A Reply vs. Reply to All Scenario--You Decide

I received an email from a reader that began like this: "Recently I was berated by a person for not continuing his Reply to All format."

We should not be berating one another. We all have the goal of being efficient with email. So in the interest of efficiency and getting along with our colleagues, I am offering a typical Reply vs. Reply to All scenario. Please read it and decide which fictional character you agree with. Perhaps we can learn from one another.

Scenario: Six people are on a team to plan and staff their company's trade show booth. They have had two meetings so far, after which they have emailed and Replied to All, with everyone getting lots of emails with long threads about the booth plans.

Two team members, Paula and Brian, are responsible for booth signs. Paula did research on sign pricing, and she emailed her research to Brian without copying the team. Brian replied to Paula to ask a question, and he copied the other team members. Paula replied to Brian--not to all.

Brian is annoyed with Paula. He says they should be copying everyone on the team on everything they do so that people are in the loop.

Paula thinks they are drowning in email. She says they should only copy the entire team when everyone needs the information.

With whom do you agree? Why?

Lynn
Syntax Training

Comments

[Karla]

In a scenario like that, they should use an internal newsgroup or something like Google Wave. But if they don't have that, and they've have all agreed that they would "keep everyone in the loop" then they should Reply to All. I hear that "drowning in email" excuse ALL OF THE TIME and it drives me crazy. If you don't want to read an email, the delete key works very well! You can also manage your Inbox better, using Rules and Personal Folders. Don't ditz the technology simply because you haven't bothered to learn how to use it.

[Jeff]

Every message counts, and so does good planning. As soon as the team members have assignments and divide their efforts, they should agree on a time to get "back together" by replying to everyone. Imagine life before e-mail: Paula and Brian would have gotten together, done their work, and then met with their team again. Now imagine that instead, every time they talked they had to gather up all the team members. Why can't e-mail work the same way? I like Paula's reasoning, "only copy the entire team when everyone needs the information."

[Andrea]

I agree with the post by Jeff (for his same exact reasons)

[John Sammut]

I tend to agree with Karla. There are many ways to improve the way emails are presented and handled by Outlook. Some people don't even bother to create folders and keep piling the Inbox.

[JJB]

I agree with Paula, and for the same reason Jeff mentions above--well said, Jeff!

In a business environment, we are all resources. All email has to be processed by a person. Even if the email is ultimately deemed irrelevant and deleted, resources (time, mental energy, etc.) have been used.

Just like I think twice before printing, I think twice before Replying to All.

Great post, Lynn!

[Bianca]

Agreed with Paula, Jeff and JJB. My company tends to overkill the 'Reply to All' function. I find it annoying and wasteful of my time.

[Megan]

Copying every team member on every email is a waste of time and resources--for everyone involved! Set up regular check-in meetings or conference calls, compile a list of all of your questions (for specific people and/or the group at large), and address it then. If you must have a one-off conversation--here's a crazy thought--try calling the person! We are way too dependent on email to do the job of good old fashioned communicating.

[Lester Smith]

I agree with Karla and Jeff. An old truism of technical writing is to include details needed by any one of your readers, because readers who don't need them can skip over. Similarly, group members who don't need a particular e-mail message can quickly scan and ignore it.

The trouble with "reply all" is that it's so easy to forget and just click "reply." Setting up a group list (I use Yahoo! groups) avoids that trouble and adds an official nature to group messages. It's easy enough to cancel a group after the project is ended, if desired.

Cheers!

[Val S.]

From what I've noticed at work, Reply To All is often just another way to say CYA.

[Lynn Gaertner-Johnston]

Thanks for your input, everyone. It seems as though more people are in agreement with our fictional Paula than our fictional Brian.

Karla, I use rules and folders in Outlook, but I am not sure how I would set up rules for this specific fictional project. Would the rule be that any message with the words "trade show" goes in my Trade Show Booth folder? If you see this question, please respond.

Lester, did you mean to agree with Karla AND Jeff? They seem to have opposing views. Thanks for mentioning the Yahoo groups.

I admit that I am on the side of the fictional Paula. Don't email me unless the information is must know or should know for ME. Nice-to-know information is sucking away my efficiency. I do have to read it before I delete it--just in case it includes must-know info.

Thanks for joining in.

Lynn

[Diane]

The problem here is really that e-mail's the wrong tool for the job. This ad hoc team should use SharePoint, a Google Docs account or some other collaboration workspace. This kind of software keeps all the relevant info in one place, organized as needed, so that all six people on the team have access to all the pieces of the project.

In e-mail, each member of this team is individually responsible for organizing, retaining or deleting the info as he/she receives it, resulting in redundant effort, clogged e-mail boxes and hurt feelings from people who fret about being left out of the loop.

[Nic]

I agree with Paula's approach. If everyone had been tasked with researching pricing, it would be appropriate for all to know. But only she and Brian given this task, thus they are the only ones who need to be kept in the loop at this point.

[Liz Tucker]

Surely the point of delegating different tasks to everyone is to give different people responsibility and share the workload. If you are copied in on every single detail you might as well do the job yourself.

Keeping everybody in the loop should apply to the major decisions, not minor ones.

[Lynn Gaertner-Johnston]

Diane, it sounds as though a collaboration workspace would keep the fictional team on track without sinking them in email.

Nic and Liz, thanks for mentioning dividing up tasks and delegating. The efficiency of those actions is lost if everyone is roped into the discussion.

Lynn

[Trade Show Exhibits]

Thank you for the tip. Looks like I need to listen more when these guys are trying to teach me Trade shows speak.Thank you for the valuable advice.....