Are bosses becoming ruder - using email as a managment tool [Archive]

Anonymous

12-01-2004, 11:58 AM

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.

JonathanAquino

12-01-2004, 12:18 PM

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

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.

Anonymous

12-02-2004, 05:00 PM

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.

tallmarvin

12-02-2004, 06:21 PM

E-mail: yet another way to avoid doing real work. :)

Anonymous

12-02-2004, 06:34 PM

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.

Anonymous

12-03-2004, 04:51 AM

E-mail: yet another way to avoid doing real work. :)

Right on!

and meetings with no agenda or outcome!

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

TesTeq

12-03-2004, 06:30 AM

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

Anonymous

12-03-2004, 09:07 AM

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.

Anonymous

12-03-2004, 09:12 AM

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.

spectecGTD

12-03-2004, 11:33 AM

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.

Anonymous

12-03-2004, 12:26 PM

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.

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

Anonymous

12-03-2004, 12:55 PM

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.

spectecGTD

12-03-2004, 01:32 PM

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".

Anonymous

12-03-2004, 02:11 PM

"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.

earlofmar11

12-03-2004, 02:58 PM

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.

spectecGTD

12-03-2004, 03:14 PM

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.

ceehjay

12-04-2004, 07:27 AM

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.

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

Anonymous

12-04-2004, 10:11 AM

"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.

Anonymous

12-04-2004, 10:11 AM

Sorry, the previous post was mine.

Murt

12-04-2004, 11:06 AM

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.

Anonymous

12-04-2004, 11:35 AM

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

12-05-2004, 04:00 PM

Anonymous

12-05-2004, 04:03 PM

Anonymous

12-06-2004, 01:23 PM

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.

spectecGTD

12-06-2004, 02:08 PM

ceehjay

12-06-2004, 05:53 PM

(BTW, shouldn't that be "more often than not"?)
In spite of careful editing, such mistakes happen. Unfortunately, this one wouldn't be caught by a spell check.

Carolyn

TesTeq

12-06-2004, 10:46 PM

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.
In Poland we have the best opportunity to polish our emails. :lol:
TesTeq

spectecGTD

12-07-2004, 05:56 AM

So I take it that your emails would be in polished Polish...

Busydave

12-07-2004, 06:39 AM

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

jmarkey

12-07-2004, 08:13 AM

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

Anonymous

12-07-2004, 09:28 AM

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"?)

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.

Bellaisa

12-07-2004, 02:04 PM

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.

ssoymonoff

12-07-2004, 06:33 PM

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.

Anonymous

12-17-2004, 08:03 PM

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:

TesTeq

12-18-2004, 03:13 AM

Arduinna

12-18-2004, 11:31 AM

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

Anonymous

12-18-2004, 12:26 PM

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

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.

spectecGTD

12-19-2004, 06:02 PM

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.