Posted on 12/08/2010 10:59:44 AM PST by jilliane
You might see more detail if you right click on the email line, click properties on the drop down menu and then click the details tab or routing tab.
They have demonstrated that they avoid conflict. I believe there have been two firings in years. A high-producing co-worker made several complaints that his disrespect for her time was interfering with her productivity. They trivialized her complaints as emotional, did nothing, and she quit.
Sounds like a quick exit strategery is in order. Life is too short to put up with a bunch of bovine scat like you are dealing with.
so politically correct to each other that they conclude that the problem is anyone who identifies a problem.
Good advice. It’s a tradeoff between BCC and giving a 5 minute verbal opinion that turns into a 2 hour meeting. My work doesn’t go away, he just makes it all take so much longer.
My advice is to quit.
This is a sneaky manager that isn’t forthright. It’s only a matter of time before he or she starts being sneaky about you.
I’ve had bosses like this. Sooner or later, everyone gets on the business end of their methods. The only way out is ‘out.’
I just tested it and they are right. I received the BCC and replied back to all emails, even those I couldn’t see also got the replies to all.
I will, thank you.
Good wisdom.
You got that right. We did have one field supervisor who did that after several people in our HQ sent out the exact same email.
It happened to be a large email with several attachments and he was still on dial up. He got po'ed waiting for all the data, so he hit reply to all and said: "Would someone else please send the d*** big email to everyone again so I will be sure to get the f****** thing?"
Needless to say, he got a call from the big boss, since he was in the CC field.
There are many good tips on this thread, but for my money, yours is the best advice given.
It's not just improper use of bcc, but a management style this is going to drive the talent out of the organization. HR needs to be involved. (Although in this case, the company doesn't seem to have an HR department according to the poster.)
You can't possibly know that this interpretation is true by hearing only one side of the story. The number of ways that a so-accused manager has to explain this as being completely appropriate, thus making the complaint look unfounded are myriad. It's the kind of thing that just gets you permanently ignore. Can't take it, then find another job.
The only test you can know is (1) you send reply-all (2) one of the other BCC's (not CC's) comes to you in the hallway and says he received it. Otherwise he was not a BCC, but CC (which everyone can see in the email headers).
What you get in your own email doing a reply-all as a BCC doesn't matter. The bottom line is if you can reply to a BCC besides yourself, the she/he is not a BCC, just a CC or a TO.
Sorry, I did not explain that well at all. Let’s start with your boss, Dick. He send an email TO Tom and CC Harry. He also decides to BCC Jilliane and BCC Mary. The message is formatted to read “FROM Dick, TO Tom, CC Harry”. His email client tells the server to send it to Tom, to Harry, to Jilliane, and to Jane which it does. But the email header says “FROM Dick, TO Tom, CC Harry” with no mention of you or Jane. None of the email clients are told who the email was sent to, only the header info.
When you open the email you see “FROM Dick, TO Tom, CC Harry, BCC Jilliane” because your client adds your email to the header being displayed (but the BCC is not in the real header). When Jane opens the email she sees “FROM Dick, TO Tom, CC Harry, BCC Jane” Her email client knows nothing about you and your client knows nothing about her.
Now when you hit reply-all your email client prepares an email with the header “TO Dick, CC Tom, CC Harry, CC Jilliane”. Possibly you would be listed as BCC in the header, but not likely. When Dick gets the email he realizes you revealed your BCC status. When Tom and Harry get the email they realize for the first time that you were BCC’d in the original. Mary does not get your reply-all since your client knows nothing about her. Tom and Harry likewise don’t know about Mary because they just see the header “TO Dick, CC Tom, CC Harry, CC Jilliane”
Hopefully that’s a better explanation.
oh boy. In the example above, “Mary” and “Jane” are the same person (I started thinking Mary was the other BCC, then made it Jane). What a mess. Sorry about that.
Perfectly explained; I understood what you meant.
Yes, as you stated, revealing to all who are on To: and C.C: but not to the other BCC....even though the other BCC won’t see the reply to all, by replying to all, I can alert the others of the game being played. Eventually, the game is revealed to everyone in the circle if everyone is moving into CC and To positions in subsequent emails.
You are right. It’s the implications that concern me. I don’t question for a moment that I’m targeted behind my back but I’ve done valuable work. Thanks for your advice.
I feel for you. I've had managers like that in the past.
Um, that's one of the reasons for going to HR - so the manager has an opportunity to tell his side of the story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.