The CC: Wars

In the past two days, I've been caught in the crossfire of two cc: wars. CC: of course is net slang for "carbon copy" or "courtesy copy" on an email. When I write an email, I try to send it to as few people as possible - only those directly involved in the issue. Many of my coworkers choose to cc: everyone they know on almost every email they write.

My one coworker Henry is the worst offender - he's responsible for one of the two cc: wars this week. Henry will write an email to someone and cc: pretty much our entire staff. The recipient will inevitably respond (by hitting "reply-to-all" - how are they to know that everyone else is pointlessly cc'd?), starting the cc: war! Henry will respond in turn, again hitting "reply-to-all" to fan the flames. The volleys continue on for days, sometimes weeks while everyone on the cc: list just sits there silently as their inbox gets massacred.

There are three main reasons why people here overuse the cc: 1. to prove to everyone that they're "doing work", 2. they don't understand how use email, and 3. to shirk accountability.

Reasons 1 & 2 aren't surprising based on the monkeys I work with. Reason 3 is tied to the hierarchical structure of all FederalEntities. Nobody wants to be held accountable for anything, ever. Nobody wants to have their name attached to a decision. Workers pass issues to their staff directors, who raise them to their directors, who send them to the big bosses, who convene workgroups to gather as much input from as many sources as possible -- all hoping that the issue will just die or resolve itself before a decision has to be made. Even "experts" don't use their expertise freely - nearly everything gets sent through the chain.

The best bosses can streamline the b-s, smothering the smaller issues and only elevating the really important stuff. But my office (nay, the Government) is full of horrible managers. Everything becomes an "important issue" that requires someone else to make the call. Everything requires feedback from a million different sources. Nobody wants to take the fall if things go bad so when an issue comes up, they cc: a thousand people on it hoping that it will help to spread the eventual blame.

My friend Ben works in the private sector as a contractor to the Federal Government. He's repeatedly mentioned to me that decision-making is the opposite there (not always, but as a general rule). In the private sector, managers are trying to carve out their niche. They want to claim their territory. Project leaders love their power, and try to shield it from others so they can reap all the glory (bonuses?) that comes with success. There's a real sense of ownership to the work, and it's all done in an effort to get ahead - to climb the ladder. Here at FederalEntity, ownership only leads to blame and retribution, and moving up the ladder is hardly based on accomplishments - whats my motivation to attach my name to any decision??

Ben gets maddeningly frustrated when he works on a contract for any FederalEntity. He'll make some small decisions, show them to the Federal project officer for concurrence, and that project officer will send it up the chain, making a mountain out of a molehill. Working with the Federal Government must feel like driving on the Autobahn stuck behind a car going 35 mph.

Henry's cc: wars will undoubtedly continue unless I do something drastic (and it needs to be more creative than replying-to-all with "unsubscribe."). My coworker John came up with a good solution to the cc: madness. A few months back his staff director yelled at him for NOT cc'ing her on an unimportant email chain, upset that he wasn't keeping her "in the loop". For the next week or so, he cc'd her on every single message he sent. She promptly changed her opinion.