18 Comments

Summary:

It sounds great, right? Cut your email replies down to a couple of sentences and everything’s peachy: you’ll plow through that inbox super-fast and be able to get onto the work that you have to do a whole lot sooner. Productivity will soar! Or will it?

1285254_way_wrong

Not that long ago, shorter email hit the radars of many web workers. The site two.sentenc.es suggests that, since email takes so long to respond to, we should consider cutting our responses down to two sentences.

There are sites at three.sentenc.es, four.sentenc.es, and five.sentenc.es that provide similar advice for those who feel that two sentences might be cutting things a bit fine (pun wholly intended).

The idea is that, whatever number we choose, we can apply the philosophy to every email we send. The sites even provide explanatory text that we can paste into our email signatures, presumably so recipients know what’s going on, and can find out more if they want to.

It sounds great, right? Cut your email replies down to a couple of sentences and everything’s peachy: you’ll plow through that inbox super-fast and be able to get onto the real work that you have to do a whole lot sooner. Productivity will soar! At the very least, email won’t be such an enormous burden…

Shorter Email in Action

Recently, I had an issue that I needed to raise with a client. I wrote him an email explaining what the problem was, why it was a problem, and proposing some interim solutions. My email wasn’t short — it totaled 350 words, including salutation and signoff.

In reply, my client sent me two short sentences. Each sentence responded to a single point I’d made in my email — his response overlooked basically all the information I’d included and the questions I’d asked. Since I work remotely, I wasn’t sure what I was supposed to do next. Had he misinterpreted what I’d written? Should I reply and reiterate my concerns more clearly? Should I tie him up on IM or the phone trying to get answers to the questions I’d asked? His email certainly seemed dismissive; I didn’t feel very confident about raising these issues again.

Later, I discovered he was applying the two.sentence.es philosophy to his email. Had he included this link in his email signature, and had I seen it, I probably would have been more perturbed than relieved. Why? Because I still needed answers, and didn’t know if or how I was going to get them.

Shorter Email Shortfalls

Will shorter emails really save you time?

Many of us aren’t born editors, or even born writers. If you’re not adept with language, shortening your email replies may actually take more time as you select the key point in the sender’s message that you’re going to address and then try to compose a reply in two (or three, or five) short sentences.

By failing to address all the points that the sender has raised, you’ll likely prompt a phone call, IM or subsequent email exchange, so perhaps you’re simply swapping the time you used to spend responding to email to time spent on the phone.

But these nitty-gritty details ignore the elephant in this discussion: clear communication. Shorter doesn’t necessarily mean clearer or better. If you’re managing a remote team or collaborating with distant colleagues, communication via basic means like email is often crucial to harmony as well as actually getting the work done.

When my contact failed to even acknowledge the issues I’d raised about his project at the start of the engagement, I began to wonder what kind of project manager he was going to turn out to be, and where this project was ultimately headed. That kind of contractor discomfort is undoubtedly not the kind of feeling any of us want to engender at project kick-off. At best, it will take time to ameliorate. At worst, valuable team relationships could be undermined.

Shorter Email … Where Appropriate

I’m all for shorter email, and there are undoubtedly times when we can reply effectively with a few well-chosen sentences. We all have particularly wordy contacts who like to write email-essays every time they send something through to us. But in my work, I expect there will always be emails — or colleagues — that warrant more than a few sentences.

Applying productivity tips or advice across the board in your work, without adaptation to your circumstances or needs, may do more harm than good. Has a productivity philosophy or technique ever let you down?

Image by stock.xchng user statianzo.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub. req.):

  1. Few things are more frustrating than not getting a proper answer to your questions, especially from clients who want it yesterday. I often find that getting the client on the phone is more challenging than an email reply. So, when I have their attention (email or phone)I need to make the most of it.

    I don’t like sending long emails from my phone unless absolutely necessary so those are usually short, something like…”Will answer with detail shortly…” Of course, my client is thinking, “Oh no, here she goes again!” :-)

    Thanks for the good advice.

    Share
  2. 100% agree – writing shorter emails often provides less information and will mean taking longer in the next rounds of conversation. It’ll probably also frustrate the person you’re communicating with. Taking the time to read and respond to emails will more likely shorten the total conversation and the work you need to do (because goals/scope will be clear from the start).

