From: Frederick Wong
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:08 PM
To: GR-MAPL All Staff
Subject: Building Announcement: Car Park Barrier
To all staffs,
Please be informed that the Car Park Barrier will be turned ON during Friday Off Days, Weekends and Public Holidays.
Please reduce speed when approaching the barriers and be cautious when maneuvering through the barriers.
If you need any assistance or have any feedback for improvements, pls kindly contact Tan Sin Bee (ext 28726 / 91 16 16 15) or Fred (ext 28688 / 961 62 123).
regards,
fred...
This is an email written by a company facility manager who intended to inform the company staffs about the setting-up of car park barrier during company off days.
This business letter supposed to be formal since it’s delivered to all the staffs in the company regarding the changes made. The tone used in this email sounds rather instructive. Nevertheless, the reason why the car park barrier is turned on was not mentioned here. Besides that, some important format which is supposed to be included in this email was missing, for instance a proper salutation. To my opinion, it’s advisable to start the email with “Dear XXX (Company) Staffs” instead of “To all staffs”.
Apart from that, it was found that the grammar in this email has violated the rule of Correctness in the 7C principles. Both the first alphabet of the word “regards” and the name of the writer “fred” at the end of this email are supposed to be written in capital letter. And I suggest that the word “Regards” could be replaced with “Yours Faithfully” if the salutation used above is Dear Staffs. Short form like “pls” and the dots present at the back of the sender’s name seems inappropriate as well.
In terms of clarity of the information given in this email, the manager who wrote this message also did not mention clearly what is the actual date that the implementation of this measure is going to be started. Meanwhile, the actual post of the sender is not stated here as well. Thus, it’s advisable that the 7C’s need to be revised again in this context to generate a more effective writing of business correspondence.
Anyway, overall the whole message is considered concise; hence it’s believed to be able to enhance reader’s interest to finish reading it at the first place.
Post #7 - Final Reflection
16 years ago
I would argue that this could be both an informal or formal letter.
ReplyDeleteIf it is written in the formal sense, there would be numerous faults as highlighted by Hsuen Huey. The email format is definitely improper and the language used is full of grammatical errors and short abbreviations.
If it serves just to inform the recipients on the proposed change, it seems alright as it adheres to its objective in a concise manner.
However, in both cases, the sender did not specifiy the exact commencement date of the proposed change. Also, the second paragraph is unnecessary. If the sender would like to justify on this proposed change, he could have included an attachment. In this way, the objective of informing the recipients would still have been achieved with or without reading the attachment.
I feel that the email is rather clear. However it would be better if the date at which the change will be put to effect is stated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hsuen Huey that the first letter of 'regards' and 'fred' should be capitalised. Also reasons (probably a summarised one to prevent the email from being too wordy) for the change should be included so that staffs will be better informed about the change.
I do not think that the tone of the email is instructive since its purpose is to notify staffs about the change and precaution they should take.
Like Hsuen Huey, I find the lack of an explanation of the situation to be a grave error. Readers will probably be more appreciative of this safety measure and more likely to comply with the instructions, if Fred had told them the reason for setting up the barriers. In addition, no date of implementaion is stated, as pointed out by Hsuen Huey and Rauf. Thus I think this letter has sacrificed completeness for conciseness. I agree with Rauf that Fred could have put this information in an attachment and tell the readers about the attachment if Fred wished to keep the letter short.
ReplyDeleteSince this letter deals with the safety of the company personel, I feel that the letter should be formal - to convey the idea that safety is no joking matter. Therefore, I think Fred should really reflect on Hsuen Huey's suggestions and the errors pointed out by her.
I will agree that this email is over clear and concise. The author has used capitals to show emphasis on the two words.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I will disagree that the saluation in the email needs to be changed. I think it is redundant to state the company as it will be clear that the email was sent by Fred from their company.
Hi Hsuen Huey
ReplyDeleteI agree with pixuan that the salutation need not to change as it is understood that this email was from the recipient's company.
However, like what you mention, this email does not fulfil the clarity and completeness. The exact date was not stated and it will be clearer to the recipient if the reason is included.
Fred should have given his position and why the new rule as people get irritated by rules for which they can see no reason and as many have said, the date of its enforcement is not included. Please note 'staffs'is not standard as it's an uncountable noun in British and American English but if it's very common locally then that's another matter.
ReplyDeleteMrs Richardson
Mrs Richardson, may I ask a question to what you mentioned about the word "staffs"? If we do not use "staffs" here, what are we supposed to use to regard the many "staffs" in a company?
ReplyDeleteActually I am not sure of how "close" is the sender to the recipient of this email. If after I have posted my blog, I was thinking that if we try to put ourselves in the sender's shoes, maybe we will also tend to write an informal letter like that if I am sending email to my colleagues whom I am familiar with, provided that this is a small company with only few staff. So I think many other situation can be put into consideration in criticizing this email.