No matter how brilliant your mind or strategy, if you’re playing a solo game, you’ll always lose out to a team.
—Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn
At RIM, in the mid-2000s, e-mail was the dominant form of communications in the company. Everyone had a BlackBerry, and little red message lights rarely stopped flashing. Near-immediate responses became the expectation. Some people stared impatiently at their phones after sending an e-mail and considered it rude if it took more than a couple of minutes for the recipient to respond.
We believed it was a major advantage for us in those days. We had well over 5,000 employees, and we may have been the only company on earth where rapid, multiway communication was pervasive. Some believed it was our secret weapon, and it became deeply embedded in our corporate culture. Our full attention was expected in meetings, but we had to keep one eye on our BlackBerrys at all times, just in case someone needed a quick response. Learning to multitask was the name of the game.
It may not be a culture that most companies wish to emulate, but it did drive a culture of teamwork. We were all working toward a common goal, and we realized that we were much more likely to succeed by collaborating more effectively than any of our competitors.
The Wrong Way to Manage Your Inbox
Handling the sheer volume of e-mail and messages was challenging, and with each passing day, it became more difficult to keep up. I recall a conversation I had with one leader who complained bitterly about receiving over 200 messages a day. Unable to manage, she devised her own personal coping mechanism. She prioritized incoming e-mails from her leaders, responding to those as quickly as possible. She ignored all other e-mails unless they came back for a third time. At that point, she figured they must be important enough to warrant a response. She claimed that 50 percent of requests never came back even a second time. She was pleased to have found a way to free up more time to focus on her own work. The problem was that her internal reputation as a team player was terrible, and she didn’t subscribe to the culture that bonded us. Word spread that there was no point reaching out to her for assistance as she would almost never respond. Even when she did, she would provide only short, unhelpful answers. Her peers spoke negatively about her working style, especially after learning that they all shared the same experience.
Managing E-Mail Efficiently
I experimented with multiple e-mail management approaches over the years and eventually developed a system that worked for me. My colleague was not the only one who received over 200 messages a day, but at least half of them required no action. I did my best to assess my e-mails relatively soon after they arrived in my inbox, highlighting those that would take more time. I took full advantage of short pockets of time between meetings or when walking between buildings. I knew if I used those precious minutes efficiently, they would save me over an hour by the end of the work day. I would delete or file many of the messages after a quick scan, typically those that I was copied on strictly for informational purposes.
I tried to respond immediately to anything that required little thought. For requests that required more effort, I would respond with a quick acknowledgment, informing senders when they could expect a more complete response. I added those requests to my to-do list. Requests from my boss or from those higher up in the management chain would get priority. I made a point of acknowledging e-mails that were sent to me directly, even if no additional action was required on my part. I believed that a quick thank you or some other form of confirmation was important, both because it showed appreciation and also because it closed the loop. It let the sender know that I read their message and found it both helpful and sufficient. When others didn’t do this in return, I was left wondering if they read my message or if they had issues with it. It was a small, simple gesture that took no time yet had a meaningful impact.
After moving into management, my days of designing and developing products were largely behind me. My primary responsibility was to maximize the productivity and output of my team as a whole. I also became an important member of a second team, the one composed of my immediate boss and my peers. We had accountability to each other, not just for our own actions but for the actions of our respective teams. The number of e-mails that headed my way increased further as a result, as did the importance of responding to them in a timely and comprehensive manner. My job was no longer to design a piece of a machine but to help make sure the whole machine was running smoothly.
I worked hard to action e-mails as soon as I reasonably could, believing it would save me time in the long run. It just required some time management skills, focus, and discipline. It helped to reduce my stress level and to establish my reputation as a good team player.
Responding to Aggressive Messages
Aggressive or unpleasant messages are the ones we often struggle with the most. As frustrated as I was by many of them, I made a point of not ignoring them or unnecessarily delaying my response. After taking the time I needed to collect my thoughts, I tried to deal with them as promptly and professionally as I could.
