AreYouReadingYourEmailCarefully

Ouch. I had to apologize again. I read the first few lines of an email message and scanned the rest. I made an interpretation and quickly sent a reply.

My interpretation of the sender's message was wrong and my reply confused her. I reread the original message, saw that I hadn't read a crucial section, and replied with an apology. If I do this once a month, it's too often. But I do it at least once a week.

Yes, I process a lot of email everyday. But does that justify my behavior? I think not.

If you sent me a message, what suggestions would you make to me about how I should read your message?

If I was sending you a message, what suggestions would you make to me about how to construct the message so that is easy to read and understand?

What is the difference between not being heard in email versus not being heard in person? Is there a difference?

SteveSmith 2004.05.12

Direct answers to your three questions, Steve, in order:

If I send you a message, there is something I want to have happen. Maybe I want information. Maybe to give information. Maybe a decision. Maybe to fulfill a commitment to you or others. Lots of possibilities. If I send you a message, it's useful to assume that there is something I want to have happen.

If you are sending me a message, I'll be thinking in terms of: "What does he want to have happen here." The clearer you make that, the easier my job, and the less likely I'll get it wrong. You might put that at the top, or in the subject line.

It's easier to make sure you are heard or hearing correctly in person. Lots of other channels of communiction are available, and you are able to ask for a modified message if need be. So in an e-mail, or a letter, or a written document additional framing is helpful. At least two kinds of framing help a lot - what the document is "for" and some suggestion of an appeal or inquery path if you want more.

But that's just me. I am often wrong. -- JimBullock 2004.05.13

I had a boss a while back who had the habit of embedding important instructions (like "Dave, do X, Y, and Z") at the bottom of replies to less important emails. What was nominally a labor saving device on his part became a minor headache for me, since I often decide to ignore emails based on quick skims of the subject and first few paragraphs, thus missing his misfiled communiques or appearing non-responsive if I replied to the message without reading it fully.

I *try* to read an email before replying, but have difficulty when an author makes me wade through a lot of fluff to get to the meat of the message, or changes subjects late in an email without prior warning.

DaveSmith 2004.05.13

I think the usual guidelines for writing a news release or newspaper article are a good starting point for a clear email.

A short subject line (heading), giving the sense of the email (article) in a few words
The first paragraph should be short and cover, as needed, the five "w's", who, what ,where, when, and why.
Further paragraphs expand on the summary points.

AdrianSegar 2004.05.13

I agree with the points made by Jim, Dave and Adrian.

The first thing that stands out for me is Jim's focus on action. He wants me to read for something he (Jim) wants to have happen. And, when I send him a message, he wants to know what do I want to have happen.

Dave's and Adrians comments are about crafting an effective message. What stands out for me, and I would like to see more often, is descriptive subject headers for a message and sticking to only that subject. Finally, I would love to see requested actions highlighted. If people that send me messages would did those three items, my reading job would be much easier.

The majority of the messages that I receive are poorly constructed and requested actions may be buried deep in the message. I am pondering whether I should suggest to message authors how to construct a message that is easier to process. I have my doubts about the effectiveness of that idea. How would you react if someone gave you that kind of feedback?.

SteveSmith 2005.05.14

Remember that emails are monologues.
Keep them short. If you need to be long, write it up, post it, and email a pointer.
Consider them a slow dialogue, i.e. write only if you expect a response.
Remember all emotion in email is flattened. If you detect any, it is more likely to be in you than the email.

To the last question, there is a difference as you can't consider any body language, nor can the person who is not responding. How would you react if you glimpsed a friend half-way across a crowd, yelled to him, and he didn't respond? Consider email the same, until you get a response.

My collected bits, all of which I break more often than I want to.

MikeMelendez 2004.05.14

How would you react if you glimpsed a friend half-way across a crowd, yelled to him, and he didn't respond? Consider email the same, until you get a response.

Mike, I like this analogy. It's thought provoking. Thank you.

SteveSmith 2004.05.14

How would you react if someone gave you that kind of feedback?.

Depends on how it's delivered, and by whom, of course. So, I'll answer a second question (notice the pattern: direct answer, flagging the topic switch, going to something I think is useful at the moment): What sort of feedback would you give about the situation Seve has described?

I do this a lot: "Good to hear from you. Interesting message, but, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to with it. Is there something specific you want me to do with this right now?"

BTW you can easily tell when I'm deep into a topic, and still grubbing around. My messages (and posts) have none of the intentionality and crisp structure I've just described. Not a choice - I literally don't notice some of the time. This behavior of mine has created a useful reframe for me when I read other people's e-mails. In the same spirit as Mike's fine comments, an e-mail that seems off to me is probably more about the writer than the reader, including when the writer and reader are both me.

-- JimBullock (Proposing an alternative . . . ) 2004.05.14

E-mail can be great for dialogues and collaboration as well as for monologues. I have seen papers and presentations built up from scratch as e-mails are sent back and forth with the new discussion placed at the top so the entire history of the discussion is always in view. I see this in Wiki too. I expect that closed Wikis will be used for this as the years go by.

When I misread an e-mail it is usually the hum of my self-awareness that causes the problem. I am not overwhelmed with e-mails at work--Yet! CharlesAdams 2004.05.14

I spend a fair amount of my time conversing with team members in India which has challenges of its own (whether by e-mail or otherwise).

I invariably don't read emails carefully for the same reasons that other people have outlined:-

too many emails
not enough time
emails that are too long (I no longer use Outlook for email at work, but I used to have a rule that if the indented messages scrolled off the right hand side of the screen it was time for people to get into a room and TALK. With Lotus Notes which I've been suffering with for the last 2 years I've modified the rule to length of the e-mail train exceeding 5 screen pages worth).
emails that I'm on "cc:" for (which I assume means it for info only) but the author thinks something different.
emails that I'm on "To:" for (which I assume means I meant to do something) but the author thinks something different.
emails that I'm on "To:" for but the action I'm expecting to make is either not explicit or not obvious in the first screen full of info). I try to make a habit of including a line like:-

John - can you please discuss this with the team and let me know the outcome near the top of the mail.

emails that have no subject line (or the subject line hasn't been changed to reflect what the current topic is)

Periodically (it's not as bad as it used to be in terms of volume of e-mail) I'll explain rule #4, 5 & 6 to people and request they stick to them if they want me to do the "right thing".

I agree with CharlesAdams though - they can be great for collaboration.

PhilStubbington 2004.05.18

Back to Steve's original question, I deal with emails in the following way:

If they are too long (multiple topics), I break my reply into pieces, with one topic per piece and a descriptive subject line. I'm not afraid to change subject lines, even when it's only a single message. Usually people get the point (whether consciously or unconsciously) and start doing better at keeping one topic per email.

If I must put several things in one message, I number them (not bullets unless the items are short and close together).

I have absolutely no fear of giving meta-feedback, that is, commenting on the form of the message in terms of how I was affected. "I had a hard time understanding your message. Can you break it down into pieces to help me?" Or, "perhaps this isn't best handled by email, as I don't understand what you want."

This last is very important. Email is not the proper medium for certain kinds of exchanges. Switching to a better medium can be the most important thing you can do with email.

Or perhaps the most important thing is just to stop responding to email from someone who cannot be clear enough for you. - JerryWeinberg 2004.05.23

Updated: Sunday, May 23, 2004