laziness. But if you have a stupid boss nothing will help - even this "Non-violent Communication" book.
TesTeq
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
First rules we teach all new members of my team.

Rule #1) No thank you emails; the thank you is assumed in the request.

Rule #2) Turn off the email spell checker you don't have that much time to waste; we can read it and we won't laugh at you.

Rule #3) You WILL learn GTD by week 6.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This year, I had a conversation with one of my clients regarding the pitfalls of e-mail. His bottom line: E-mail can be a very efficient means to distribute information (sending attached documents as an example to a large group of people); however, e-mail is typically a very poor means to communicate. Unless the topic of the message is relatively simple and routine, my client has elected to communicate the old fashioned way-by phone or by face to face meetings. His point is e-mail messages can too often be misconstrued and spawn more e-mail messages thereby harming relationships with co-workers or clients not to mention wasting time.
 
S

spectecGTD

Guest
I don't agree with the premise that email is a poor means to communicate. It is efficient and collaborative. When used properly, the more complex the discussion the more useful email becomes.

I know many people who claim to prefer verbal communication over written, but the fact is their verbal communication skills are sadly lacking as well. They drop in on people or call them on the phone because they don't want to take the time to think through what they want to say and put it in writing

This isn't a universal, but in my opinion someone who prefers verbal communication over email is more likely to simply be a lazy or defensive communicator. They prefer the ambiguity of not having a record of their communications over the precision of writing down their thoughts, ideas, or instructions because the record is then available for later scrutiny if a misunderstanding arises.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
spectecGTD said:
They drop in on people or call them on the phone because they don't want to take the time to think through what they want to say and put it in writing

This isn't a universal, but in my opinion someone who prefers verbal communication over email is more likely to simply be a lazy or defensive communicator. They prefer the ambiguity of not having a record of their communications over the precision of writing down their thoughts, ideas, or instructions because the record is then available for later scrutiny if a misunderstanding arises.
Click to expand...

Some people are "verbal processors." They think it out by talking. Some people are horribly dyxlexic and write like second-graders. (One of the smartest programmers I knew had that problem, but somehow he managed to negotiate enormous increases in pay in each job he secured.) Should these people be penalized because their cognitive styles differ from the majority? More importantly, should their companies be shortchanged because someone arbitrarily decrees that written communication is better than oral communication, thus depriving the firm of some of their contributions?

Sometimes you need to be in the presence of the person you're trying to reach, or understand, to have available as much feedback as possible (tone of voice, body language, eye contact, etc.). I think the point you make, that sometimes people don't want to have a record of their communications "because the record is then available for later scrutiny if a misunderstanding arises" is a sound reason for refraining from using email unless the content is likely to be unambiguous. Email exchanges are more likely to create or escalate conflicts and misunderstandings, not resolve them.

The point that emails are ideal for disseminating information, not communicating, makes admirable sense to me.

JMO
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
spectecGTD:

I have known this client for over 15 years and I can assure you he is not lazy. If you met him, your perception would be far different from what you just wrote. I happen to believe his opinion about e-mail is very accurate.
 
S

spectecGTD

Guest
I want to be careful how I say this, because I'm painting with a broad brush but don't want it to be so broad that it smears the canvass...

I agree that there are people who are admirable verbal communicators but not very good at writing - I have dealt with some of them. However, I believe they are rarer that one might assume, because there are so many lazy communicators who find this to be a convenient excuse. I observe people spewing their confusion and lack of mental discipline all over the place, interrupting work and causing general mayhem just because they want to rely on others to help them do what they are too undisciplined to do themselves - organize their thoughts. This is where my mind usually goes when some tells me they like to "think it out by talking."

So I certainly don't think the verbal processors should be denied their opportunity, nor should the organization deny itself the benefit of their talents. But neither do I have much patience with people who hide behind this as an excuse, which is what I think is really going on in the majority of cases.

Having said all that, I continue to maintain that email should be regarded as MAINLY for communicating and that the dissemination of information is a secondary benefit. (Exception taken for those rare individuals who just can't get it together in writing but are brilliant talkers).

GJR: I'm not suggesting that your client is lazy in the general sense, but I am suggesting that this is a typical attitude of a "lazy communicator".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"GJR: I'm not suggesting that your client is lazy in the general sense, but I am suggesting that this is a typical attitude of a "lazy communicator"."

