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

[usagora]

I used to think all communications were important, and made sure to reply to each one every time. But then with my 30s behind me, I suddenly realized that I had spent the best 2 decades of my life staring at screens. Everyone got their questions answered, their opinions responded to, the explanations they wanted, and all it cost me was years of my time that I could have been doing something positive for people i actually care about, and when those people started dying off, i ditched my phone and abandoned my email.

If it’s important then call my office and we’ll discuss it in a phone call. If it’s not worth your time to do that, then it isn’t worth the time it’d take me to respond to it, and you can try your luck sending it to the general admin inbox for the secretary to route accordingly.

This viewpoint baffles me. It doesn't have to be "all or nothing". I never once said in this thread that I think every email is equally important. I'm talking about occasional important emails I send that are simply never replied to, even when I later confirm that they DID indeed receive it (and simply never bothered to reply). It's really not that hard to prioritize your emails. Heck, Gmail even does that for you based on your own parameters, and I'm sure other email interfaces can do the same.

 

[Madhatter32]

I just consign myself to the fact that most people are without manners -- even uncivil in many circumstances. Many have no conception of propriety -- the younger the worse it is. It's an ignorance of decorum and a coarsening of society. Too much attention to social media and not enough to interpersonal relations. Just look at the way people choose to dress these days! Anyway, it is better to just accept that fact than to try to change the unchangeable.

If one chooses to ignore an important email, it is at their own peril. I assume my emails are read when I press the send button. No excuses.

 

[dk001]

Some "rules" should be universal and understood. Responding to important emails is one of them.

I've been following along and I have to ask ... Why?
Why is responding so important?

 

[TiggrToo]

It's really not that hard to...

There's the rub. You want people to bend to your will.

You think somethjng is important and you expect others to do likewise.

It took me a while when I became a manager to understand how different people are. I had one guy who I always felt was stubborn as a mule.

Once I sat back and understood how his brain was wired, I changed how I communicated with him and - bingo!

It's horrifyingly clear that this method you're using that seems so obvious to you, is not working.

Why? Because we're all wired differently.

You seem to feel that these people totally need to respond, whilst they may feel totally different.

You persisting to beat this poor horse to death is actually illuminating to the overall issue. Despite multiple attempts to plead your case, you've failed to convince the vox-populi here that you have a point.

You've expended so much time here stubbornly insisting you're right that it never occured to you you may not be.

To use the oft used quote: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

A generalism to be true, but you still refuse to let this go. Give it up and focus your efforts in finding better methods.

And like, have you ever spoken to these folk on a human level? Perhaps there are other reasons they don't respond. Perhaps other people have drilled it into them to 'never respond'.

Stop expending your effort to convince us folk here. We're not the problem.

Start talking to the respondents. Casually. With zero judgement.

 

[TiggrToo]

I've been following along and I have to ask ... Why?
Why is responding so important?

"Because"

Which is, of course, not an answer.

I work on the basis that an email out is as good as notified. If you don't read my email then that's on you.

 

[dk001]

I sat back and thought about it... what if everyone replied, even to just acknowledge the emails I sent out.

Last week I received 734 emails (work). Almost all had 5 or more folks in the To: or CC: section.
If I responded an acknowledgment to all these I would have clicked Send for 734 emails. Hopefully I did not click "Replay All".

I sent 343 emails last week. Most of these were to 3 or more folks per email. That means I would have received around 1000+ acknowledgment replies. Add those to the 700+ I received that I had to review and respond to.

You can quickly see that is a wasted hours situation and seriously NVA.

@usagora while acknowledgments may work for you, it definitely is not for everyone.

 

[usagora]

I've been following along and I have to ask ... Why?
Why is responding so important?

I'm not sure how you could have been following along and not know the answer to this, as it's in my OP and in plenty other of my posts. Responding is important because the information being sent to them is important and directly affects what they will be teaching or doing. I need to be sure we're all on the same page.

 

[TiggrToo]

I'm not sure how you could have been following along and not know the answer to this, as it's in my OP and in plenty other of my posts. Responding is important because the information being sent to them is important and directly affects what they will be teaching or doing. I need to be sure we're all on the same page.

