E-mail etiquette

May 2, 2008 7:36 AM

What is the correct e-mail etiquette in this situation?

I was asked (via e-mail) to interview for a job. The prospective employer signed with his first name and addressed his e-mail to me, "Hi anonymous first name." I thought that meant it was acceptable to call him by his first name so I addressed my acceptance of the interview e-mail, "Hi employer first name." Was that an acceptable thing to do, or did I make a huge mistake? If it helps, this is in the education field.

posted by anonymous to work & money (17 comments total)

If he signed with his first name and addressed you by yours, your response was 100% appropriate.
posted by brain_drain at 7:44 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]

Yes, that's totally appropriate.
posted by alms at 7:44 AM on May 2

Assuming you are in the US or Canada (I can't be sure of etiquette in other countries) I am quite sure you did exactly the right thing.

"Hi Joe" is an implicit request for "Hi Steve" in response.
posted by rokusan at 7:45 AM on May 2

Yeah, I don't think you can wrong either way with this one.
posted by Falconetti at 7:46 AM on May 2

Yes, it's an appropriate response.
posted by WizKid at 7:50 AM on May 2

You probably don't want to work for someone who would freak out if addressed by his first name in an email, so...
posted by Rock Steady at 8:02 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]

I was taught to address potential employers as "Mr. Smith" when meeting them or sending correspondence. I abandoned that practice pretty quickly, though.

"Hi Joe" is fine and you did the right thing.
posted by Metroid Baby at 8:11 AM on May 2

I don't think you tanked your job prospects over it, but it's better to err on the side of formality with the a prospective future employer before you've even met in person.

"Hi Joe" is an implicit request for "Hi Steve" in response.

Not necessarily. Maybe that doesn't seem fair, but the person with greater authority has the latitude to be more informal and still prefer some deferential treatment in response.
posted by desuetude at 8:59 AM on May 2

Yes, your response was appropriate - you're fine :) Good luck!
posted by KAS at 9:10 AM on May 2

Maybe that doesn't seem fair, but the person with greater authority has the latitude to be more informal and still prefer some deferential treatment in response.

This is generally true, but in this case, the prospective employer signed with his first name, which (to me) is a clear indication that he did not expect a formal response.

it's better to err on the side of formality with the a prospective future employer before you've even met in person.

All else being equal, this is also true, but where the circumstances seem to call for informality, a formal approach can may seem stiff/forced and do more harm than good.
posted by brain_drain at 9:25 AM on May 2

but the person with greater authority has the latitude to be more informal and still prefer some deferential treatment in response.

There's a somewhat equal chance that unerring formality in the face of such an informal cue will only serve to irritate.
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:33 AM on May 2

Remember that the guy is just looking for someone who will do a good job and be friendly, not someone who knows all the rules of etiquette and follows them to the rule. He's not nervous about meeting you or overanalysing anything, he's just doing his job. It's the right answer at that level of formality. It's a signal that he expects less formality, so gear you approach at the interview the same way.
posted by markovich at 10:03 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]

The level of dickhead who would address you by first name, sign his first name, and then think less of you because you addressed him by first name, is not someone you would want to work with under any circumstances. I agree with most everyone else that this individual was in fact signaling his preference for less formal address. Relax.
posted by nanojath at 10:32 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]

I think your response was completely appropriate, even smart. When you mimic a person's writing style, they're more likely to feel favorably about you than if you ignore their style and create your own.
posted by eisenkr at 11:06 AM on May 2

On a related note, a friend had the following rule of thumb when interviewing job candidates:

• If someone shows up wearing a suit and tie don't hold it against them.


• If they see that none of us are wearing suits and ties, and they take their tie off when they sit down for the interview, give them bonus points.

posted by alms at 1:52 PM on May 2

Here's the way I look at these things:

If it's some kind of test designed to see how you would perform, then it's a pretty underhanded way to go about it and you're okay to answer like you would normally. If it's some kind of riddle, then do you really want to work there? What if he hates the word "mattresses" and you say it one day, what then? That's the kind of lunacy I think would have to be in place.

I would only worry about it if the job already entails adhering to formal social mores. My wife worked for a firm that catered to doctors and there were questions around these things. (Example: Always address them by "Doctor so-and-so" unless they insist.) Still the interviewer never wrote an email with a sly riddle designed to see if my wife would break the taboo. If they did, I imagine their candidate pool would be very, very shallow.

my .02
posted by tcv at 2:45 PM on May 2

I didn't mean that it was a secret-code test. I meant that people are subconsciously influenced by behavior in ways that aren't always technically fair.
posted by desuetude at 12:37 PM on May 3