email revision

To: T. Leoni, Manager, Personnel Department
From: Donald Pryzblo, Manager, Data Processing Department
Subject: INCORRECT PAYROLL CHECKS

I have been reviewing the current errors in hopes to collaborate and solve the issues at hand.

After, reviewing the computer errors I discovered that while some of the mistakes were the fault of my workers the majority were not. The position that my employees occupy only requires that they copy the information received from your clerks; because of this a large amount of mistakes points not to the copiers but to the originators of the work. If we can quit pointing fingers and get to the root of the problem both of our jobs would be much easier.

My employees do not have a sufficient amount of time to review that files and continue their daily work and it is unreasonable that I hire someone else; therefore by keeping a close eye on our employees and the documents that leave their hands we should be able to solve our problem.

I recommend that you tell your clerks to review their work carefully before giving it to the computer operators.

I changed many things from the original email in order to make it more reader friendly to T. Leoni. I changed the first sentence in order to create a sense of collaboration and team work rather than a competition. By changing “Computer errors” to “current errors” I was able to take more of the blame off of Pryzblo’s employees without looking sarcastic or aggressive. I began the next paragraph by admitting that Pryzblo’s workers did in fact make a few mistakes however, not the majority. Admitting and taking the blame for faults or failures creates a more open relationship and is more likely to result in Leoni taking blame as well. Next I explained how hard it would be for Pryzblo’s employees to make a mistake causing a shift in blame to fall on Leoni. Also instead of speaking in “you” or “I” terms I used we in order to create a sense of team between the two bosses. Last, I offered a solution to the problem instead of leaving thewhat now question unanswered.

Through this revision I hoped to create a sense of one-sidedness between the author and recipient. In the original copy the author wrote in an attacking way that immediately offended the recipient. By taking a less aggressive approach I hoped to gain the recipients trust first. By gaining his trust I was then able to have more freedom in suggesting that he look at his own employees as the problem. I hoped to not only get the point across that Pryzblo’s employees were not at fault but also make Leoni see that it was his employees that needed to be corrected and he was the one that needed to do the correcting. I also hoped to give this email a more professional field so that it would be read with respect and taken seriously. Overall, I think that by considering the audience the email was easily revised into an effective piece of writing.