You seem to be on a different page than them. The problem seemingly lies with you here...

 

[usagora]

There's the rub. You want people to bend to your will.

You think somethjng is important and you expect others to do likewise.

It took me a while when I became a manager to understand how different people are. I had one guy who I always felt was stubborn as a mule.

Once I sat back and understood how his brain was wired, I changed how I communicated with him and - bingo!

It's horrifyingly clear that this method you're using that seems so obvious to you, is not working.

Why? Because we're all wired differently.

You seem to feel that these people totally need to respond, whilst they may feel totally different.

You persisting to beat this poor horse to death is actually illuminating to the overall issue. Despite multiple attempts to plead your case, you've failed to convince the vox-populi here that you have a point.

You've expended so much time here stubbornly insisting you're right that it never occured to you you may not be.

To use the oft used quote: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".

A generalism to be true, but you still refuse to let this go. Give it up and focus your efforts in finding better methods.

And like, have you ever spoken to these folk on a human level? Perhaps there are other reasons they don't respond. Perhaps other people have drilled it into them to 'never respond'.

Stop expending your effort to convince us folk here. We're not the problem.

Start talking to the respondents. Casually. With zero judgement.

LOL!!! So now I'm "insane", yet you're doing the EXACT thing you're berating me for - continuing to reply to try to convince me of something. So if I do it, I'm insane and stubborn but if you do it, you're not. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm actually replying to CORRECT the multiple blatant misunderstandings (or purposeful twisting) of my posts.

The main purpose of this thread was for me to vent about people lacking common courtesy in this area. I wasn't expecting everyone to necessarily agree, but I am quite disappointed that many here are not reading what I actually wrote very carefully (or, again, are purposely twisting it so they can attack a straw man, possibly to try to defect the issue that I've highlighted off themselves and back onto me).

The people in question (the people I'm sending these emails to) and I are on good terms with each other, and I do not intend to rock the boat by laying some sort of guilt trip on them for not replying (without me having to specifically ask them to). That's why I'm venting here instead. I trust some who read this (and may not ever reply) might think about what I actually said and maybe change a bit in this area.

So I simply deal with their non-replying just like I deal with other people who are lacking in the courtesy department. I know they're not being malicious or anything, but it's still poor form. But I'm not a confrontational person about these sorts of things.

 

[usagora]

You seem to be on a different page than them. The problem seemingly lies with you here...

Yeah, we all heard you the first 20 times. It's all my fault that they didn't reply. TiggrToo hath spoken!

 

[TiggrToo]

LOL!!! So now I'm "insane", yet you're doing the EXACT thing you're berating me for - continuing to reply to try to convince me of something. So if I do it, I'm insane and stubborn but if you do it, you're not. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm actually replying to CORRECT the multiple blatant misunderstandings (or purposeful twisting) of my posts.

The main purpose of this thread was for me to vent about people lacking common courtesy. I wasn't expecting everyone to necessarily agree, but I am quite disappointed that many here are not reading what I actually wrote very carefully (or, again, are purposely twisting it so they can attack a straw man, possibly to try to defect the issue that I've highlighted off themselves and back onto me).

The people in question (the people I'm sending these emails to) and I are on good terms with each other, and I do not intend to rock the boat by laying some sort of guilt trip on them for not replying (without me having to specifically ask them to). That's why I'm venting here instead. I trust some who read this (and may not ever reply) might think about what I actually said and maybe change a bit in this area.

So I simply deal with their non-replying just like I deal with other people who are lacking in the courtesy department. I know they're not being malicious or anything, but it's still poor form. But I'm not a confrontational person about these sorts of things.

I said it was a generalism. I never said you were insane. It also takes two to tango.

This is a public forum, I've nothing better do right right now being otherwise stuck in bed sick, than to type messages.

And it is apparently very very important to you that people reply. Otherwise we'd not be on page 7 of this thread.

 

[usagora]

I sat back and thought about it... what if everyone replied, even to just acknowledge the emails I sent out.

Last week I received 734 emails (work). Almost all had 5 or more folks in the To: or CC: section.
If I responded an acknowledgment to all these I would have clicked Send for 734 emails. Hopefully I did not click "Replay All".

