Contacts and channels
Asking several people for the same thing
Sending it to three just in case feels safer and usually means none of them replies.
When something is urgent, the reflex is to send it to every contact you have at that company. It is understandable and counterproductive: when a request reaches three people without saying whose it is, each assumes another will answer. It is called diffusion of responsibility and it works the same everywhere.
What happens depending on who you send it to
| How it is sent | What usually happens |
|---|---|
| To one named person | They reply or say who should |
| To three, without saying whose it is | None replies, and all three think it is covered |
| To a generic mailbox | Someone opens it, decides it is not theirs, and it dies |
| To one person, with another copied | It works: there is an owner and a witness |
Important
The fourth row is barely used and solves the real case. If you want more than one person aware, make one the recipient and copy the other: the request still has an owner, and the second person knows it exists without feeling responsible for replying.
When sending to several is right
The first case is the commonest in practice and is better solved by splitting: one request per person, each with their own. That way you can see who is missing, without the ambiguity of a shared list.
Watch out
On cost, so it does not weigh on the decision: **a request counts as one action even when it goes to several contacts**, and a bulk send counts as one, not one per recipient. Verified in the platform's own action catalogue. So the reason not to send it to three is not spend: it is that it works worse.
When two contacts really are needed
- 1
Name the one who answers
In the text itself: "Marta, can you send it over?". It costs five words.
- 2
Make clear what the other is there for
"Copying you so you know" stops both from waiting.
- 3
And if the owner changes, change it here too
Chasing someone who no longer handles it is the commonest cause of never-ending requests.
Worth knowing
When the answer arrives, it lands in the file whoever sends it. That a different person supplies it does not break anything — what helps is that it stayed clear who was on the hook.
›What if the right person is on leave?
Send to their cover by name, not to the whole team.
›Can I see which of the three opened it?
Yes, the send status shows it, and it usually explains the silence.
›Should I copy their manager?
As a last resort it works; as a habit, it burns the resource.
A real case
The situation
A company sends the same request to three contacts at a supplier and nobody replies.
What you do
- Resends to one named person, copying the other
What you get
Gets the document within two days, without changing a word of the request.
The situation
The same thing is asked of three people and all three reply.
What you do
- Addresses the request to one and copies the rest
What you get
You get one answer rather than three versions.
The situation
Several are asked and none replies.
What you do
- Names an owner in the request
What you get
Somebody is on the hook.
The situation
Two people upload the same document.
What you do
- Makes clear who provides what
What you get
Duplicated work is avoided.
The situation
Each one sends a different version.
What you do
- Asks them to coordinate before sending
What you get
One version arrives rather than a conflict.
The situation
Nobody knows who has already replied.
What you do
- Checks the status per recipient
What you get
Only those outstanding are chased.
This article answers
- send the request to several people at the company
- copying in several contacts
- nobody replies although i sent it to three
- who to address a document request to