People who don't acknowledge important emails/messages . . .

[Euroamerican]

Before emails, texts, and cell phone calls, I knew a manager who had a communication response style that weeded out the messages he got in a way that I found unprofessional. It also probably worked very well.

Interoffice memo, phone memo from secretary on his office call tree, or scribbled note? He said he always threw them in the trash after reading them and only responded old school style via phone if he felt is was necessary.

SECOND memo from same sender? Then he would take the memo more seriously and provide more feedback.

 

[yaxomoxay]

When is anything ever wanted with that long a deadline?

Thankfully I said “and important” which implies that in 99.9999% of the cases I won’t use the option.

 

[Mellofello808]

If you want my attention then text me. I sift through my personal email about once per week.

I am in time with my work emails, but no one ever contacts me on my personal.

 

[Nermal]

If people mark there emails as important, I'm more likely to ignore it. What YOU consider important, doesn't even make my top 10 important things to do today!

Indeed. Our internal ticketing system used to have a user-selectable field for importance. So many people would pick "urgent" for trivial things that we had to get rid of the field.

We still occasionally get requests with "URGENT!" in the subject line, so you drop what you're doing, read the ticket, send back a request for more information, and get an "I'm on leave for the next two weeks" auto-response.

 

[grandM]

I get your frustration. In communication it's true people became neglectant. In my private life I have had the sad experience people read something without replying leaving you in the fog. Pm systems introduced 'Read' which some people actually circumvented until it became optional.

Professionally some don't reply because they can deny having received it if it goes wrong. I say some. There are a lot of good reasons to ignore or not reply. Courtesy is one. If everyone replies the sender gets swamped. Speaking of getting swamped so does the receiver.

Your coordination job is in part your job. It's not theirs. Teachers have a heavy workload and you would not allow them to skip a lecture because they needed time to reply their mails. The composition of the mail matters too. Many authors send out a mail to several recipients. The recipients then must filter out the data relevant to them eg an exam roster. People hate that. It's your job to filter out what the individual must know and relay that intel. Yes, that's a lot of work.

Some managers 'solve' the acknowledgement issue imposing meetings. I have known managers doing so each week. There is no better way to demotivate co-workers. Most shut up, sit there, undergo it and hope it is soon over. I have seen managers listing up information that none of the attendees cared about. I've heard (reliable source) a school principal managed to talk two hours about a new building, sports equipment, school population evolution, evaluation by government, and so on. At the end of the meeting the principal asked "Are they any questions?". A teacher rose up and said "Just one. Do courses start this Wednesday or Thursday?" You may laugh but it's exemplary of what matters to the principal and what does to the teacher.

The best meeting is one that never occurred. Yes it's time efficient for the manager, but is it for the employee? If the attendees were to bill their presence how expensive was it?

Last but not least. Facebook isn't a professional medium. Don't use it as such. I hope my answer helped you out a bit.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Indeed. Our internal ticketing system used to have a user-selectable field for importance. So many people would pick "urgent" for trivial things that we had to get rid of the field.

We still occasionally get requests with "URGENT!" in the subject line, so you drop what you're doing, read the ticket, send back a request for more information, and get an "I'm on leave for the next two weeks" auto-response.

Exactly! The phrase a lack of planning on your part, does not constitute an emergency on mine comes to mind!

 

[eyoungren]

Exactly! The phrase a lack of planning on your part, does not constitute an emergency on mine comes to mind!

This reminds me of an advertising 'manager' I used to work with. She is primarily, now that I think about it, one of reasons that email became unimportant to me.

For several years my boss had me handling her emails (sending and replying) because she refuses to learn new things and 'doesn't do computers'. The boss finally got a computer into her office (which resulted in a big blowup) but until I left that job I became her 'tech support'.

She was always promising things to make a sale, things she didn't tell me about but expected me to deliver on because she was 'going to lose the sale' if I didn't come through.

I used to use the exact same phrase you state in regards to her.

PS. I was hired for that job as a graphic designer, not an administrative assistant or an ad coordinator.

 

[yaxomoxay]

@yaxomoxay preach! My job as an academic coordinator includes a lot of (and I mean a lot) of emails to organize lectures, visits, remind students about deadlines, and so much more that I also go crazy. Everything you wrote makes sense and I will be incorporating some of your advice into my own routine. Thank you.

This is what I use:

• "FOR REVIEW: Document FY2021"
• "FOR APPROVAL: Document FY2021"
• "FYI ONLY: Document FY2021"
• "Heads-up: Document FY2021" (this is for larger tasks that require some coordination and are in the future. I often use it for cyclical stuff, like quarterly reviews and send it 15 to 30 days in advance to the start of the task whenever possible. I clarify the due dates, and if possible, I try to clarify the roles already. The huge advantage of this - which I learned by experience and not by planning - is that not only it allows people to organize, but those who are less experienced in the task assigned start asking questions way before the task even begins. I get many "will you need x or y?". It also helps in avoiding delays caused by changes in roles and personnel within the various groups of which I might be unaware).

