Type email etiquette into the search bar of any popular search engine and youll get over one million hits. Because email is used so broadly, it poses certain problems for the professional who is attempting to communicate well. Any of those over one million hits will tell you the benefits of using email to conduct your business because it is a fast and efficient form of communicating. However, email is often the least preferred method of communicating by many readers.

With that in mind, I want to address one of the many options of emailthe Reply All function. Using this function carefully will help you protect and enhance your professional credibility and prevent you from alienating your readersespecially those who dont like email to begin with.

Im a member of many online groups, and frequently a groups leader will send an email to the entire group giving out information or delivering a point of instruction. Far too frequently, recipients of this group message will respond to the sender by hitting the Reply All function. The problem with that is all their will do, got it, and thanks responses end up in my Inbox becoming clutter I have to sort through and delete.

Deliberate Purpose

The Reply All function should be reserved for when all members of the recipient list need the information being sent. Let me say that again, reserve the Reply All for when ALL members need the responders answer. In how many cases do you need to know that one of the recipients said okay? Not often. Instead, in the interest of time, efficiency, and professionalism this type of response should be sent only to the person who generates the original email.

Youve read in my other articles that poor communication is the Number One problem in business. Hitting Reply All as a matter of habit and not as a carefully chosen option is poor communication because it clutters our inboxes with information we dont need. If we consider that every Reply All is a piece of paper on our desks, would we want all those responses? Absolutely not. Wed be buried in paper!

Certainly, Reply All has its uses. In a collaborative project where all members of the team need to be kept apprised of the goings-on of team members, using Reply All is the right thing to do. This is especially important if the team works remotely or when members of the team work on opposite shifts or dont see one another frequently. Then using Reply All is good communication because it keeps the lines of communication open and moving. But again, I caution judicious use of the Reply All function.

Real-Life Consequences

We have another really good reason to use the Reply All function judiciously and that has to do with the functioning of a unit as a team. Using Reply All well can increase a teams ability to function by keeping communication open, thereby helping the company reach its goals. However, using Reply All can also be used as a weapon and become destructive to a team relationship. Let me tell you a story to help you understand this.

Ive been working with an organization that has had quite a bit of internal strife for various reasons. In an effort to be more supportive, the president of the organization sent a complimentary email about one staffers efforts to her entire staff. Nice email. Good job of communicating how staff is making the organization better. This was a responsive, proactive thing to do on the part of the president. Heres what happened next: another of the presidents staff members hit Reply All and said Dont forget that Jane did her part, too.

To the casual observer this exchange may not seem to be a big deal. But while that message might seem innocuous, it conveys testiness as well. The staffers reply was designed not only to acknowledge Jane but to show the rest of the staff that the president didnt really know what was going on in the organization. The fact that the staffer sent the Reply All to acknowledge Jane had a subversive intent, and that was to expose the failings of the president. The president then scrambled to give Jane the proper acknowledgement and sent another message via Reply All acknowledging Janes contribution. The result: the president was put on the defensive in front of her entire staff. Not a good position for a leader to be in.

Different Results

Could this situation have been handled better? Sure. The staffer should simply have replied, called, or spoken to the president directly to remind her of Janes efforts. Doing so would have shown respect to the president and allowed the president an opportunity to revise the original message to give Jane proper credit without being put in a defensive position.

Using the Reply All option may be one of those things people do to make their jobs easier, but they do it without considering the potential negative effects on the organization and workers involved. My advice: be cautious. Use Reply All only when all those people in the recipient list need the information you have and when they need it from you. Otherwise, respond only to the initiator of the message and let them do their jobs better.