Sorry, spectecGTD, his attitude has formed over severals years experience with e-mail created conflicts arising from misunderstandings that were magnified by careless or deliberate forwarding of messages. Of course, the subject matter was complex and upon reflection, a conference call or meeting would have avoided the problems created by e-mail.

I would venture to say that people like my client have formed views about e-mail from negative experiences. Your opinion of a typical attitude of a "lazy communicator" ignores the fact that "lazy communicators" overuse e-mail instead of providing clearer communications in face to face meeetings in the appropriate context.
 
E

earlofmar11

Guest
Two observations:

1. I've witnessed too many examples of little flame wars and conflicts that were amplified through the use of email as the primary communication tool, and often died down very quickly as soon as people got together to talk it out. One of the most effective managers in my company hardly uses email at all for this very reason, and he's a brilliant communicator.

2. It is a well known fact that there is a hierarchy in effective means of communication. Face-to-face is the most effective by far, followed by video conference and then phone calls. Written forms (email or documents) are already way down. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious: in each step down, you lose part of the means to convey information. In the same way, it is generally accepted that much less than half of the communication going on in a conversation is in the words. And that's all you have left in writing, while you've lost the direct interaction/feedback as well...

Conclusion: email can be very effective if used well, but you also must be able to recognise the situations where it's better to use other means of communicating.
 
S

spectecGTD

Guest
OH, I absolutely agree that lazy communicators use email too, and they should think long and hard about their bad habits as well. But the idea that email isn't a valid tool for communication simply flies in the face of reality, your friend's years of experience notwithstanding. His experience is also the opposite of my own years of experience. For every truly botched written communication I have observed, I can point to a dozen or more worse cases when verbal communication was the mode of choice.

Any communication can be botched, but when you want clarity and ownership of ideas, written communication is infinitely preferable. Before email it was memos, letters, and finally faxes. Email compresses the time needed and increases functionality while respecting the time of the person on the other end, which to me is its greatest asset. (For example, you and I would not have ever made time to have this conversation personally, but we are doing it as we find bits and pieces of time without interrupting our own priorities)

Time is our most valuable resource, and I suggest that anyone not using email for communication at every opportunity is wasting a lot of their own time and that of others. To point to a few glitches in the process as a justification for abandoning its benefits is, IMO, a cop-out.

Besides, I want to use face-to-face time to schmooze and for interpersonal contact - not for exchanging basic business information or getting technical details worked out.
 
C

ceehjay

Registered
From the Sensei --

From DA in GTD, page 234:
I need to trust that any request or relevant information I put on a voice-mail, in an e-mail, in a conversation, or in a written note will get into the other person's system and that it will be processed and organized, soon,and available for his or her review as an option for action. If the recipient is managing voice-mails but not e-mail and paper, I have now been hamstrung to use only his or her trusted medium. That should be unacceptable behavior in any organization that cares about whether things happen with the least amount of effort.
Click to expand...

While I much prefer email, it would be rather haughty of me to insist that everyone contact me in only that medium. Since reading this paragraph in GTD, I do let people know that I prefer email, but I don't insist on it. Others do have their preferred means of communication, too. The main thing I have changed since reading this -- regardless of the medium, the communication goes in my in-basket at the time I receive it.

Carolyn
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Time is our most valuable resource, and I suggest that anyone not using email for communication at every opportunity is wasting a lot of their own time and that of others. To point to a few glitches in the process as a justification for abandoning its benefits is, IMO, a cop-out.

Besides, I want to use face-to-face time to schmooze and for interpersonal contact - not for exchanging basic business information or getting technical details worked out."

spectecGTD:

You use broad sweeping statements about the virtues of e-mail and dismiss the inheritant limitations and yes, danger in using e-mail. I will say that your mind is closed and I will not burden other readers by furthering this debate. I sincerely hope that you will not suffer some of the negative consequences others have experienced by using e-mail instead of well utilized phone calls or meetings. E-mail may be efficient and fast but trying to repair a damaged relationship or halt the e-mail tidalwave created by misunderstandings will negate any initial time savings. In extreme cases, careers have been lost or companies have suffered irrepairable harm from inappropriate e-mail usage. By the way, I am not suggesting abandoning e-mail, just using the medium in a more responsible and judicious manner. I do not view my opinion as a "cop-out" , but I am taking advantage of lessons learned by other respected professionals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top