The sin of chain e-mails is an open invitation to misunderstandings at the content and relationship levels

The sender has not taken the time and trouble to summarize or work through the proposals for modifications. Let the recipient see what he can do with them!  If the e-mail is then sent to a number of recipients, the expenditure of effort has been multiplied many times over – a wonderful contribution to company performance.

The forwarding of chain e-mail messages is pernicious in other ways as well. It is not at all unusual for someone to be so quick with the click on the “Forward” button that he overlooks the information or remarks in the third e-mail from the bottom which the new recipient should not see under any circumstances, whether because the information is none of his business or because the remarks are hurtful. Yes, of course, it is not a good idea to put insults or biting remarks in e-mails anyway because their circulation quickly gets out of control – but a person forwarding a message is just as responsible for the things he forwards as the person who writes the first e-mail. It can really become unpleasant when the remarks refer to the work with customers or suppliers, i.e., parties outside of the company.

A special case of the chain is e-mail ping-pong. Sender and ­recipient work their fingers to the bone writing e-mails back and forth to each other in their attempts to clarify complex, difficult circumstances, generating a certain amount of anger and frustration in others. Why don’t the two just pick up the phone and talk? Such issues can often be clarified very quickly in a conversation.

The sin of avoidance indicates a lack of respect

The sender of the e-mail in the above example wanted to avoid the effort and time required for summary and coordination – but that virtually never works with e-mails, so don’t even try. If summaries are required, just write them, and don’t burden co-workers and superiors with the primary e-mails from your team or concerning discussions with the purchasing department.

But things really go to the dogs when hurried executives start making decisions by e-mail. No matter how clear the facts of the case may appear – the topic would not have ended up on the top floor if it had been simple because someone would have already made the decision in that case. As a rule, the issue involved is under dispute, and that is why it is necessary to listen to all of the sides at the same time as they exchange arguments and counter-arguments. The one who is not heard or whose ­argumentation gets lost or is not understood in the chain e-mail loses motivation. The supposed winner will not be really happy either, if he needs the colleagues and their further cooperation – and above all: the decision could be less than ideal, perhaps even wrong.