Is it bad manners or practice to request "Read Receipt" to all mails sent from my account?

Question

I'm working as PM, we have developers and senior managers working remotely and in-house.

As a project manager, I'm at the center of all communications. The job of managing N lines of communication falls on my shoulders and can get overwhelming at times.

I'm using Microsoft Outlook 2007, it is equipped with cool option "Request a Read Receipt" while sending mails. At receiver's end a popup window will appear upon opening mail, asking whether or not to send read receipt to sender.

It will help me to know whether sender received and opened the mail I sent.

In my office we all use MS Outlook.

My questions is, is this bad manners, or etiquette, to add this option while sending mails to Senior Managers and Clients?

Keep in mind that in my role as project manager, it's critical that I get feedback as to whether or not people on my team received my communications. If I worked in a field outside project management, I would not consider using "Request Read Receipt".

Answer 1

Always seems unprofessional to me and can lead to bad project management.

Just because someone received the email

1. Doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of following-up on any action item in it
2. Nor does it give you the "out" of saying that the recipient should've known better since you had "informed" them via the email they received.

Answer 2

Based on my experience, most of the people I work with see it as rude.

It is also unreliable. At the majority of locations where I have been involved in Exchange server design, read-receipts and delivery-receipts were blocked at the server level. Occasionally, this was seen as an anti-spam measure, occasionally as a privacy-protection measure, but mostly as a "Who the hell thought this was a good idea" reaction.

Answer 3

The answer to this question depends largely on how you use this "cool option". Request Read Receipt is a tool, and like any other tool, it can be used, or it can be abused.

The best way to use a tool such as this is when follow up by you is immediately necessary. For example, a good way to make use of this tool could be to use the "mail read" option to proactively and quickly make a phone call to a client to ask if their issue has been resolved. It can be a tool to know that your manager is actively thinking about a problem you're having that you specifically need their help with.

The advantage you have in these situations is that, for the next few minutes after the read receipt, you know you can call or otherwise drop in on your client or manager and know that you're not interrupting them or taking their thought away from something else.

When dealing with clients, this will wow them. Instead of expecting them to respond to the email, you take the burden away and also appear more responsive. When dealing with managers, this may show you as being organized, proactive, and on the ball.

On the other hand, if you use this tool to keep tabs on people and don't follow the receipt up with a phone call or a visit, then you do run the risk of coming off as rude.

Answer 4

I can't stand that option. Several people in our office have it turned on for all messages, and whenever you get an email from them, there is a popup that says "So-and-so has requested a Read Receipt. Would you like to send a Read Receipt?" So keep in mind that your recipient can say "no", and also, you might be annoying them.

Answer 5

This is only triggered when someone opens the message. I tend to read everything in the reading pane in Outlook 2007/2010, so I never open any messages per se.

I have also selected "No" when prompted because I have thought it was rude, but that is just my $0.02.

Answer 6

It would be better to use only the Delivery receipt feature then you know your email was delivered to the destination.

I don't know exactly, but a think the mail server answers automatically the delivery receipt confirmation.

Unless you need to use the Read receipt feature as jmort253 stated you should not use it.

I always use the Delivery receipt feature because I had some problems in the past with the mail server and couldn't know the destination wasn't receiving my mails. So it caused an misunderstanding about my collaboration which took much more effort to solve.

Answer 7

I see it as Rude, as well as conveys a message of not trusting/empowering the people you are working with.

Answer 8

Not sure if it rates as "bad manners", but most people in senior management are busy. They may have lots of direct reports and their subordinates copying them on dozens of emails per day in order to "keep them in the loop". Combine that with communications they initiated, meeting invitations and spam, the number of emails can easily run into the hundreds per day.

If you were one of these managers, how would you view an employee who routinely turned a one click operation (open message) into a two-click operation (open, answer question about receipt). Eventually, people will either:

1. Learn how to disable read receipt notifications.
2. Learn how to create a mail rule shunting all your mail to their junk folder.

Regarding clients: just because you use Outlook, it's not reasonable to assume your clients will. Many others have indicated that mail receipts in general is a feature left over from the more innocent (less spam) days of the 80's and 90's. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but was so abused by spammers as a tracking device, that most mail systems and clients turn these notifications off by default.

I also think Mark's answer is great: asking for a receipt doesn't absolve you responsibility to follow up.

Answer 9

It's bad practice ... it doesn't make sense in this modern era of automation. You're making an assumption that the recipient bothered to read your email while forgotting that email systems can automatically send read receipts.

As you can see in this image Outlook could automatically be sending you a read receipt. In my settings, I have this set to Never send a receipt.

