by Jill Geisler Published Feb. 3, 2006 4:25 pm Updated Mar. 3, 2011 12:34 pm

We all know the newsroom axiom: Though we’re in the information business, we sure are lousy at communicating with one another.

And e-mail hasn’t improved our track record.

No doubt that’s why otherwise affable colleagues like Sree Sreenivasan would write two columns with the titles “I Hate E-Mail” on  Poynter Online last year. Both make for excellent reading.

I don’t hate e-mail. But I hate the way it can contribute to workplace misunderstandings. Misunderstood e-mail causes some of the top problems we wrestle with in newsrooms:

• Time management


• Conflict resolution


• Collaboration

E-mail, when it is effective, keeps people informed, expedites work and connects people across distance. But too often, e-mail leaves us with too many questions, and those questions cause problems.

Let’s take a look at some questions born of misunderstood e-mails:

Question: When do you need this?

You sent me a request for information or action with no indication of when you need it. Is this urgent?  Should I set aside other work to respond? Is this a “when you have time” request, but needed by a certain deadline?  

We can manage our time better when the e-mail message is clear about time. This is particularly important for bosses to understand: when you send a message, people are likely to assume you want action immediately. If that’s not the case, make sure to tell the recipient. Develop your own code. We all know what ASAP means. Perhaps you can use AYC (At Your Convenience) or make up your own acronym, something like WYC (When You Can – don’t clear the decks to do this) as a proviso for less-than-urgent requests.



Question: Why didn’t you answer my question?

I sent you a message with two questions. Example:

“Hi. Checking to see if the new lens came in. I’m off for the next two days and just want to get a status report on that and whether you saw my request for a vacation day next week.”
 
Then comes your reply:

“Lens not in yet. Got vacation request.”

The answer is incomplete and frustrating. The best response would include a status report on the lens and a decision as to whether or not I can have that vacation day. If you are too busy to research both answers immediately, then say so: “Lens not in yet — bummer. I’ll check later today on UPS. Still have to confirm your vacation day — there may be a conflict. I’ll let you know by the end of the day.”  Telling people when you are able to give an answer demonstrates both commitment and respect. Of course, you have to follow through!

Because we get so many e-mails, we may speed-read through them, and then neglect to answer all the questions they contain. Re-read an inquiry and your response before hitting “reply.” That small act may help sender and responder avoid a flurry of additional correspondence as well as some irritation.

Speaking of irritation…

Question: Are you mad at me?

E-mail lacks personality and context. The words we write can be read in many ways. What the sender thinks is efficient, tight writing can be perceived by the receiver as terse and dismissive.  

Example:

I write to my editor:  “Hi Julie. Liked your year-end centerpiece. I’m working on a column about e-mail problems and will send to you for editing after 5 p.m., if that works for you.”

She responds: “Fine.”

Now, using your best theatrical skills, read that single word “fine” out loud, five different ways. Your five interpretations might include: happiness, satisfaction, exasperation, testiness or boredom.  

How often do we miss a chance to add humanity and context to our messages in our rush for efficiency?  You need not decorate your mail with smilies — just a few extra words will do. Our Poynter Online managing editor, Julie Moos, is the master of this. Her efficient reply might look like this: “Thanks for feedback! 5 p.m. should work just fine. I appreciate the heads-up.”  

Question: Is this war?

I can’t tell you how many times, when working with journalists on conflict-resolution case studies, we learn that things went to hell because of an e-mail sent in anger. This is one time when e-mail has plenty of personality, all of it vitriolic. You are sending a letter bomb, not a message. It can carry more weight and do more damage than the spoken word. If you care enough about something to stand up for it, then care enough to speak with someone personally — and come prepared to listen as well as speak. E-mail arguments only complicate and escalate a bad situation.

I like this mantra I heard from a Poynter seminar participant, delivered in cop-like fashion: Ticked off?  Ready to blow? Step away from the keyboard.

Questions: Why me? Why them?

Don’t you love getting copied on e-mails without any understanding of why it happened?  You can’t tell if you are being invited into the conversation, expected to respond, or whether the sender is simply engaging in CYA behavior.

Copying people can be a compliment, letting people in on a good idea or letting them know about something with the potential to affect them. Copying the boss when you are praising someone is a clear message that you want the good news spread up the food chain.

But unless the “cc:” rationale is as obvious to recipients as it to the sender, there’s a problem. Don’t assume they know. You might ask people in your circle if and how they’d like to be copied; some really want to be in the loop while others may love to opt out. If there’s any chance of misunderstanding, include a brief explanation in an e-mail about why you have copied folks.  

Question: Why the mysteries?

You included no contact information in your message other than your e-mail address. If I don’t know you well, but want to do something outrageous like call or snail-mail you, it would help to know your title, address and phone number. They’re teaching grade-schoolers how to set up their e-mails for auto-signatures these days, so it may be time for you to take a bold leap into the ’90s and do it, too.

You sent me a message with nothing in the subject line. It was a great little time-saver for you, but sure didn’t help me. If I’m doing e-mail triage, I can’t determine whether this missive is critical or frivolous, and I surely can’t search for it easily later by topic.

Use your headline-writing skills and help me out here. “Hi” or “Question” may work for short messages that I will never need to save and revisit. But when the message is important, the subject line should reflect it. And please, don’t hitchhike a new and unrelated message onto an old e-mail of ours you had in your file — one that you send to me with the old, original subject line that no longer applies to the topic du jour.

Question: Do you have attachment disorder?

My Poynter colleague Scott Libin suggested this one, which is a pet peeve of his. It’s not about folks who promise attachments and then forget to include them before hitting the “send” button — we’re all embarrassed by that gaffe from time to time. Rather, Scott’s put off by the number of people who send him attachments he doesn’t need. He’s talking about things like attached business cards or logos or attachments in messages with no explanation of why he’d even want to read them. The excess electronic baggage can clog a mailbox or slow the opening of some messages. 

It’s a particular problem for those using dial-up or other slower Internet connections, but unnecessary attachments gobble up time and space even for broadband users. As with e-mail in general, sending what’s really relevant signals that you respect the recipient’s time.        

Question: Are you avoiding me?

When you rely too much on e-mail, people can take it as a conscious decision on your part to distance yourself. Though e-mail can keep us connected, it can also keep us apart. So ask yourself: is this something I could or should be communicating in person? When was the last time I spoke with this person, face-to-face? Don’t be the editor I’ve heard described by some journalists: the one who sits just a few feet away from reporters but sends e-mails instead of simply talking to them.

I don’t hate e-mail. In fact, as someone who lives in Wisconsin and works in Florida, I view e-mail as my lifeline to co-workers and to journalists around the world. But I know that it is up to me to make sure I’m using it wisely — as a source of information, not misunderstanding.

Same goes for you. So, for example, if you decide to e-mail this column to colleagues as a learning tool, please make sure you include a note explaining why you are doing it.  

Better yet, just talk with them.