The above method is incredibly functional with the higher ups as often they are not really sure what's the action required on their part and they certainly don't want to waste their time guessing what they have to do.

In addition

• If possible, when the tasks allow for it and when multiple people are involved, I embed a table within the text of the email, something like this.

Assigned To	Task	Due Date
decafjava	Philosophy of Macrumors paper	9/5/2021
scepticalscribe	History of Russian Macrumors paper	10/5/2021
yaxomoxay	Cash $5,000,000 check and flee to island	10/1/2021

• The email is often a single paragraph, very short and with the final due date bolded and underlined. "The due date to provide the document to our boss is 11/1/2021".
• I don't waste much text on greeting people. Often I write "Everyone - we're working on XYZ" or something like that. In 1-on-1 emails with people I talk to often I just go with their name or role "Frank - yadda yadda". No "good morning", "good afternoon" etc.
• One thing that I noticed is that many people are somewhat afraid of giving a due date to their bosses. I think this leads to lots of trouble because often bosses don't know when something is due. They might have a general idea, but if the overall task has a due date it's important to tell them when they have to act. I usually write something like that "Boss - please find attached the Macrumors Paper for your review and approval. The due date to submit the document to the Emperor Caesar is 11/3/2021."

These are some of my strategies. In my universe they work wonders and other people imitate me

 

[yaxomoxay]

The best meeting is one that never occurred. Yes it's time efficient for the manager, but is it for the employee?

Yes and no. I would agree that 90% of them are useless, and unorganized. But they are also a powerful tool. I think that email is what disrupted meetings (here I think of Cal Newport's book on email I mentioned earlier) and made them not only inefficient but a total mess. We all know the line "this meeting should've been an email," which is often true. However, a good meeting can truly bring people together and avoids many of the pitfalls of emailing each other, most especially the asynchronous, continuous stream of communication and white noise within an email system. A good meeting also helps understand problems/issues/solutions that other groups are facing, which is a learning experience in itself.

I think that in the ideal world, we would have an early morning 30 to 60 minute meeting, a 30 minute post-lunch meeting, and a 30 minute end of day meeting, provided that email or chat communication in the meantime is minimal at best. I think it would work, but the problem is that now most people - myself included - sometimes treat email as a chat system...

 

[yaxomoxay]

PS. I was hired for that job as a graphic designer, not an administrative assistant or an ad coordinator.

"Oh, you're a computer person! Look, I've got a problem with my computer...", and thus it began.

 

[eyoungren]

"Oh, you're a computer person! Look, I've got a problem with my computer...", and thus it began.

Exactly.

I've mainly worked for small businesses (less than 20 employees) my entire career so you do have multiple hats. But handling her email was not one I expected.

By that point I did expect to be tech support, but then they gave me the server. Oh that was fun learning - not really.

Microsoft Exchange…phfffffffffttttttttt!!!!!!

 

[grandM]

You do realize you suggested to meet 1.5 hours a day. That's 1.5 hours employees can't work.

 

[Nhwhazup]

I used to go to a 2 hour long meeting and come back to 150 - 200 emails. Some sent to others and copied to me. I would work a 10-11 hour day and still try to catch up on emails as I watched TV at night. It was never ending. If I went vacation- forget it - could never catch up.

I could have never responded to each and every email I got.

 

[eyoungren]

I used to go to a 2 hour long meeting and come back to 150 - 200 emails. Some sent to others and copied to me. I would work a 10-11 hour day and still try to catch up on emails as I watched TV at night. It was never ending. If I went vacation- forget it - could never catch up.

I could have never responded to each and every email I got.

Email compounds. So you respond…and then the person you responded to responds. Now your email load has compounded.

So that's another reason not to respond…not getting involved in email volleys that serve little purpose.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Email compounds. So you respond…and then the person you responded to responds. Now your email load has compounded.

So that's another reason not to respond…not getting involved in email volleys that serve little purpose.

And for those unfamiliar, there is an alternative to reply all! When I've told someone at work its not anything to do with me, I still find I'm on the responses for the next 5 back and forwards. Thats why I prefer Teams for communication at work. You get less stuff you don't need.

 

[poorcody]

What email needs is something akin to forums with a "thumbs up", or "Got it!" or "Thanks!" kind of acknowledgement. Short little emails that do that are somewhat tricky because it can seem excessive if done repeatedly, or "not enough" when an actual response is warranted but unfeasible given time or what-not.

That being said, I generally agree with the OP, class is a lost art.

I had a friend who used to follow a "2x + 1" rule (he was an engineer). If it took someone two days to respond, he would take 5 days, for example. If they didn't, he would stop writing them (x=0).

Obviously professional emails are different: I generally send two classes: one for people who are responsive, one for those that are not. I try to include more useful things in the first.

Of course, with the deluge of messages, it is important to be brief. And I have already broken that rule with this post!