In one situation, we had already moved several developers from my research and development (R&D) team to a customer project. Despite the help, challenges persisted, and our regional sales leader was facing ongoing pressure from the customer. One morning, I received an aggressive e-mail from him, demanding that I move the entirety of my local R&D team onto the project. He went on to criticize me and other members of my team for the lack of stability of the product. He said if I wasn’t willing to comply, he would take the request directly to our chief executive officer (CEO). While I had no concern with getting our CEO involved, I didn’t appreciate his threatening tone. I responded calmly, requesting that we refrain from personal attacks or criticisms. I reminded him that we were on the same team, and that I would prefer to discuss the subject live, suggesting that e-mail was not an effective forum for discussions of this nature. I summarized the impact such a move would have on other customer commitments and said that it was not a decision I could make on my own. We had a short back-and-forth via e-mail before continuing the discussion live. While I was reluctant to move excessive numbers of R&D resources to the project, I knew I had to offer some level of additional assistance. I understood how important it was to band together to solve critical customer problems.
The conversation was more productive over the phone as we were able to discuss the impacts and trade-offs in real time. I eventually agreed to loan six additional developers to the project to help get it over the hump, but only after receiving sign-off from key stakeholders on a revised R&D plan. We ultimately managed to deliver the project successfully and the relationship I had with my colleague improved afterward. He even apologized for his personal attacks, acknowledging that he was out of line.
Communicating With Peers Who Don’t Respond
We all know how bad it feels to be ignored. We may not be too surprised when we are ignored by those outside our company, but it is especially frustrating when our colleagues don’t respond to us. There were times I didn’t hear back for days or weeks, despite sending out multiple reminders. Aside from health, family, or personal issues, I found it difficult to accept the excuses I heard. I particularly didn’t understand when people used business travel as a form of justification, somehow implying that they had no access to a computer while they were out of the country. Vacations were fair game, as long as employees let others know they were on leave by setting up an automated out-of-office message. I appreciated when they appointed a delegate to handle urgent matters during their absence and validated that the requests were addressed after they returned to office.
A sales rep sent me a message a number of years ago, and it turned into a memorable exchange. He was criticizing one of our products, having just lost a deal to a competitor. He claimed he lost because our product was not competitive, but he didn’t include any details. I responded to his message immediately after reading it. I wrote that I was sorry to hear we lost the deal and asked that he share the specific issues so that we could investigate. No response. Two days later, I sent him a follow-up e-mail, once again asking for the details, this time requesting that he call me. Ignored again. Three days after that, I left a voicemail and asked for a call back. I reiterated that I was eager to understand the details so that we could put a plan in place to address any deficiencies in the product. Still nothing. Finally, several days later, I received a short e-mail response. He said he picked up my voicemail and wanted me to know that we lost the deal because our product was too expensive to install and configure. I took a few deep breaths and a bit of time before I felt ready to respond.
After I calmed down, I let him know how disappointed I was by our exchange. I said the most important part of my job was to build competitive products, and one of his was to provide detailed feedback if they were difficult to sell. I insisted this was the only way we could improve as a company. I reminded him that I sent two follow-up e-mails and a voicemail but heard nothing back from him for over a week. He called me the next morning, still unapologetic, to let me know he had been on the road. The call got a bit heated but we eventually managed to smooth things over and agreed to a follow-up meeting with my team to review the details. It turned out the issues weren’t technical in nature, and we were able to address them by improving our sales documentation and our quoting tool.
Not surprisingly, I was not the only one who experienced issues with this salesperson. Over time, he developed a reputation for stunts like this. We learned that his standard mode of operation was to take credit for his wins, blame others for his losses, and to avoid detailed follow-ups. He didn’t last very long in the company, which was unfortunate because he understood the industry, he represented our company well, and he was pleasant to be around in social settings. It was his lack of commitment to the team that caught up with him, as it eventually does with everyone.
The Best Teams Are Usually the Happiest Teams
Companies that promote responsiveness, respect, and teamwork tend to achieve superior results and have the happiest employees. It takes engineers, designers, programmers, marketers, product experts, tech writers, financial analysts, sales people, lawyers, and a host of other experts for a technical organization to work. It is important for everyone to do their jobs well and to take full advantage of the unique skills of their colleagues if a company is to truly flourish. No company can succeed by relying on isolated, individual efforts of its people or teams. Respect, interaction, and responsiveness are critical to success.
