Answer Your E-Mail, For Cryin' Out Loud!

•  
  earme07/08/08 Report as spam
  1

  Lead by example

  I would add that if you expect your staff to do this, you'd better do it too (lead by example type of thing). I have been very annoyed in the past when I'm expected to do something that will make my manager's life a littler easier, but he won't extend the same courtesy to me to make my life a little easier.

•  
  CC Holland07/08/08 Report as spam
  2

  Excellent point!

  Which is why, of course, I'm responding to your comment.

•  
  Michael.Mattis@...07/08/08 Report as spam
  3

  RE: Answer Your E-Mail, For Cryin' Out Loud!

  CC's probably talking about me

•  
  CC Holland07/08/08 Report as spam
  4

  Never!

  Not at all! You are a paragon of efficiency when it comes to e-mail. And I'm not just saying that because you sign my paychecks.

•  
  David 4207/08/08 Report as spam
  5

  RE: Answer Your E-Mail, For Cryin' Out Loud!

  totally agree. I don't like being left there hanging...

•  
  CC Holland07/08/08 Report as spam
  6

  Seems obvious, doesn't it?

  Yet so many people just blow off the simple response. Ah, courtesy...dead, or just dying?

•  
  Enrico Pallazzo07/08/08 Report as spam
  7

  Re: Answering e-mail

  I fully agree that e-mails should be answered within a reasonable amount of time. But let's play devil's advocate for a second. My job doesn't inundate me with e-mails, luckily... but I'm aware of co-workers who are just getting swamped. This no doubt leads to a difference of opinion over what a "reasonable" response time is. Additionally, if e-mails were coming in at a higher rate than what you could respond to, I could kinda understand (not necessarily condone, of course) if some e-mails just fell through the cracks. In a related vein, there's often a difference of opinion over whether an e-mail actually warrants a response.

•  
  CC Holland07/09/08 Report as spam
  8

  Devil's advocate

  The question, unfortunately, isn't about whether an e-mail is answered in a reasonable amount of time; it's about whether it's answered at all. That's a big difference to me. And yes, I get that people are busy. I've been guilty of letting e-mails sit in my inbox a bit longer than intended. But that doesn't give me an excuse to just ignore them and not respond. Regarding what we should respond to: when a boss or manager makes a request, it's not only good etiquette to respond -- it's good business. Just a quick "I'm on it" e-mail takes, what, 15 seconds? And it makes you look like you're on the ball. And if things fall through the cracks because you're off having a cup of hot cocoa and missed the e-mail, well, I'm sure that will come out when review time comes around.

•  
  ksmith4907/09/08 Report as spam
  9

  RE: Answer Your E-Mail, For Cryin' Out Loud!

  I agree with all of the above...however, when I send an email which, if received and read, is the END and needs no response, I add a statement such as, "no need to reply if ... such and such." If I send an email and the server does not return an "undeliverable" message, I can be assured it was received. I also add a "send a read receipt" to emails so I am sure the email is not only opened but read.

•  
  CC Holland07/09/08 Report as spam
  10

  "Read receipt"

  That's a great idea. The problem isn't always whether an e-mail was delivered -- you're right that a bounce would tip you off there. It's whether it was actually read. Including the read receipt is one good way to do that, although unfortunately, not all e-mail programs offer this option. Thanks for the feedback!