Please reply when you receive it?

Recently, I saw a WeChat article "Please reply when you receive it" in the class group, and then the group was "received" by a big wave.

In the next few days, I usually brushed the official WeChat account and stumbled across several articles written by the official WeChat account with high attention.

In this information age, hot spots are excavated and ideas are copied, and you will see an overwhelming number of articles expressing the same ideas. Many articles are wonderful, but at the same time they lack thinking.

When you receive a message, it is polite to reply. From this perspective, it's not bad.

This article posted in the class group made the students put the word "received" in place, which made me feel nervous when I saw the word "received" displayed in the group. I quickly opened the chat group and dug up the unread news.

After a round of brushing, I found that the "received" I saw was a reply to the notice a few hours ago, and I have already seen this notice.

When sending a notice in the work group, leaders are used to adding "please reply when you receive it" at the end, followed by dozens or even dozens of replies "received", and important notice messages are brushed away.

Colleagues who don't read messages in time can only brush unread messages. People who read the message see that the unread message in the group shows "received", and open the chat group to see if there are any new notices.

Everyone who sent the notice added the phrase "Please reply when you receive it" at the end of the notice. How many people have really counted who replied and who didn't? Why is it necessary to reply "received" just to be polite?

Does this "please reply when you receive it" reduce the efficiency of conveying the notice?

I thought the same thing.

Please reply when you receive it. This polite practice is not entirely applicable.

It is polite to "receive" a notice from one person to another.

Small group leaders send notices to their subordinates, and "receiving" may not affect work efficiency too much.

However, there is really no need to "receive" a group notice with a large number of group members, and there is no need to "receive" an untimely reply.

Reply "received" is a respect and courtesy to the sender, but it is impolite if this polite practice is based on reducing the efficiency of the notified person receiving the notice. It's impolite that the "receipt" you replied affects people who didn't notice the confiscation.

In addition, there are two roles in the process of conveying the notice, the sender and the receiver. The sender completes his task by conveying information to the recipient, and there is no need to ensure that the recipient receives the notice.

What value can you expect your subordinates to create for your company if they can't even get a notice? Probably only children who go to kindergarten or elementary school will repeatedly urge others to give notice. After all, the only child is playful and forgetful.

There are many angles to look at things in life. Copying other people's ideas without thinking is killing your own. Although it's just a small matter of sending a notice, * * * encourages it.