I sent 343 emails last week. Most of these were to 3 or more folks per email. That means I would have received around 1000+ acknowledgment replies. Add those to the 700+ I received that I had to review and respond to.

You can quickly see that is a wasted hours situation and seriously NVA.

@usagora while acknowledgments may work for you, it definitely is not for everyone.

We're not talking about that sort of volume here. As I've said over and over now, I'm NOT saying that EVERY email requires an acknowledgment. You obviously have to use common sense to prioritize what would warrant a response. For example, if you are working on a specific project closely with a small group of colleagues, and the leader of that effort sends you important, major info concerning that project, it should warrant acknowledgement.

 

[mollyc]

🤦‍♂️You're trying to compare you asking me questions (that, frankly, I didn't quite follow, and could easily be taken as rhetorical ones, btw) on a forum to me sending important curriculum change info to teachers? The context couldn't be more different. There is no working/collaborative relationship between us. But to answer what I think you're trying to ask: because the people in questions fail to acknowledge receipt of the information, I end up having to either text them or send yet another email after a few weeks to specifically ask them to confirm they received and understood the info. At that point, they will finally respond. But I should not have to babysit like that. People need to take initiative. That's my point.

And once again, you've got it wrong. This has nothing to do with ME (as a person) wanting to being acknowledged, but rather the information. I have no idea where you and at least one other person on this thread are getting this idea from that this has something to do with my personal feelings of worth/importance or some other silliness, but it's 100% false. Sounds like you're trying to spin my posts so you can then turn and criticize things I've never said or even implied.

I asked you three very direct questions, which you have still not answered. I'm not asking you to answer "what you think I'm trying to ask." I want you to answer the questions which I have actually asked.

1. How many instances have you had where the work was legitimately not done?

2. Did that come from people who did not acknowledge the importance of your initial email?

3. Why not deal with the people who are "out of compliance"?

I am not in any way, shape or form, asking whether or not you went back to the recipients to follow up, or whether they initially acknowledged the original email. Has there EVER been an instance where work was not legitimately not completed on time or correctly?

 

[usagora]

I said it was a generalism. I never said you were insane. It also takes two to tango.

This is a public forum, I've nothing better do right right now being otherwise stuck in bed sick, than to type messages.

And it is apparently very very important to you that people reply. Otherwise we'd not be on page 7 of this thread.

No, I get it - "rules for thee, not not for me". It's apparently VERY VERY important for you to tell me how stubborn I am for continuing to post (just like you are) and how that I'M the problem and that the others are completely innocent. I had actually dropped out of the thread for quite a while until a couple days ago when I hopped back in to correct a misunderstanding and then started to get more replies like that directed at me.

I will no longer be replying to you on this thread.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I'm not sure how you could have been following along and not know the answer to this, as it's in my OP and in plenty other of my posts. Responding is important because the information being sent to them is important and directly affects what they will be teaching or doing. I need to be sure we're all on the same page.

We hardly use email for internal communication at work these days. The scenario you describe would be much better managed in lots of other ways than email. Teams, base camp, Google or even a shared Callander in outlook would be better.
Times have changed. Best adapt or get left behind.

 

[usagora]

I asked you three very direct questions, which you have still not answered. I'm not asking you to answer "what you think I'm trying to ask." I want you to answer the questions which I have actually asked.

1. How many instances have you had where the work was legitimately not done?

2. Did that come from people who did not acknowledge the importance of your initial email?

3. Why not deal with the people who are "out of compliance"?

I am not in any way, shape or form, asking whether or not you went back to the recipients to follow up, or whether they initially acknowledged the original email. Has there EVER been an instance where work was not legitimately not completed on time or correctly?

You could've already deduced this from my previous reply, but here goes:

1. ZERO - because I don't follow TiggrToo's philosophy of "I sent the email so that's that". I follow up with the people in question to confirm they read the email I sent them a month ago that they never bothered to reply to, so that I can have assurance that they DO know what they will need to do (and of course they indeed do it).

I don't understand your 2nd or 3rd questions, so you'll need to clarify them before I can answer them.