When I joined ProCure.com, we grew our team quickly, and we established the ground rules early. We were launching a new and growing company. Everyone understood their role, and they knew it was no more important than anyone else’s. The HR team took the lead in finding great people, and we all relied on them to attract candidates who shared our core values. Managers worked closely with HR to make the final hiring decisions. The product experts and designers understood the domain better than anyone else. They earned the respect of the broader team and were trusted to define the requirements correctly. The marketing team was responsible for finding ways to differentiate our solution to the market and to communicate the value proposition to prospective customers in an understandable way. The finance team worked closely with all teams to support them while keeping an eye on the big picture. The sales team collaborated with everyone to understand the solution in sufficient detail to be able to sell it effectively. The engineering team developed products according to the requirements defined by the experts, and they were responsible for training others in the details. The quality assurance team was responsible for finding all issues before the product went out the door. The implementation team had to understand how to deploy and configure the solution to suit the needs of a wide array of customers. All jobs were critical, and they were tightly linked. Everyone had to support everyone else. We measured success broadly, and no one was interested in the success of one team if the company as a whole failed.
I worked in organizations where technology teams believed they stood above the rest and did not offer other teams or individuals the respect they deserved. They didn’t listen well, and they didn’t respond appropriately or promptly. They viewed themselves as being more important without realizing how much damage they were creating by acting that way. These organizations faced uphill battles and had high attrition rates as a result. It was important for the leadership teams to recognize the issues and to address them quickly. When they didn’t, it was only a matter of time before the team failed, and the executives were replaced.
At ProCure.com, the primary responsibility of the executive team was to set the strategy and to foster a true spirit of teamwork. Dissension among the ranks was almost never seen, and it was certainly never tolerated. All executives were held accountable for their teams, both to execute their respective responsibilities and to offer assistance to other teams so that they could do the same. It was the first time I worked in a company where everyone genuinely liked and supported each other. All teams were focused on achieving the same goal, and everyone was encouraged to talk with each other, regardless of level. Even though there was a hierarchy, it didn’t feel hierarchical. There was no time for politics or drama. We were driven to succeed, and if we did, all employees knew they would share in the success. It was fun the way work ought to be. Looking back, this was the job I most looked forward to each day. I always woke up feeling motivated and inspired and I knew the rest of the team felt the same way. We were a well-oiled, highly connected, 75-person machine on a mission.
The company was phenomenally productive over that one-year period. The team worked hard not because anyone was forced to, but because everyone was committed. Employees were granted the flexibility they needed to balance their personal lives with their work lives. If anyone needed to take time off for personal reasons, they were free to do so without judgment. If they needed to work from home from time to time, that was fine too. It wasn’t a problem, because we all understood our roles and responsibilities, and no one wanted to let anyone else down.
This small company illustrated to me the way large companies ought to work, even though it becomes much harder to achieve as the number of people grows. Large companies that do manage to incorporate responsiveness, teamwork, and respect into their core values have a major advantage over those that don’t.
While ProCure.com was impacted by the great dot-com bust of 2001, the team persevered, adapting its technology for other purposes after it was acquired by Emergis. Years later, many members of the team moved with me to RIM, and we continued to do more great things together. We wanted to recreate that special feeling we had in the past. It was never about the money. It was always about the feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction that came from working with people who genuinely liked and respected each other.
A Final Thought
Leadership boils down to three core responsibilities: building effective teams, solving problems, and helping others grow. Virtually all requests we deal with as leaders fall into one of those three categories. The more senior the role, the more challenging the problems. Throughout the process, we must find a way to deal with a seemingly never-ending array of requests. Some will be easy, and some will be hard. Whatever they may be, they should be dealt with promptly, constructively, and nondefensively. Ignoring them is a losing proposition. Doing so as a matter of practice will inevitably lead to long-term career disappointment. If we make a commitment to put our company and our team ahead of ourselves and we effectively communicate the rationale behind our decisions, our careers are far more likely to thrive.
Key Takeaways
• Consider the importance of each incoming message and spend the right amount of time on each one.
• Being responsive is critical, but always being available is not. Taking a day or two to respond to a request is usually fine, but taking a week or more usually isn’t.
• When you respond to messages that you believe are important, take the time required to respond thoughtfully and completely.
• As a leader, don’t shy away from unpleasant or aggressive messages. Remain calm, convert them into live conversations, and don’t put them off too long. Seek to turn a negative experience into a positive one.
• Establishing a reputation as a person who regularly ignores others is a losing proposition. Respond to others the same way that you hope they will respond to you.
• Strong teamwork across multiple disciplines is critical to achieve any level of corporate success. It is important to show the same level of respect to others as you expect to receive in return. Don’t act like your job is more important than anyone else’s.