News
Beware the power of email
In 1970 Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Future Shock.
Essentially, the premise of the book is a theory that, because of the speed of technological change, older people (in particular) struggle to keep up with the systems and facilities available in the modern world.
Put another way, it's the reason that your grandma can't book a Box Office movie on Sky, or txt her mates at the retirement home.
Of all fields of technology, arguably the one that has been susceptible to the rate of most rapid development is email.
Only something like two centuries ago, the most effective methods of communication were limited to things as carrier pigeon messaging and smoke signals.
How things have changed.
Now, of course, at the press of a button, you can instantly send a message to any number of people in the world - who can instantly forward that message to any number of other people, and so on.
So why is this a problem?
Some employees just don't seem to understand the potential downfall of this instantaneous messaging. They have Future Shock of a different kind.
And the events of recent weeks give all employees (and, for that matter, their employers) reason to pause and think about the power of this communication medium.
On 15 November 2006 a fellow called Steve wrote an email to the Great Marquee Company. He explained that, having viewed an example of the company's work, he and his fiancée had decided not to contract the company to provide a marquee for their wedding.
Katrina, an Office Manager, responded to the email on behalf of the Great Marquee Company. In her reply she said: "your wedding sounded cheap, nasty and tacky anyway, so we only ever considered you time wasters. Our marquees are for upper class clients which unfortunately you are not. Why don't you stay within your class level and buy something from Payless Plastics instead."
There is no question that, in responding in this matter, Katrina acted in a way which was inconsistent with the obligations owed by an employee of the Great Marquee Company. She was rude and insulting to a client in a way that inevitably would have caused her employer to doubt its ability to have trust and confidence in her performance of her job.
But had this breach occurred in a different medium - for example in the course of an angry telephone call from Katrina to Steve - the employer may have faced some difficult issues of proof in taking disciplinary action against its employee.
Steve could have complained about the telephone call, of course, but the employer would be required to conduct an investigation to determine its content. Katrina may have denied Steve's version of the call and (absent something like a recording of the conversation) the employer would be required to make a judgment call about the competing credibility of each of the two participants to the call.
Put simply, the employer would have faced some issues of evidence in forming the conclusion that Katrina had acted in gross breach of her obligations.
Not so with email. Katrina's words are there, in black and white, for her employer to see.
But, regrettably, this matter did not end there.
Perplexed by Katrina's response, Steve forwarded the email. The recipient of that email forwarded it on. And the recipient of that email forwarded it on - and so on.
Within 24 hours of the sending of Katrina's email, her response was in the in-box's of hundreds of thousands of recipients - all over the world. Further, her imprudent correspondence was being touted by the marketing and sales employees of many different companies as a good example of how not to do business.
And it didn't end there.
By Friday afternoon (less than 48 hours after the sending of the email) Katrina's words were being read out over national radio.
And by Sunday, the story had made it to the front page of a national newspaper.
Within four short days, Katrina's unfortunate response was known by literally millions of people.
And for the employer, that fact in itself had some obvious consequences. For it, the issue was greater than the apparent misconduct of an employee - it was a public relations disaster, bringing its own reputation into disrepute, and potentially damaging its business interests.
Put another way, the significance of Katrina's actions was magnified - almost beyond comprehension - by her decision to use email to respond, harshly, to Steve.
The moral of the story: Beware. Beware the power of email.
