What is the best way to correct an error in an email sent to multiple recipients, if you are listed in the cc: line of that email, along with other recipients?
It can be a little confusing, because if you are listed on the cc: line you can assume you are being informed, with no expectation of a response from you. However, the one exception to this rule is when you know the message to be incorrect, requiring you to correct the misunderstanding.
If time is not critical, do not reply to all and correct the sender. Instead, email the sender, explaining your correction, and ask him or her to resend the corrected information to the same recipient group. Only if the sender does not correct the message should you alert the group with your correction. If time does not allow you to alert the sender to correct the message, only then should you reply to all with your correct information. And, be kind and phrase your correction clearly but tactfully.
This applies in both business email and personal email. I received a message from a friend this morning alerting me and a large group of recipients how to detect a two-way mirror in case we were being spied upon in clothing dressing rooms. Ok, it was silly. Still, my friend who sent this message is well-intentioned and a nice lady. Another recipient replied to everyone, providing a terse message that the sender was incorrect and included a Snopes link (a site which identifies urban legends) refuting her two-way mirror test. This correction was unkind. The corrector should have sent the Snopes link to the original sender and given her an opportunity to make her own correction.
Give a colleague or a friend a chance to wipe the egg off their own face, before you throw some more.
Learn More: Business Writing Courses
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I could have easily been the one to send that message and the Snopes link to your friend. It’s my routine response to e-junk (warnings, hoaxes and the like). I assume (or know) the sender is well-intentioned and nice, so my response is never meant as a personal attack. I’m just trying to prevent the e-junk from being proliferated across the Internet. If I send the Snopes link to the original sender only, there’s no telling how many of his/her friends forwarded the message before he/she could send out a correction. If I “reply to all,” there may be a better chance of catching people before they hit the “Forward” button and clutter someone else’s in-box.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree that publicly correcting the e-junk stops it faster and better, but is it worth the damage to your own reputation, and how your friends and coworkers perceive you?
Consider audience perception (always in business writing). While your response is not at all intended as a personal attack, it may be perceived as that, depending on the personalities and who’s on the email distribution list.
I worked with a client who mistrusted a colleague who publicly corrected his email error, since their mutual boss was part of the message. Another client shared that she was “shamed in front of my mother” when someone publicly corrected her email.
Give a writer a chance to correct an error, and if they don’t, then correct it. E-junk is a nuisance, but not worth risking your reputation to stop it.
However, always make an immediate correction if time of is the essence for a work project.
Let me first say that my comments (then and now) only apply to forwarding hoaxes, rumors, urban legends, and things of that nature. I make a distinction between correcting a person (about a work project, an event during a business meeting, or some other sensitive issue–which should be handled as privately and discretely as possible) and correcting misinformation.
I do see and accept your point that it’s very important to be careful when correcting co-workers. And unfortunately, you are right about personalities. However, in all my years of correcting e-junk, only one person has reacted negatively.
If I do happen to offend someone by correcting e-junk, I’d want to know. That way I’d have a chance to apologize for any hurt feelings, explain why I did what I did, and gently remind him/her to please verify the information before uncritically passing it to the next person.
I don’t see my reputation as being damaged when I send out a correction. If a person knows where to look, it only takes a short time to verify whether that e-mail is worth forwarding. If the person isn’t aware of urban legends and how to spot them (and there was a time when I fit into this category), then being corrected is a chance to learn so he/she doesn’t make that mistake in the future.
For me, sending out an e-hoax/rumor/urban legend is the Internet equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a room full of people. Do I want to discretely tell the person it’s a false alarm and hope he/she corrects the mistake? Or do I want to yell, “False alarm!” at the top of my lungs to prevent a stampede? At that point my reputation isn’t as important as getting the truth out to as many people as possible.
I can see from your examples that some people have been hurt by corrections, but anyone can make a mistake, and mistakes committed in ignorance should be easily forgiven. I don’t see it any differently than falling on the ice in public: Yes, it can be temporarily embarrassing. However, the mature bystanders will either quickly forget about it or walk more carefully so they don’t slip, too. Meanwhile (barring any serious injury), you just get up, brush yourself off and move on. If that’s not the case, then I would bet the person is dealing with some relational and/or personal issue, in which case the consequences resulting from being corrected may be a symptom of a much deeper problem.
Sending e-junk is a breach of e-mail etiquette. It would be helpful if netiquette experts could get together and develop a protocol to help us properly deal with it. It’s one thing to say, “Don’t do it.” Dealing with it after it lands in the in-box, is another matter altogether. RIght now, the most common responses seem to be: Delete the message; Correct the sender only; or Correct everybody via “Reply to All.” Hopefully the netiquette experts can come to a better consensus someday.
Thank you for showing me a different side to this issue.
Thanks for your thoughtful follow up. Yes, there is some disagreement from business writing/netiquette experts.
All would agree, I’m sure, to delete the message.
All would agree that one should notify the sender with correction documentation.
The disagreement is solely whether one should notify the sender only, or everyone on the distribution list. I firmly advocate notifying the sender first, and give him or her a chance to correct the email, instead of correcting en masse for two reasons:
1) It is much less embarrassing to the sender, and good relations and people take priority over stopping e-junk (which most people recognize immediately).
2) You risk you reputation not only with the sender, but with all those who receive the correction. There are likely people in that distribution list, like me, who are offended by a public correction.
In many seminars, listening to many business people, I’ve heard this echoed. I do not recommend a public correction to all recipients. The value of one’s reputation and the good will of the email chain outweigh the annoyance of e-junk.
Your analogy to falling on ice in public is so well expressed, but give the sender an opportunity to right themselves, so they don’t need to climb back up. It is better for them and for you, too.