6 ms·

This doesn't work. I've gotten many bad reviews, because people thought I was being "curt" or "mean" because I was replying to their question with short replies

This doesn't work. I've gotten many bad reviews, because people thought I was being "curt" or "mean" because I was replying to their question with short replies. None, of my emails were intended to be mean, I just didn't see the point in fluffing up my emails, and only responded with the required information, but I guess people require the fluff or they get their feelings hurt.

mfringel 9y ago
Alternately, your definition of "fluff" was everyone else's definition of "required communication." A short reply can still be ambiguous, which requires clarification, which then wastes time. Given your many bad reviews, do you think it might be worthwhile to revisit your data?
crispyambulance 9y ago
You're right, only the most high-powered people in an organization can get away with terse responses that leave recipients guessing at what their precise intent was. "Fluff" is a highly subjective term. What may be fluff for you could be critical signalling for others. Stripping everything down to the bare-bones of what you (or I) may think answers the request sounds intentionally flippant and dismissive. If we fail to address the recipient in a context they understand and share with us that is taken as an offense. With a little effort, however, it is totally possible to be cogent, compact, AND polite.
vidarh 9y ago
It works, but as a general rule, you need to include more fluff than the person above you in the hierarchy unless you know they're fine with you being shorter. The trick is figuring out just how much more fluff is ok. But what will come across as "curt" or "mean" is if your e-mails are substantially less fluffy than those of your boss or your co-workers. You need to adapt to the style in use in the business, not because it is objectively curt or mean, but because people judge whether or not you're being curt or mean subjectively based on their base of comparison, and that is your co-workers.
- amyjess 9y ago
  > But what will come across as "curt" or "mean" is if your e-mails are substantially less fluffy than those of your boss or your co-workers. You have to be especially careful to not treat people who don't report to you as if they're your subordinates. It's bad to do that to people on your own team, and it's worse to do that to people on another team. A good way to build a bad relationship with someone is to treat them like your lackey when they're not even in the same reporting chain as you. I've been treated like this before, by someone on another team who sent me a number feature requests that involve significant new work, and by "requests", I mean "demands", without any fluff or niceties or anything. He did this without opening a new ticket (in a company where anything requiring new work needs one), without CCing my boss, and only rarely CCing his boss. This has always resulted in me switching into full-on form letter mode: "Please make your feature request by opening a JIRA ticket in the [redacted] project, and management will choose how to prioritize it.", with my boss and my skip level CC'd on the email.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    Absolutely agree. Even when in the same reporting chain, I'd consider it quite bad form because it leaves the people in between with reduced visibility, and often they might have information that makes them prioritize differently or assign different people. You can get away with some reduced formality when addressing people reporting in to a layer below you but on another team, but "get away with" being the operative part. You will not get away with bypassing managers - even if you manage to sneak it past them now, it'll make people look out for future attempts. Sometimes if you know everyone well it may be ok to e-mail someone direct and cc their manager and address it to both and suggest the person you're sending it to would be a good person to carry out the work, but I'd take care to make it clear it's up to said manager unless I have very strong reasons to ask for a specific person and then too the manager should at least be informed.. I've been on both ends of this, and more than once told off my managers for bypassing me because of the disruption caused.
moioci 9y ago
What about putting something in your email signature like, "Please do not mistake the brevity of my reply for hostility. I'm just trying to save us all time."?
- pattisapu 9y ago
  Because that's kind of lame and assumes so much about the value of your time and the reader's time, not to mention feelings and values.
mLuby 9y ago
Problem is humans are multiplexing both data and job security signals across the single channel of email. For the boss, the latter doesn't matter (much) so they can focus on data. For peers and underlings, it is unwise to ignore clues that let you know when your job might be at risk because you pissed off your boss or peers, so getting a clear signal is important.
therealdrag0 9y ago
I think I'm fairly clean and direct in my emails, but that doesn't mean you can't pay attention to how your communication comes off. A friendly opening, ("Hey bob"), and closing ("Cheers, {initials}") should be sufficient to make you not sound like a monster. Maybe throw in a smily face once in a while to remind them you're human.
buxtehude 9y ago
I use short responses only for people I work with regularly every day (direct team members). For everyone else I throw in the fluff to keep things amicable. When I do that - sometimes I feel like I'm wasting time - but in the end I believe it protects you from people thinking you are a jerk - or worse introducing bias into decisions that might be made that could go against you or your team.

