[ryandrake]

Thank you for pointing that out. Not answering one's E-mail is on my list of "rude things that somehow have become acceptable". It's part of individual companies' cultures. I've worked places where people can generally be relied upon to get back to you, and places where you might as well print out the message and shred it--it's not going to be responded to. The former means your working relationship with me is going to be smooth and collaborative. The latter means I'm going to treat you like a deadbeat and come around and nag you in person.

I actually really hate being that "Hey, didja read that E-mail I sent?" guy, but if you're not responsive, I am going to have to pay you a visit. And I have no idea when you're in the zone and when you're just chilling. If you would just answer your E-mail, then you get to do it at the best time for you.

One thing I've found helpful over the years is: When you are depending on getting a response, say so. "NEED RESPONSE BY EOD TUESDAY" Make it the very first thing in the body of the E-mail, or even make it the subject of the E-mail, since some people only skim the subjects.

Another tip is to state clearly what assumption you will make about their thoughts if you do not hear back in time: "If I don't hear back by EOD, we will go forward with the proposal."

EDIT: Another good tip I forgot to mention: If your E-mail is going to multiple people, and you need one or more of them to respond or take action, type their Full Name in bold and red then ":" then the specific action the need to take and by when. This helps people who only scan their E-mails, as their name stands out.

Most of these tips are actually pretty obvious, it seems silly to even write them down.

[pmichaud]

I like your tactical suggestion at the bottom, but I wanted to say that I rankle at the top.

Philosophically, I don't think a request for my attention creates an obligation to give it.

Practically, if I responded to every email I received, I'd spend all my time doing nothing but responding to email, then I'd still fail by running out of time.

It's actually pretty stressful. I've outsourced a lot of my email to a couple people who work for me, but there are still some that just go unanswered because the system isn't airtight. But it feels unfair to impugn me as rude for not being able to do a thing that becomes impractical to do at a certain point.

[sambe]

If your company pays you to give your attention when requested then it kind of does create such an obligation.

I'll grant you that if they have to choose, they probably choose total productivity over all emails answered. However, clearly not every incoming email requires an answer from every recipient. You are not being asked to reply to 100% of incoming emails instantly.

Ignoring direct requests for attention is both rude and in my opinion ultimately toxic. Imagine what would happen if everyone acted that way. It blocks information flow, holds people up, and ultimately doesn't solve the problem - you are just forcing someone to follow up some other way. It actually hides problems. Those can be that you are doing something wrong: poor at organising your email or your time compared to others; contiually optimising visible productivity at the expense of other people's time; poor communication skills. On the flip side, it can be that the company has poor email culture, suboptimal team structures/dynamics or just too much work for the number of employees. If your manager met you by the coffee machine when you were busy and asked you for something you wouldn't just walk away.

None of the best or most productive people I've worked with have been casual about dropping 40% of their emails.

[pmichaud]

It seems like you're imagining a different situation than I am. I'm talking about a large volume of outside email, the equivalent of fan mail, essentially. We have other methods of communication for internal stuff, like Slack.

I stand by my original assertion that your request for attention doesn't create an obligation to give any to you, though. I think the cultural norms around it (ie, give attention when asked) make sense at small scales, but break once you cross a certain threshold of people wanting attention.

[sambe]

Maybe, but the employment situation still changes the dynamics. You probably couldn't get away with this argument if you worked in customer support, for example.

[tinbucket]

I couldn't agree more that a request for my attention does not obligate me to give it; if it did, I could spend all my (work) day answering emails and all my leisure time watching adverts.

[ryandrake]

You're both right. Nothing, besides courtesy, obliges you to respond. But then, depending on the urgency of the request, we end up in the "follow you to the dog park" mode of communication GP talked about, which is less than ideal

I'd argue that getting more requests for attention than one can handle is a symptom, not a root problem. Tons of people needing your approval for something? Maybe authority can be distributed more evenly. Designate others who you trust to approve things on your behalf. Frequent pings for "status updates"? Maybe the project is not being run as transparently as it can be. Time to publish a wiki or something so these people can serve themselves.

[nicky0]

I prefer it when people come to ask me in person. So much more efficient. A 5 minute conversation can sometimes replace days of back and forth emails.

[andyidsinga]

your suggestions about calling out urgency and indicating the non-response action are great. I really appreciate when people do this.

[mrexroad]

The problem is when people conflate urgency with what's important to them.

Lots of "omg I need now, but worst case by EOD" that really should be "anytime this week would be great."