E-Mail Exchange: Do I Answer You or Not?

Let's say some materials you promised to send just landed in my In basket. Do I respond with a brief thank-you e-mail?

Or maybe you're sending me batches of material throughout the day. Do I thank you for each one?

What if we've been exchanging e-mails about a particular subject, and your last response was something along the lines of, "Let's do it" or "Let's not do it." Do I reply "Great" or "OK"?

A few years ago, I would have said Yes to all three questions. But now that the volume of e-mail cluttering our In boxes is just short of unmanageable, a new strategy seems to be called for. So I now tailor my level of — let's call it "e-mail persistence" — to the personality of the recipient.

It seems clear that many busy people dislike the bother of opening an e-mail containing a response that was expected, whether "OK" or "thank you." So I respond only when my correspondent might be wondering whether I agreed or would take the step we discussed.

Exceptions to the rule

On the other hand, I do work with people who make a point of responding to every e-mail I send. So I answer all their messages, however brief or trivial. This is an instance of the mimicry that makes for good client-consultant relationships. (Similarly, adopting your client's posture — hands on table, hand supporting chin, etc. — can help foster productive interaction at a meeting.)

People with weighty positions also merit the "persistent" treatment. If you are corresponding with the CEO or the executive director, the appropriate response is to answer every e-mail. Let the client be the one to bow out of the exchange.

And when you're not sure what to do? My strategy has been to forestall any uncertainty by telling my recipient how I'll handle the situation — for example, that I will not respond individually to all the documents she sends today, but will let her know at the close of business* that I've received all 20 of them.

*I was introduced to COB (close of business) by a staff member in a government office. Since then, I've also encountered EOD (end of day). Both are useful shorthand, assuming that we're all working with the same 9-to-5 (or thereabouts) notion of a business day.

Can We Focus, Please?

Boasting about having a short attention span has become a weird competitive sport. Rather than apologizing for their lack of concentration, people are happily broadcasting their inability to spend more than a few moments focusing on any one thing. It's as if this personal quirk is proof of full-fledged membership in the multi-tasking universe.

Well, count me out. I happen to be one of those people who is happiest when deeply immersed in a project. Psychologists call this state of mind "flow." Being "in flow," can mean being so involved in the activity that you lose your sense of time, forget to eat a meal or fail to hear the doorbell ring.

Most of the time, even when I'm in flow, I'm perfectly capable of coming up for air when a client calls to ask a question or sends an urgent e-mail. (What is difficult for me is to literally shift gears — to get in the car and drive. When my mind is filled with ideas, they become more real than the road in front of me.)

But I think the social imperative of multi-tasking has skewed our priorities. We may believe we are staying ahead of the game by trying to do several things at once, or giving each thing a brief blast of attention. In fact, studies have shown that true multi-tasking is a form of self-delusion. Rather than really doing two things at once, we are constantly toggling between one thing and another.

I suspect that the more fragmented the attention we dole out, the longer it takes to accomplish our goals. And rather than feeling in control — one of the great gifts of being in flow — we are always on the defensive because we can never win the battle against Time.

We would get more things done more satisfyingly if we appreciated the virtues of sustained focus on what we're doing. People would pay more attention to the subtext of what their colleagues and friends are saying, avoiding many misunderstandings. Prioritizing would replace a panicked attempt to do it all. Projects would be completed in a more thoughtful way, with fewer careless errors and increased openness to creative solutions.

Above all, a deeper feeling of achievement and sense of self-worth would suffuse our lives. And that has to be a good thing.

©Cathy Curtis 2010