    Share
  3. I try to keep most of my emails under the five sentence line but really, as you stated, the goal is good communication. If you are trying to sell something to a client or explaining a complex procedure, you may need several pages rather than several sentences. If you need more words, split them up so they are easier for the reader to find the main points. Perhaps 3-5 sentences per paragraph or thought is a better metric.

    I did have a time when I went back and forth over 8-10 emails with someone but it was primarily a difference of opinion, not a lack of understanding due to short emails.

    Share
  4. I would suggest rewriting your 350 word email into two sentence morsels and then send each of those in separate emails to your recipient. I’m sure receiving 20 two sentence emails would be much more in-line with what your recipient would like rather than the bloated email you were sending before.

    Or alternatively, albeit cheating a little, throw grammar out the window and make the entire 350 words into just two sentences (or just one).

    Both options sound good to me :)

    Share
  5. Heck I number my questions and people still screw up or skip over something. Easy stuff, like “do you like red or blue?” and I get back “Okay.”….

    I prefer phone calls for long topics or to circumvent painful emails.

    Also I always say “Thank you”, not the short “Thanks”. It has 2 extra letters; I respect people more that are willing to take the extra ounce of time to type that out.

    Share
  6. You’re right, Shorter email replying techniques like (two.sentenc.es, three.sentenc.es) should only be applied judiciously, without hurting your partners or clients. I use a cool email management solution http://www.taroby.com which lets me manage my emails, IMs, snail mails and much more from one place. Do check it out!

    Share
  7. I guess we can’t all be like General Ulysses Grant, writing concise, perfect messages, but it still staggers me that people don’t understand how to communicate via email – frequently too long is an issue, but what really grates me is when vital information is buried.

    When you read email, you’re not actually working – you’re just reading – so get to the point. But this 2-3-4-5 sentenc.es philosophy is dumb. Say what you got to say concisely but don’t be an idiot and write bad short emails either.

    It’s time for a new business communication solution. Companies like Cohuman, Manymoon and Huddle are tackling this… why can’t people, like this project manager you talk about, who are obviously looking to change the way they interact with email, look for an alternative to email altogether?

    Share
  8. “Should I tie him up on IM or the phone trying to get answers to the questions I’d asked?”

    Yes. It’s just a matter of getting over the assumption that using IM or the telephone is “typing him up”. Email is great for documentation, but terrible (or at least inefficient) for collaboration and interaction.

    I’m of the “long email = phone call” school. I haven’t seen any evidence that people actually read long emails in sufficient detail, so I’d rather not waste time composing them and having multiple clarifying exchanges that could’ve been ironed out over the phone in a single 5-minute call.

    “If you’re not adept with language, shortening your email replies may actually take more time as you select the key point in the sender’s message that you’re going to address and then try to compose a reply in two (or three, or five) short sentences.”

    All the more reason why certain people should pick up the phone instead of imposing their lack of composition skills on others. The converse is equally true: if you’re an introvert who has trouble thinking out loud, save others the rambling and put your finished thoughts in a concise email.

    People put way too much responsibility on the recipient to read their email as thoroughly as senders would like. We’re all important to ourselves, but to the other person, your email is just one of dozens in their inbox that they have to get through.

    Share
  9. One question per message; length of message isn’t critical.

    If they reply to your message by typing *above* your quoted original (the Microsoft standard form), then your best bet is to have only one question per email.

    Alternatively, if your correspondent can weave responses within your quoted original you can write encyclopedia articles with joyous abandon.

    Otherwise, one question per email, maximum. (See how I repeat myself? Crucial.)

    Share
  10. Hey everyone,
    Thanks for the very interesting comments. One thing I thought I should raise is the question of timezones, which can toss another spanner in the works of those trying to communicate via email.

    One thing that’s coming across loud and clear here is the way people see email — I get the impression that each person who’s commented here sees different causes for emailing, calling, IMing, etc. We see these tools as often serving different purposes. Perhaps, as Andre suggests, we should stop seeing any of them as “tying up” our contacts; although, paradoxically, this suggestion is inherent in the shorter email philosophy.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post