 

[usagora]

We hardly use email for internal communication at work these days. The scenario you describe would be much better managed in lots of other ways than email. Teams, base camp, Google or even a shared Callander in outlook would be better.
Times have changed. Best adapt or get left behind.

Well, in this context we DO use email. The people in question send ME emails as well, and guess what? I actually reply to them. Imagine that!

 

[mollyc]

You could've already deduced this from my previous reply, but here goes:

1. ZERO - because I don't follow TiggrToo's philosophy of "I sent the email so that's that". I follow up with the people in question to confirm they read the email I sent them a month ago that they never bothered to reply to, so that I can have assurance that they DO know what they will need to do (and of course they indeed do it).

I don't understand your 2nd or 3rd questions, so you'll need to clarify them before I can answer them.

Well 2 & 3 only apply if someone (or more) did not complete whatever tasks you've asked for in your initial communication.

I'll be honest, I give my teenage children more autonomy than you seemingly give colleagues. This whole thing is rather baffling to me.

I will no longer be replying to you on this thread.

I suspect your colleagues feel the same. Good luck.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Well, in this context we DO use email. The people in question send ME emails as well, and guess what? I actually reply to them. Imagine that!

Good for you. I don’t have time go in my job. But if I’ve sent someone a task to do, they don’t need to acknowledge they’ve received it. They just need to get on with it!

 

[usagora]

I'll be honest, I give my teenage children more autonomy than you seemingly give colleagues. This whole thing is rather baffling to me.

Um . . . ok? No idea how simply sending out important info and then weeks later having to send a followup email requesting they confirm receipt of that important info (since they failed to reply) is taking away from their "autonomy". In fact, the whole reason why I avoid tagging my initial emails with "Please reply to confirm you got this" is to avoid coming across as demanding/babysitting/etc.

I suspect your colleagues feel the same. Good luck.

Uh, no, because my colleagues don't send me emails berating me like the forum member in question was doing in his posts. We have a good relationship and they are nice people, but this one thing does leave me scratching my head when it comes up.

 

[mollyc]

Okay, if you refuse to ask them to acknowledge receipt, how do they know you are waiting for it? Can you not just trust them to do what was stated? What is the worst outcome that will happen if they don't do whatever was asked? If the worst outcome comes to pass, who is in trouble, for a lack of better term? Them or you?

My children are in charge of their own emails from school, as well as knowing when their tests/quizzes/homeworks are due. I might be copied on emails from their teachers, but it is not MY responsibility for them to do their work. It is THEIR responsibility.

You have given your colleagues a task (or several). Once it is assigned, it is THEIR responsibility, not yours.

I think a better option might be for you instead, is to send a simple reminder email...."Just a reminder, XYZ is due in a week. If you have any questions, let me know." That is what most people do, not send an email and then just wonder and fret.

 

[usagora]

Okay, if you refuse to ask them to acknowledge receipt, how do they know you are waiting for it?

See, that's the whole point. It should be a given that a response is appropriate. I shouldn't have to ask for it. Earlier I used the analogy of giving someone a gift. I shouldn't have to include a note with a gift that says, "Please send me a thank you note so I know you got it" LOL! Obviously the info I'm emailing is not a gift - that's not what I'm comparing in the analogy. But the principle of courtesy is the same. (Incidentally, people failing to send thank you notes for gifts is also a rampant problem).

Can you not just trust them to do what was stated? What is the worst outcome that will happen if they don't do whatever was asked? If the worst outcome comes to pass, who is in trouble, for a lack of better term? Them or you?

This has nothing to do with trust. It has everything to do with having confirmation that they received the information. I trust them 100% to do what they need to do, but I want confirmation that they KNOW what they need to do. The worst outcome won't come to pass, because after a certain point, I have to insist they confirm they got the info (at which point they normally finally respond). But hypothetically, we'd all be in trouble if they don't see and act on the info.

I think a better option might be for you instead, to send a simple reminder email instead...."Just a reminder, XYZ is due in a week. If you have any questions, let me know." That is what most people do, not send an email and then just wonder and fret.

Again, that's precisely what I do, though I have to be sure to specifically ask, "Can you please confirm you received the email I sent you last month about [x/y/z]" instead of leaving it open-ended.

