Are bosses becoming ruder - using email as a managment tool

While I personally think email is the ideal communication tool for business, I also try to recognize when it's not appropriate or sufficient and additionally try to learn the preferences of the people with whom I communicate.

I prefer to write and send email. I type quickly and know how to get across my points pretty clearly. However, when I receive email from people who aren't very good writers, I choose to just call or meet with them (if the matter at hand is important enough to warrant doing so) to clarify their points rather than attempting to draw out their meaning piece by piece over multiple messages.

On the flip side of that, I communicate to certain individuals the fact that they will get quicker, more accurate responses from me if they send their requests via email rather than trying to call me on the phone five times per day. I think it's a matter of making clear your own preferences, finding out the preferences of the people you deal with, and coming up with a suitable compromise when those preferences are different.

Also, you've got to recognize when a phone call or meeting sends the message that you are putting time and commitment into something, even if that perception isn't entirely logical. I can send a proposal to someone via email, but my chances of winning the bid are lower than if I take the time to meet with the prospect and go through the proposal with them in person.
 
I am "guest" who posted the first reply in this thread and the first reply to spectecGTD's post on the previous page.

When I read spectecGTD's response above, something struck me. While a lot of the participants here may be high-level communicators, co-workers are not necessarily blessed with those abilities, or even motivated to try to communicate well. I think that what spectecGTD is doing in persisting in making points is clarifying the spectecGTD position and basis for beliefs, which makes sense to me. However, I know of many net-savvy and intelligent people who, reading this thread, would feel that simply coming back to respond when opinion was pretty firmly against you is contentious, or provocative, or hostile--regardless of the content of your post. People with great expository skills who relish making their points don't realize how they can appear to people not gifted in those respects. I wonder whether, in the course of business, co-workers wouldn't simply drop out of the conversation when they felt themself bested by someone with more endurance and an appetite for this type of exchange.

I am not suggesting that discourse be dumbed down, only diversified, if necessary. If the objective really is to communicate with the other person, then the "use what works" dictum must apply.

JMO
 
Anonymous said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you work in a very transactional ... not relational company. Glad I'm not with you.

:evil:
 
GJR said:
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.
Click to expand...

I like you client without ever meeting them.

:evil:
 
Email Communications

The idea that email does not have to be spelled correctly, or grammatically correct, or uses a lot of abbreviations is, to me, very highly flawed. Any written communication is a reflection of its author. The person above who said that email spellchecking is a waste of time misses the point: time always needs to be taken for clear communication, in any form. If someone doesn't take the time to spell check their email, they probably haven't taken the time to think about and be clear and concise in what they want to communicate.

Precision in communication, especially in email, takes time. I usually edit my emails at least two or three times to be sure they are as clear as possible. I work with a lot of people who don't do any editing, and more often then not, their lack of clarity leads to more work and longer time spent clarifying what they were trying to say than if they would have taken the time in the first place to really think about and edit their email to say what they meant to in a clear and concise manner. (Also, it should be noted that brevity in any communication is usually a result of a great deal of thought and editing-any writer will tell you that it is faster to write more than to be concise!)

I think that email can be a good medium for information exchange if the sender really takes the time to edit and polish the email, just as they would do if it were a formal letter written on nice stationery.
 
Marc:
I had decided to bow out of this discussion for a while, but I'll go ahead & point out the obvious :arrow: you are probably in the minority on this thread up to this point (as am I).
(BTW, shouldn't that be "more often than not"?)
 
Re: Email Communications

MarcR said:
I think that email can be a good medium for information exchange if the sender really takes the time to edit and polish the email, just as they would do if it were a formal letter written on nice stationery.
Click to expand...
In Poland we have the best opportunity to polish our emails. :lol:
TesTeq
 
So I take it that your emails would be in polished Polish...
 
I ignore e-mails. If they are important, the person will usually follow up with a phone call and tell me in about 60 seconds exactly what it is they need.

Generally, I don’t get the follow up call, because people actually get up off their backsides and go find out for themselves.

The only e-mails I pay any attention to are those which have information that I have requested (by phone).

Dave
 
I have observed that many people, including bosses, seem to feel free to say things in e-mails, particularly rude or negative remarks, that they would never say in person. People who are sometimes extremely passive in person can become uncharacteristically aggressive in their e-mail communications, almost as if they have an alternate personality. E-mail can be a helpful tool for a manager, but it is not a replacement for all communication, and it should not be a convenient excuse for treating people poorly. For the most part, I think it is an invaluable tool when used correctly. However, unfortunately, I must admit that some of the rudest communications I've seen have been in the form of e-mail. I think it is only a matter of time (if it hasn't happened already) that someone will get their "pink slip" by e-mail.

Dear Employee X: Your services are no longer required. Please leave the building within the next ten minutes or a police escort will be sent to your office. Don't the let the door hit you in the #@$ on the way out.

Sincerely,

Management
 
You're right!

spectecGTD said:
Marc:
I had decided to bow out of this discussion for a while, but I'll go ahead & point out the obvious :arrow: you are probably in the minority on this thread up to this point (as am I).
(BTW, shouldn't that be "more often than not"?)
Click to expand...

You are correct... even careful editing can miss mistakes. How much more confusion results from a lack of such editing?

