Joohyun Kim - Response 04

I am not very sure if angry emails are necessary. I think that people do understand each other a way better and all necessary expression is expressed by simply talking. Either phone or face to face, it works out better than any written expression. I do know that emails are widely used a lot to communicate. And emails usually do not contain specific details in them. Most of work is assigned in a meeting and important notices are usually delivered verbally. Emails are then usually used to remind or when little change is needed on the assigned plans. Plus, emails are preffered when information needs to deliver to multiple parties. For example, when a boss announces something to the employees, emails work better. Until this point, I've brifely talked about the use and functions of emails. I do not see points where angry emails are really necessary. When anger is to be expressed, people usually ask to have conversations in private and talk through problems. What Neal in an article 2 did with emails are not only morally wrong but the worsen working environment will give negetive effects to each job. What Neal should have done was to email employees as a warning sign and if not worked out well then should have emailed to engage a group meeting to talk to resolve problems. Angry emails do not only help solve any problems but also contribute to the growing troubles like hurt relations. And written words do sound much more offensive than expressed verbally. I belive that angry emails are not to be used when there are better backup plans.