Wendeen H. Eolis, C.E.C. & Chief Executive Officer, EOLIS International Group, with Russell L. Reid, Esq., Senior Member of the Executive Leadership Team
Over the years, those of us in the business world and legal profession have received more than our fair share of out-of-office replies. EOLIS International Group, Inc., advises clients regarding these communications because almost every day, at least one of those replies either tickles our funny bone or raises our eyebrows. Many of these communications that have been shared with us also seem to provide unintended intelligence about the personality and interpersonal skills of the writer. Recognizing that the general purpose of an out-of-office reply is to convey temporary unavailability, too many of the responses do little to demonstrate considered judgment as to the most appropriate content.
Any effort to impress the original writer, or to express disrespect, or to dismiss the original communicator’s words is not only unnecessary (most of the time), but can be downright problematical at some future moment. For the avoidance of doubt, we are talking about out-of-office replies that are directed to people you know, at least in your Outlook contacts or your LinkedIn connections — people with whom you may want to do business some day.
The central issue unwittingly faced by the writer of an out-of-office reply is choosing language that will work well for everyone who may receive it, which necessarily includes incoming mail from anyone who has gained access to your email address. It might be a newspaper reporter, a former colleague, a prior boss, or an old-time college chum. You get the idea. While you can create templates and use rules for complex scenarios, the built-in auto-reply feature that most people have access to use supports only one configuration at a time when it comes to creating your out-of-office reply.
Equally unconsidered in the writing of many out-of-office replies is a presumption that when, as, and if the auto-reply writer is available, that they will obtain instantaneous attention at their desired moment. One might expect that the business world and the legal profession would be far more mindful of the written word than is evident if the choice of words instead sounds silly, non-reflective, rude, or tone-deaf.
Remember the time that you as a lawyer or leading executive instructed your clients, and your employees, never to write something in a letter that can’t see the light of day? Enlightened folks have extended that theory to emails that might otherwise be written too precipitously. EOLIS recommends adhering to the same caveat in the language you use in your out-of-office replies.
Yesterday, we reviewed more than 100 out-of-office replies, provided by lawyers, law firms, general counsels, corporate law departments, etc. for a trend study on this subject. A few of our favorites of the day support the notion that discretion is the better part of valor, and that the construct of an out-of-office reply should focus primarily on the narrow issue of when and how the recipient can be reached in a simple and polite manner. The actual auto-replies, in their entirety as printed below, should serve as fair warning that a refresher on the importance of watching your words is always in order.
Example 1
- The writer said: “Hello, given my current workload with several highly active litigations, I will be delayed in reading email. If this is an emergency, please email my assistant directly.” A senior partner at an AmLaw 50 firm. Our light-hearted interpretation: I am writing to let you know that I am too busy and making too much money to read my email personally at this time. My far less important assistant is available to take care of my unimportant matters.
Example 2
- The writer said: “Hi. I want to let you know I am having a medical procedure and expect to be totally out of commission for the next few days, and will be working remotely on a reduced schedule for the next month. So let me get back to you when I return to the office.” Chief legal officer at a Fortune 500 company. Our light-hearted interpretation: I like giving too much information to anyone and everyone who will listen, and I hope you will send me a get-well card. Please don’t bother me for the foreseeable future.
Example 3
- The writer said: “Stop!!!” An independent director at a large bank. Our light-hearted interpretation: I assume you have nothing important to say ever, and I see no reason to be civil.
These examples from mail we encountered today are proof certain that even eminence grise partners in law firms and corporate big-wigs might benefit from more careful thought on this seemingly miniscule item on their to-do list before going off the grid.
We would welcome your sharing out-of-office replies (without attribution) you have received for our continuing study on this subject!
EOLIS International Group, Inc. — Legal consultants serving the legal profession, business, and public company boardrooms