 

[yaxomoxay]

You do realize you suggested to meet 1.5 hours a day. That's 1.5 hours employees can't work.

If you’re referring to me, yes. But I also said that email and chat communications (Teams etc) need to be kept at a minimum. The constant flow of interruptions is a major disruptor of actual work done, and the price in attention residue due to context switching is much higher than 90 minutes (maximum) a day in meetings. Also, long meetings happen anyways.

 

[yaxomoxay]

You do realize you suggested to meet 1.5 hours a day. That's 1.5 hours employees can't work.

I also have to strongly push back against this mindset. Planning, strategizing, brainstorming, sharing, and discussing are fundamental parts of actual work unless we’re talking about some worker bee that is out of the loop. There is no way that email streams - in which lots is lost, lots is misinterpreted - are better than a well organized meeting in which the agenda, scope, and tasks are clear. Now, if the meetings are not well planned, and if they’re done just so that the manager can say “I have a meeting”, then yes you’d be right.

 

[grandM]

I also have to strongly push back against this mindset. Planning, strategizing, brainstorming, sharing, and discussing are fundamental parts of actual work unless we’re talking about some worker bee that is out of the loop. There is no way that email streams - in which lots is lost, lots is misinterpreted - are better than a well organized meeting in which the agenda, scope, and tasks are clear. Now, if the meetings are not well planned, and if they’re done just so that the manager can say “I have a meeting”, then yes you’d be right.

A lot of meetings I've known took too long and easily could have been communicated in one mail.
Some managers have a made-up mind entering the meeting. In that case a mail is preferred.

 

[eyoungren]

What email needs is something akin to forums with a "thumbs up", or "Got it!" or "Thanks!" kind of acknowledgement. Short little emails that do that are somewhat tricky because it can seem excessive if done repeatedly, or "not enough" when an actual response is warranted but unfeasible given time or what-not.

I am trying to recall from hazy memory, but there was a time when I was handling that ad reps email that I set up read receipts. I got an email back stating that the person I had emailed either received the email I sent or had read it. This was a direct response to the ad rep's constant badgering of me, "Did they get it?!, DID they GET IT?!!!!!!".

At the time I was using Entourage 2001. Unlike Outlook on Mac (I believe), Entourage allowed you to use third party scripts so I found one that did read receipts and used that. Didn't work all the time, but worked enough to keep the ad rep off my back - which was the whole point.

 

[eyoungren]

I also have to strongly push back against this mindset. Planning, strategizing, brainstorming, sharing, and discussing are fundamental parts of actual work unless we’re talking about some worker bee that is out of the loop. There is no way that email streams - in which lots is lost, lots is misinterpreted - are better than a well organized meeting in which the agenda, scope, and tasks are clear. Now, if the meetings are not well planned, and if they’re done just so that the manager can say “I have a meeting”, then yes you’d be right.

In other words, meetings can be good because it puts everyone on the same page with the same goals and objectives. Everyone get's their part in that assigned in the meeting and everyone knows what everyone is doing or supposed to be doing. It's organized, saves time in the long run and most importantly is PRODUCTIVE.

Yeah, those kinds of meetings are important and in some cases crucial. The other, so a manager can put another check in a column somewhere in his performance review is not.

 

[yaxomoxay]

A lot of meetings I've known took too long and easily could have been communicated in one mail.
Some managers have a made-up mind entering the meeting. In that case a mail is preferred.

And the result is usually too many emails and people having to keep up with them even at home or on the weekends because emails are constant.

But I do agree that meetings are often badly organized, but no email thread will beat a well organized meeting on important stuff.

 

[eyoungren]

A lot of meetings I've known took too long and easily could have been communicated in one mail.
Some managers have a made-up mind entering the meeting. In that case a mail is preferred.

I would argue this is because you know the people that give these types of meetings. You don't expect much from them so when they meet your expectations it reinforces your beliefs about it all.

 

[yaxomoxay]

The other, so a manager can put another check in a column somewhere in his performance review is not.

most definitely.
I think that we use both emails and meetings very bad and the result is often useless meeting and infinite useless emails.

 

[eyoungren]

most definitely.
I think that we use both emails and meetings very bad and the result is often useless meeting and infinite useless emails.

I used to work for UPS from 1992 to 1999. Heck even before that I worked an inventory job, starting when I was 18 (Washington Inventory Service). In both jobs, prior to actual work a short meeting was held. UPS refers to it as a PCM (Pre work Communication Meeting).

Your manager explains to you what everyone is doing, what's going to happen, how much and where everyone needs to be and what is expected. All of this is done in 5 to 10 minutes. Then you go to work.

Now that's blue collar, physical work jobs - but a meeting was held and everything everyone needed to know was handled in 5 to 10 minutes. Questions were taken and answered. I am sure there are other jobs/industries where this is also routine.

White collar world, of which I have been a part of for quite some time now, could take instruction from that.