Television ratings company, Nielsen, removed the “Reply to All” function in Microsoft Outlook for all employees last month. The memo to all employees, from their Chief Information Officer read:
Beginning Thursday, January 29, we will remove the “Reply to All” functionality from Microsoft Outlook.
We have noticed that the “Reply to All” functionality results in unnecessary inbox clutter. Beginning Thursday, we will eliminate this function, allowing you to reply only to the sender. Responders who want to copy all can do so by selecting the names or using a distribution list.
Eliminating the “Reply to All” function will:
- Require us to copy only those who need to be involved in an email conversation.
- Reduce non-essential messages in mailboxes, freeing up our time as well as server space.
Clearly, business writers abuse the “Reply to All” function, resulting in unnecessary emails being sent, but this action is extreme, and removes a very useful tool. Every time there is more than one recipient legitimately part of an email message, each will have to be added manually. This will waste much time and no doubt relevant recipients will miss out on needed information.
We can all learn a lesson here, though. If email clutter is so burdensome that a company resorts to this, it reinforces the need to choose our recipients carefully.
Tip:
Cut the Volume: Who Needs to Receive This Message? explains the importance of verifying recipients on the To: and Cc: line. I agree wholeheartedly with Nielsen that business emails are often sent to recipients who don’t need the information, and we need to reduce email volume. However, business people are smart and capable, so a better strategy is to correct offenders, provide information and clarify expectations. Don’t strip a useful tool from an entire organization, and demean the workforce in the process.
What do you think? Was Nielsen right to remove the “Reply to All” function?
Mary Cullen
Instructional Solutions
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow, are the Nielsen employees all under 10 years old? In my opinion this is really going overboard. The company needs to have some trust in their people. I agree this is demeaning, and I think it puts a wall up between the ‘deciders’ that removed this functionality and the rest of the workforce. Thanks for making me grateful I don’t work there!
I think Nielsen made a wise decision.