Answer 10

If someone turns on "request read receipt" then I set up a rule to route all their messages to a sub folder with their name. I then only check the stuff once per day, setting aside a block of time (usually an hour) each day for them, rather than click on their email every time it arrives. While this comes across as "passive agressive" on both our parts (the read receipt, as well as the rule), I find that the folks who are always demanding receipts are also asking complicated questions that require research and long responses.

Personally, I am bothered by people who put read receipts on everything. It smacks of being unable to decide what is important (and what isn't) by claiming everything is a number one priority. I have also worked in places were read receipts were used as part of the documentation used to show that someone wasn't doing their job, in order to get them fired. So I have some bad memories left over from some petty machiavellians.

Managing goes both ways: from your boss to you, and from you to your boss.

Answer 11

In the context of Manager to Subordinate - I have found that they are used by either the lazy (I can't actually be bothered to go and physically follow up on the email that I have just send by physically talking to the recipient) or insecure, or new/inexperienced manager (Is my subordinate actually working and/or reading my instructions?).

On the receiving end of the read receipts, it can easily tend to make people feel persecuted if used regularly. This sense of persecution can easily grew into resentment and spill over into "let's go and talk to HR" related issues.

I would say never use them for the people that you manage immediately, especially if they are in the same office as you. It will only serve to put their backs up.

Answer 12

A much better option in Office 2010 is "Request Delivery Receipt". That way you have confirmation that your email was sent, and hit their server (for the most part), but do not appear unprofessional to the client.

Answer 13

Yes. Not only is it bad manners, it doesn't provide you any useful information as there is no indication as to whether or not the email was actually read.

Answer 14

Any policy must have a reason and must be communicated to the team that these policies apply. It would be highly desirable that the team agrees with the policy or at least doesn't feel uncomfortable being ruled by it, what is easier is if the policy is properly communicated including reasons and benefits. It's some kind of virtuous cycle.

Related to that, @Mark C. Wallace has made very good points about how this feature is used and understood by the team. Internally, it has shown to be useful.

The problem with this kind of policy in the way it is implemented by MS Exchange, is that it is not possible to differentiate between mails sent internally to a team, inside the company, and to external customers or providers. Given that the original question was about use of this setting for "all" emails, I must answer no. I would instead use it in a more limited environment and building on top of other answers given in the thread combine it with "Request Delivery Receipt" as it better serves you.

My personal experience, is that the problem of using this "Read Receipt" comes from misuse. It is understood that if a "Read receipt" is received, what could have been sent automatically as has also been said, the message has been fully read, understood (as it was mean to be understood, extra point) and agreed to any points included what doesn´t need to be the case as the receiver have not even the time to read the mail (for a variety of reasons). And the top problem I have found is that some bully coworkers understand that there are SLA's that apply to mail response (sometimes the time starting even before you open the mail).

As an additional alternatives to the ones provided, in my team, we add to the subject some "tags" to identify the email, easing sorting and clarifying what kind of email is and what is expected:(info)(urgent)(ActReq)(customer1)(project2) are combined so that only the necessary people hurry up to read and reply to the email while the rest will read it when the rest of their tasks permits. And then, the cherry of the cake is to use properly To: and Cc:(Bcc:). In summary, the "read receipt" is a good idea if used properly, but the implementation doesn't help to make a good use of it.

Answer 15

why did outlook put the read receipt / delivery receipt in the program if it's not useful sometimes most of the worker who does not want to receive a read receipt /delivery receipt to their co-workers are the one who always want to do the work safe. I don't find it rude or anything if you ask for read / delivery receipt especially if you are coordinating an important matter.

Answer 16

A read receipt is controlling. I hate them, my back goes up. But, I am notorious for not replying due to: inbox overwhelm, non-interest in subject, don't like the person and want to piss them off, or genuinely did not see the email. If it is someone I have ignored for awhile, and they ramp up the emails to get my attention, I will respond to the read receipt on an ad hoc basis to make them feel good for awhile, that I am on top on things, then I slide back into ignoring them, just as they start to feel I am 'in line'. Then the process starts again, but not before I send THEM a read receipt back. You see, office dynamics turned me into a conniving plotter. I quit and have never looked back. If you feel better sending these silly receipts, then do so. But the glow of happiness lasts only a few minutes as you then start obsessing that a) they have not responded, and b) have responded but not actioned your request. Then what do you do? Nag them some more? If you are my last boss, you mismanage your time so badly you send an email every nine minutes. My response: DELETE email.