 

[44267547]

I really do understand a lot of the frustrations that OP is expressing, but given how ‘Usagora’ responds to others in here with unnecessary snark, I’m wondering if the problem is actually a problematic person in itself over exacerbating the issue. Sometimes I think peoples expectations aren’t always realistic just because someone else’s mindset doesn’t align with their own.

I think being courteous is really important when responding to emails in a timely fashion, however; it’s better to not let something so trivial create this level of frustration.

 

[mollyc]

See, that's the whole point. It should be a given that a response is appropriate. I shouldn't have to ask for it. Earlier I used the analogy of giving someone a gift. I shouldn't have to include a note with a gift that says, "Please send me a thank you note so I know you got it" LOL! Obviously the info I'm emailing is not a gift - that's not what I'm comparing in the analogy. But the principle of courtesy is the same. (Incidentally, people failing to send thank you notes for gifts is also a rampant problem).



This has nothing to do with trust. It has everything to do with having confirmation that they received the information. I trust them 100% to do what they need to do, but I want confirmation that they KNOW what they need to do. The worst outcome won't come to pass, because after a certain point, I have to insist they confirm they got the info (at which point they normally finally respond). But hypothetically, we'd all be in trouble if they don't see and act on the info.



Again, that's precisely what I do, though I have to be sure to specifically ask, "Can you please confirm you received the email I sent you last month about [x/y/z]" instead of leaving it open-ended.

If they do the job properly, there is ZERO need for them to acknowledge receipt of an email. ZERO. They do the job and everyone moves on to the next thing at hand.

Inherently, you distrust them. You may say you don't distrust them, but you do. Your language and fixation on their "acknowledging receipt of the email" says there is a level of distrust.

I will try to stay out of this from now on, because as others have said, you refuse to see this from any other viewpoint other than your own.

 

[bunnspecial]

I'm trying to mentally place myself in how I'm reading the OP's situation.

If I'm understanding correctly, the OP sent out a bunch of information about the upcoming school year and it seems expected everyone to whom it was sent said "got it" or "thanks" or whatever to acknowledge it.

I am in education, albeit as college faculty, and I get over 100 emails a day. A lot of these are from students, and answering their questions is my first and primary priority. Everything else gets shuffled to the side.

I also get a lot of what I'd call email "blasts" that are sent to a large group of people. Often these contain things like policy changes or how-to procedures on how to handle things. Do I ignore them? No! I skim them to see how applicable they are to me(if it's about mold in a building I've never even set foot in, to be honest I don't really care), and if they are even slightly relevant I read them in detail.

The only time I'd actually respond would be if something were unclear, in which case I would respond with a question.

If an email is addressed directly to me, it's a different story, but that doesn't sound like the OP's email.

I regularly send out emails to other groups of people. Now I regularly email all the students in my class with important information. Back when I had managing teaching assistants(TAs) I'd send regular emails with information about the upcoming week, documents they needed, things I'd find out as the week progressed(this isn't working, do that from now on) or even to address general issues that were arising.

In all of those cases, I don't WANT responses from everyone. I don't need a dozen or more "got it" or "thank yous" or whatever in my inbox. 3 people saying "When you said X, did you mean do y?" is fine, but just answering for the sake of it is not a productive use of anyone's time.

To get at what @mollyc was asking/discussing(if I'm understanding her correctly), the only time the phrase "Did you read my email" comes out of my mouth is if I see a problem that was directly addressed in an email. If I send Joe, Bob, Sally, and Karen an email that says "I need everyone to do x, y, and z before next Wednesday" and come Wednesday Bob hasn't done it, I talk to Bob directly. If it became a habitual problem with Bob, I might specifically request that Bob acknowledge the email or even send it read receipt to him(which I do use, but only occasionally for very specific reasons) but that would be it.

If I had a boss or even colleague that expected an acknowledgement of every group email sent, it would get old VERY quickly. I did once while I was in graduate school serve as a teaching assistant for a professor who was emailing I think 8 or 9 of us at a time and expected not only a response but a "reply all" to every email sent(although he laid that out clearly in the beginning). It was an absolute mess, and I was glad I was only in that assignment for a week.