And you are correct that apparently we are in the minority. That is apparently why I have to spend a considerable portion of my time in my job working with people to write clearly. They get so used to being sloppy in email communications, that their other written communications also suffer. leading to inefficiency and wasted time straightening out poor communications, and even potential (and actual) law suits, among other ills.
 
Hi - Interesting thread. I appreciate eveyone's ideas. I just read some great stuff that might apply here. One of the other participants in this board suggested some time ago the book The Simplicity Survival Handbook as a companion to GTD and I'm so glad this person did - it is a gem.

One of the key ideas of the book that I am trying to implement (and this means slowing down - yikes!) that in any communication you are responsible for - a meeting agenda, a voice mail, something you say in a meeting, an email, a presentation - you need to think through 3 key issues - know, feel, do.

1) What is the one thing I want people to know, understand, learn or question?
2) How do I want people to feel?
3) What do I want people to do as a result of my communication?

In other words, you need to get intentional with the emotional tone you are trying to set. I think a lot of email confusion could be avoided if we all made sure we did that - there are a lot of uninentional hurt feelings due to not taking emotional reactions into account. This book has a lot more good stuff on email and other types of communication.

I think that whether your email is rude/not-rude or helpful/not-helpful depends on the relationship between people and the culture of the organization. There are often written/unwritten agreements in organizations or relationships that certain people must return email within an hour, 24 hours, can have typos, don't have typos, etc..

How about this as a rule of thumb - an eyeball test. Try imagining yourself just meeting this person and looking into the eyes of your recipeint and stating your email policy. If you said "I have a lot of email to reply to and I'm not the best typist, so you may see some typos or use of the "pls", but I'll get back to you quickly", I think you'd be forgiven. If you looked their eyes and said "don't bother to email me because I won't answer you unless I've requested the information. I'll just ignore you until you call me" - you may invite some hostility. Another one might be "my emails are letter perfect and yours should be to"...hmmm maybe a bit unrealistic.

I think if we took this approach, we would avoid some of that shadow-side agression that Jmarkey was talking about.
 
I think it is only a matter of time (if it hasn't happened already) that someone will get their "pink slip" by e-mail.

Worse - it's been done by SMS.
 
Dumbing Down

I am so busted. My husband has been so pissed @ me beause of my new addiction to GTD - he said today that it makes no sense that an organizational system is taking so many days and hours to organize. He was quite angry this morning, and Ah ha, now I get it!
:twisted:
 
Re: Dumbing Down

Blakele said:
I am so busted. My husband has been so pissed @ me beause of my new addiction to GTD - he said today that it makes no sense that an organizational system is taking so many days and hours to organize. He was quite angry this morning, and Ah ha, now I get it!
:twisted:
Click to expand...
He may be angry if GTD became your religion and the only goal in your life.
GTD is a tool - not a goal.
TesTeq
 
GTD FAST on email

GTD FAST Disk 3, track 11 addresses the whole issue of the "appropriateness" of using email. In a nutshell, DA unequivocally endorses using email to communicate, delegate, hand off, etc. He suggests that those who don't want their firms to have an "email/voicemail culture" will have an "interruption culture." He touches on points that really make the case for maxing email use in the business environment.

The GTD FAST CDs are altering my whole sense of GTD and how it's best employed. The book codifies the GTD process, but the CDs give you the process in a different way, and they constantly bring you back to the bigger picture of why you're doing this. They make organic sense of the system, and it's a bonus that DA's a kick to listen to. I decided to buy the CDs because it seemed that most of the people here who'd "gotten" GTD had either worked with the tapes/CDs or attended his seminars. I bought my "GTD FAST" CDs thru Guthy-Renker. The price seems high, but I plugged in a discount code I'd found on a websearch and wound up paying about $60 delivered.

I have no affiliation w/DA&Co or GR or GTD, except my investment in the book and CDs.

:D
 
Re: GTD FAST on email

Arduinna said:
The GTD FAST CDs are altering my whole sense of GTD and how it's best employed. The book codifies the GTD process, but the CDs give you the process in a different way, and they constantly bring you back to the bigger picture of why you're doing this. They make organic sense of the system, and it's a bonus that DA's a kick to listen to.
:D
Click to expand...

I agree these tapes are well worth the money. Bring a new dimension to the philosophy and method at a fraction of the seminar price.
 
I was more or less wondering if anyone was going to post a reference to David's discussion on the FAST cd's. I was ready to insert it several posts back, but the tenor of the replies to my initial statements caused me to question whether the posters at that juncture had a clue about what I was saying or whether the tone of my posts was somehow interfering with the point. Once the psychoanalysis began, I left. (I actually believe David was much more strident blunt & in the CD - concerning the interruptive habits of people who are able to use email but continually rebel against it -than anything I had posted on this string.

I decided to either let the discussion go its own (anti-email) direction and not waste any more of my time in a pointless discussion or else to wait and see if the string returned to what I consider to be one of the realities of one of the essentials of Getting Things Done in today' s business environment. Nice to see the change of direction. Maybe we can have some serious discussion about why lazy communicators drum up all sorts of excuses to avoid using it, and possibly lend some insight into why they stubbornly resist, wasting so much of their time and that of others they affect.
 
On the CD, David mimics some of the responses he's gotten to his pro-email stance, and they're about email being "cold." I wonder if it's more a personality difference than laziness or processing style. ESFJs, ESFPs and ENSJs might find heavy reliance on email for communication (without face time) especially difficult. Just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top