mfringel 9y ago

Alternately, your definition of "fluff" was everyone else's definition of "required communication." A short reply can still be ambiguous, which requires clarification, which then wastes time. Given your many bad reviews, do you think it might be worthwhile to revisit your data?

crispyambulance 9y ago

You're right, only the most high-powered people in an organization can get away with terse responses that leave recipients guessing at what their precise intent was. "Fluff" is a highly subjective term. What may be fluff for you could be critical signalling for others. Stripping everything down to the bare-bones of what you (or I) may think answers the request sounds intentionally flippant and dismissive. If we fail to address the recipient in a context they understand and share with us that is taken as an offense. With a little effort, however, it is totally possible to be cogent, compact, AND polite.

vidarh 9y ago

It works, but as a general rule, you need to include more fluff than the person above you in the hierarchy unless you know they're fine with you being shorter. The trick is figuring out just how much more fluff is ok. But what will come across as "curt" or "mean" is if your e-mails are substantially less fluffy than those of your boss or your co-workers. You need to adapt to the style in use in the business, not because it is objectively curt or mean, but because people judge whether or not you're being curt or mean subjectively based on their base of comparison, and that is your co-workers.

amyjess 9y ago
> But what will come across as "curt" or "mean" is if your e-mails are substantially less fluffy than those of your boss or your co-workers. You have to be especially careful to not treat people who don't report to you as if they're your subordinates. It's bad to do that to people on your own team, and it's worse to do that to people on another team. A good way to build a bad relationship with someone is to treat them like your lackey when they're not even in the same reporting chain as you. I've been treated like this before, by someone on another team who sent me a number feature requests that involve significant new work, and by "requests", I mean "demands", without any fluff or niceties or anything. He did this without opening a new ticket (in a company where anything requiring new work needs one), without CCing my boss, and only rarely CCing his boss. This has always resulted in me switching into full-on form letter mode: "Please make your feature request by opening a JIRA ticket in the [redacted] project, and management will choose how to prioritize it.", with my boss and my skip level CC'd on the email.
- vidarh 9y ago
  Absolutely agree. Even when in the same reporting chain, I'd consider it quite bad form because it leaves the people in between with reduced visibility, and often they might have information that makes them prioritize differently or assign different people. You can get away with some reduced formality when addressing people reporting in to a layer below you but on another team, but "get away with" being the operative part. You will not get away with bypassing managers - even if you manage to sneak it past them now, it'll make people look out for future attempts. Sometimes if you know everyone well it may be ok to e-mail someone direct and cc their manager and address it to both and suggest the person you're sending it to would be a good person to carry out the work, but I'd take care to make it clear it's up to said manager unless I have very strong reasons to ask for a specific person and then too the manager should at least be informed.. I've been on both ends of this, and more than once told off my managers for bypassing me because of the disruption caused.

moioci 9y ago

What about putting something in your email signature like, "Please do not mistake the brevity of my reply for hostility. I'm just trying to save us all time."?

pattisapu 9y ago
Because that's kind of lame and assumes so much about the value of your time and the reader's time, not to mention feelings and values.

mLuby 9y ago

Problem is humans are multiplexing both data and job security signals across the single channel of email. For the boss, the latter doesn't matter (much) so they can focus on data. For peers and underlings, it is unwise to ignore clues that let you know when your job might be at risk because you pissed off your boss or peers, so getting a clear signal is important.

therealdrag0 9y ago

I think I'm fairly clean and direct in my emails, but that doesn't mean you can't pay attention to how your communication comes off. A friendly opening, ("Hey bob"), and closing ("Cheers, {initials}") should be sufficient to make you not sound like a monster. Maybe throw in a smily face once in a while to remind them you're human.

buxtehude 9y ago

I use short responses only for people I work with regularly every day (direct team members). For everyone else I throw in the fluff to keep things amicable. When I do that - sometimes I feel like I'm wasting time - but in the end I believe it protects you from people thinking you are a jerk - or worse introducing bias into decisions that might be made that could go against you or your team.