[mjr00]

You're completely missing the power dynamic the article is talking about.

You don't send a track to a record label's A&R and then dismissively say "they're not worth my time" when they don't respond. You don't contact VCs asking for a coffee meeting to pitch your startup idea and say "your inbox management sucks, not worth my time" if they don't get back to you in three days.

This is about getting the attention of someone who is very busy and would likely doing you a favor (or buying something from you, or investing in you).

[NikolaNovak]

Agreed - I think a lot of responses in this thread get it exactly right.

The assumption from the OP is that they are in position of power (however defined), and that "it's no skin off their back" if somebody's request is missed. They have the luxury to adopt a (to others seemingly) random and specific uncommunicated threshold, and enforce it.

That is true, in a very specific subset of cases and situations.

That is empathically not true, in a very large set of cases and situations.

If you are the one sending the email, then typically you are the one that wants/needs something, ergo you are typically the one that is responsible to get it done / follow-up. That's a generalization but a useful one.

(In particular, the notion of "if you follow up several times, you're going into kill file" is again only applicable for a very specific set of situations. Your boss, client, spouse, friend, partner, lover, lawyer, parole officer, tax auditor, teacher, et cetera would probably not react kindly to enforcement of such rule).

[ormaaj]

It's not a power thing.

[NikolaNovak]

Disagree, or at least we are misunderstanding each other.

I am not saying you are gleefully abusing power or going ona power trip. I am saying there's implicit power in your suggestion / preference.

If you work for a large company, you don't get to put your boss in a kill file because they emailed you a few follow ups. There's any number of situations where that's an unthinkable option.

Consciously or not, you are assuming position of power over the sender. That you don't need them and you aren't negatively impacted by enforcing arbitrary and draconian thresholds. As I said in my examples, most of us likely would not be that non chalant in situations where we do not have the power.

[ormaaj]

Boss would have to have really stepped way over the line to cross the "ignore" threshold. If I were not in a position to do anything about it I'd ideally be looking for another job before reaching that point.

If you're someone's boss then my expectations of your ability to conduct yourself professionally in everyday email correspondence is higher not lower.

There do exist certain technologies and practices that do in effect impose draconian power over the sender. What I do is not one of them, and if I were to become aware of anything I do to inadvertently impose on others then I would take extraordinary steps to avoid it.

[Hizonner]

... in other words, it's about hounding somebody who evidently does not want to do you a favor in the hope that you'll get them to do it anyway.

The whole inbox management question is a distraction. You can't guess what's going on with somebody's inbox management.

You can make a pretty good guess that if they don't answer you, they either don't want to talk to you (in which case you should leave them alone), or they have some kind of weird power complex and get off on you begging (in which case you should run far away and find ANY OTHER WAY to get what you need from SOMEBODY ELSE).

[ParetoOptimal]

> You can make a pretty good guess that if they don't answer you, they either don't want to talk to you (in which case you should leave them alone), or they have some kind of weird power complex and get off on you begging

Choose the simplest explanation of someone not responding to your email:

1. they don't want to talk to you 2. they have a weird power complex and want you to beg 3. they missed the email or forgot to follow up

2 makes way too many assumptions, we can eliminate it. I'm confused you made a point about not guessing someones inbox management, but then guess at their deep psychological state.

1 and 3 are pretty equal if you assume people are organized on average, otherwise 3 has the edge if you believe the average person is disorganized.

The problem with 1 is you trade maybe not bothering someone for lots of opportunity cost for you.

I'd also argue many software engineers default to 1 because of the anxiety of potential conflict and/or imposter syndrome.

[mjr00]

> You can make a pretty good guess that if they don't answer you, they either don't want to talk to you (in which case you should leave them alone), or they have some kind of weird power complex and get off on you begging (in which case you should run far away and find ANY OTHER WAY to get what you need from SOMEBODY ELSE).

... or, as the article says, they're just busy and/or have poor inbox management. It even has real examples of repeated follow-up emails working.

[ryandrake]

The power dynamic is important. A substantial part of my job is getting answers or actions out of busy people who are above me on the totem pole. When the recipient is more important than you, it doesn't matter if they have poor inbox management. It's on you to communicate in whatever way gets your desired result. That may mean following up with multiple E-mails. It may mean chats. It may mean a phone call or face to face conversation. You have to adapt to the recipient.

If I send a busy manager an E-mail asking for information or for approval to do something or whatever, and they don't respond, it could be any of:

1. They have poor inbox management and missed it

2. They go through their E-mail infrequently

3. They don't care as much as I do, or have no incentive to respond

4. They don't want to do what I'm asking for

5. They don't like me and actively don't want to help

The reason doesn't matter. In all cases, I didn't do my job (get whatever it is I need), and so it is still my responsibility to follow up and either hound more, change my communication style, address whatever problem prevents them from engaging, or whatever it takes. If I fail to get an answer, the consequences are not on them, they're on me.