Answer 17

Guys I am sure that if this feature is available then there must be reasons behind it ... Also there is an option to send read receipt without asking so I think that people who are annoyed by the extra click can be happy by setting this. This is a win-win situation as now the sender is also happy has he has got the read receipt and receiver is also happy as he not even comes to know if the read receipt has been sent or not to be precise no additional burden on him.

Answer 18

I frankly don't care if others see it as rude.

I work in Construction as an Estimator. I can relate to the OP Project Manager role as we often share the same information and are tasked to distribute data that requires a prompt response/acknowledgement; to assure quality of service to projects that are on-going or in the near future.

It is a matter of professional discipline in my field, where accountability is determined by court of law through evidence that is collected such as the receipt of correspondence. I cannot rely on others to reply with a "will do" every single time I email. I rely on coworkers and partner companies to do their job.

If you decide not to send a receipt, that is your choice. If I can't get a reply, I will have to follow up to ensure you do your job or got the message! The information is streamlined and construction trades are responsible for gathering their scope of work.

If you decide not to send a receipt, just make sure you do your job of acknowledging if you see that the information requires prompt action. Or it's your ass on the line...

Answer 19

I'll take the contrarian view. I (and my team) request read receipt.

[Aside: some people have complained that it is unreasonable to ask the principal to respond to each email message. All of us have set "read receipt" to automatic. The system responds without our awareness. My system then automatically files all read receipts in a special folder where they are available, but effectively invisible.)

We're widely geographically separated, we're bureaucratic (meaning decisions are slow) and we're contractors (which means we have no decision making power).

There is however a work pattern that happens not infrequently. We can't continue work until we've documented certain things for our principal. If we have a read receipt from the principal, then that is evidence that we have communicated to the principal and that the principal has had a chance to object. The read receipt is evidence of our due diligence. If on the other hand we don't have a read receipt, then we need to make an effort to find out if the principal has been informed.

The side benefit is that the read receipts serve as an indicator that the principal is actually at work that day. There are other situations where we'd like to reach the principal, but it isn't necessary. If by mid-morning we have no read receipts, then we can conclude that the principal is offsite/sick/annual leave/. That allows us to reschedule.

A third work pattern occurs when we're trying to contact someone new. Read receipt means that they're aware of our attempt to contact. Absence of a read receipt means that we probably have the wrong email address.

Summary: If you set read receipts to automatic, and if the participants are aware of the conventions, then read-receipt can be useful.

Answer 20

I don't see it as being bad manners. I also don't see it being a safe way to track whether or not somebody actually read the email. Personally, when I get the message asking "send read receipt" I always click no. I do this because regardless of whether or not I've read the email, I may not have fully digested it, prepared a response, or set tasks based on the content of the email. I don't want the sender to think I've done all that just because I've opened the email.

If it's critical that the recipients read the email, drop a line on the bottom something like this:

May I kindly ask that you confirm receipt of this email and provide feedback where appropriate.

This way, the recipient proves they've read the email by replying, and you're also putting the metaphoric ball in their court.

When I receive an email with a line as such, I flag it, task it, prioritize it, whatever it, before I reply.

Additionally, If I'm the client, I'm even less inclined to return a read receipt, especially if the email has been sat in my inbox for hours (or days). Do I really want the sender to realize I don't read their emails instantly?

Answer 21

My concern with receipts is with my company provided Android that is sync'd to our corporate server. Unlike my Outlook 2010 client I do not see the return receipt request when reading emails on the droid and a return receipt is automatically sent without my knowledge. I have turned off the setting "Never send a return reciept" in my Outlook 2010 client and while that works for emails read in Outlook a return receipt is still sent when read on my Android. I agree with the majority of folks that this is bad manners and has an air of untrusting...I have one individual at my work that is on my level, that is neither a subordinate nor supervisor/manager that requests a return receipt for every message from all employees. I have discussed the use of this feature with other employees who are also aggravated by this. But then again the individual is untrusting...every email sent is cc'd to both their manager as well as mine whether this is the first email about a topic or an email deep into a topic. I mention this because I find the attitude of the employee is synonomous with the employees need to cya.

I think occasional use of this feature demonstrates a specific need rather than bad manners when used for every email sent. I hope this explanation aids your inquiry.

I'll be unchecking the setting "Never send a return receipt" because I don't to be part of the problem. After all if you argue with a fool how can anyone watching from afar tell the difference?

Answer 22

Agree with the majority here. Requesting a read receipt on EVERYTHING smacks of paranoia and "control" issues. I NEVER send a read receipt for precisely this reason. I will not feed this neurosis. Sorry.

I have NEVER been asked why I don't send them.

That should tell you that they really ARE NOT important.