nemoorange.com

Subject-only emails: Timesaver or bain of business communication?

Life Hacker recently linked to an article about the virtues of subject-only emails. I was surprised how many commenters made a positive response of the technique. Surely, wouldn't any rational person realize the potential pitfalls of implementing such a short cut? Apparently not.

While the subject of email might be bland and banal as it seems, the issue is of critical importance. Businesses rely on email as no corporate entity can function without being linked to an outside entity. Companies deal with a multitude of partners, customers, suppliers, consultants. If communication is not performing aptly, tremendous loss in productivity will result. But that's just the business-schpeil. Like any facet of life dealing with humans, business is a function of relationships. Relationships are a function of communication.

I imagine that the typical reaction to the previous statement "No shit, Sherlock. Tell me something I don't know." All communication study is hindered by this mode of thought. Communication is so commonplace, so ever-present, so un-avoidable that we rarely stop to consider it in a critical fashion. Consequently, errors go unchecked, laziness is tolerated, mistakes slip by, corrections are not made, improvements are not imagined. So when a super-swell concept like subject-only-emails arises, I fear the technique will be adopted without any mindfulness of its repercussions. With that said, let's go ahead and lay out why subject-only emails should be used only with the greatest of care . . .

I say hi, you say hi back. I spill my guts about my undying love for Diana Ross, you let loose about your Manilow-mania. In communication, reciprocity explains a lot. In most communicative acts, with any message sent, there comes the expectation for a message to be sent back that is equal in depth of subject, breadth of subject (I do realize I'm smearing lots of semesters of Comm classes together, but you get the idea). Now with a subject-only email, if you send me one, I will most likely send something back with the same brevity. In fact, if you're email subject is "explanation for open order # 024501 /end" the response I would like to send back would be "Customer cancelled original, haven't decided on replacement /end." However, your expectation is for something with greater detail: "Per Louis at Acme, the item they want is currently on backorder for 5 more weeks. I informed Louis that a compatible item (part # 012345) is available. He will have to okay it with his engineers before we cancel this order and put in a replacement PO." So if I send that email, I'd feel a bit uneasy, as I'm doing all the work, I put more into the discussion and my co-worker is just reaping the benefits.

Next, consider the spiral of brevity when short message emails are bouncing back and forth. This sets a precedent to keep in the short-message mode. If someone were to send a longer email (100+ words), what is the likelihood that anyone will read it after being conditioned to pay attention to just the subject line, and expect quick responses? Let's recognize that shorter messages and faster responses are not necessary conditions for better communication. Complex problems call for complex answers. With engaging in rapid-fire email exchanges, we sidestep the cognitive processes to tackle such obstacles.

Here's a probable hypothetical situation. Sam the sender emails Rhonda the receiver a subject-only email. With Outlook or Gmail running, an email-notification will pop up in the corner of the Rhonda screen. While Sam does have the normal expectation that Rhonda will attended to the email when she is fully capable, he also considers that Rhonda will most likely see the email pop-up. In this way, Sam is using email much like an Instant Message. A crucial difference between the two media is the expected span of time for a response. I send you an email, I'd like a response back in two hours; send an IM, I want something back in two minutes. By trying to increase efficiency Sam has consequently increased potential aggravation on both sides. What might be efficient for the sender, might not be the best for everyone else.

Here's the perfect, and only, context for sending a subject-only email:

• You have an established relationship with the receiver. You feel comfortable that they will not feel off-put with brief message.
• The receiver should know how to read it, how to get the meaning out of it, what you're talking about.
• The message you intend to send is relatively simple and does not require additional detail or clarification to be sent after-the-fact.
• You're request does not require a message of greater depth or detail to be sent in return.

So subject-only emails can be useful and beneficial to all parties, but only under some very constraining conditions. I am all for efficiency. I love finding shortcuts and sharing them with my colleagues. What irks me is when we, the get-it-done-yesterday generation, cut so many corners that quality of content diminishes. Shooting emails back and forth already creates a communication quagmire. Technology advances so quickly, the cultural rules and social expectations do not have enough time to catch up. If anything, we need to slow down and consider how technology like email can fit inside our roles, not the other way around.