Create Your Own Company

Email is often the least preferred method of communicating by many readers, however. Any of those over one million hits will tell you the benefits of using email to conduct your business because it is a fast and efficient form of communicating. It poses certain problems for the professional who is attempting to communicate well, because email is used so broadly. Type "email etiquette" into the search bar of any popular search engine and you'll get over one million hits.

Using this function carefully will help you protect and enhance your professional credibility and prevent you from alienating your readers--especially those who don't like email to begin with. I want to address one of the many options of email--the "Reply All" function, with that in mind.

" and "thanks" responses end up in my Inbox becoming clutter I have to sort through and delete, " "got it, the problem with that is all their "will do. Recipients of this group message will respond to the sender by hitting the "Reply All" function, far too frequently. And frequently a group's leader will send an email to the entire group giving out information or delivering a point of instruction, i'm a member of many online groups.

Deliberate Purpose

And professionalism this type of response should be sent only to the person who generates the original email, efficiency, in the interest of time, instead. Not often. In how many cases do you need to know that one of the recipients said "okay"? Reserve the "Reply All" for when ALL members need the responder's answer, let me say that again. The "Reply All" function should be reserved for when all members of the recipient list need the information being sent.

We'd be buried in paper! Absolutely not. Would we want all those responses, if we consider that every "Reply All" is a piece of paper on our desks? Hitting "Reply All" as a matter of habit and not as a carefully chosen option is poor communication because it clutters our inboxes with information we don't need. You've read in my other articles that poor communication is the Number One problem in business.

I caution judicious use of the "Reply All" function, but again. Then using "Reply All" is good communication because it keeps the lines of communication open and moving. This is especially important if the team works remotely or when members of the team work on opposite shifts or don't see one another frequently. Using "Reply All" is the right thing to do, in a collaborative project where all members of the team need to be kept apprised of the goings-on of team members. "Reply All" has its uses, certainly.

Real-Life Consequences

Let me tell you a story to help you understand this. Using "Reply All" can also be used as a weapon and become destructive to a team relationship, however. Thereby helping the company reach its goals, using "Reply All" well can increase a team's ability to function by keeping communication open. We have another really good reason to use the "Reply All" function judiciously and that has to do with the functioning of a unit as a team.

" Too, here's what happened next: another of the president's staff members hit "Reply All" and said "Don't forget that Jane did her part. Proactive thing to do on the part of the president, this was a responsive. Good job of communicating how staff is making the organization better. Nice email. The president of the organization sent a complimentary email about one staffer's efforts to her entire staff, in an effort to be more supportive. I've been working with an organization that has had quite a bit of internal strife for various reasons.

Not a good position for a leader to be in. The result: the president was put on the defensive in front of her entire staff. The president then scrambled to give Jane the proper acknowledgement and sent another message via "Reply All" acknowledging Jane's contribution. And that was to expose the failings of the president, the fact that the staffer sent the "Reply All" to acknowledge Jane had a subversive intent. The staffer's reply was designed not only to acknowledge Jane but to "show" the rest of the staff that the president didn't really know what was going on in the organization. It conveys testiness as well, but while that message might seem innocuous. To the casual observer this exchange may not seem to be a big deal.

Different Results

Doing so would have shown respect to the president and allowed the president an opportunity to revise the original message to give Jane proper credit without being put in a defensive position. Or spoken to the president directly to remind her of Jane's efforts, called, the staffer should simply have replied. Sure. Could this situation have been handled better?

Respond only to the initiator of the message and let them do their jobs better, otherwise. Use "Reply All" only when all those people in the recipient list need the information you have and when they need it from you. My advice: be cautious. But they do it without considering the potential negative effects on the organization and workers involved, using the "Reply All" option may be one of those things people do to make their jobs easier.