Me along with a senior member (Mr. A) in my team received an email (on Outlook enterprise) from the project manager (Mr. B) asking for our availability.

Mr. A replied that he is availability & copied our line manger.

After few minutes, my line manager (Mr. C) nodded his approval & asked a a follow up question to us on a different but related matter via the same email chain.

Currently Mr.A B & C are all there looped in the last email.

Should I reply back individually the managers Mr B & C or would it make sense to reply as follows:

Hi B,

< bla bla >

Hi C,

< some other bla, bla >



I may be overthinking this, but would like to know the email etiquette in this scenario.

The reason I mentioned its outlook is because, the app seems to have send different emails, rather than grouping everything together into a single email like Gmail does.

  • What do your other coworkers do in situations like these?
    – DarkCygnus
    Commented May 23, 2019 at 0:01
  • 1
    I actually joined this company a few days so I don't have any other co-workers to talk to. Since my role is remote based at the moment, that doesn't help either.
    – James
    Commented May 23, 2019 at 0:04
  • 1
    The way a mail thread looks in outlook vs gmail is just how they are displayed in the client and is configurable (they just have chosen different default views). There should be a checkbox in outlook "View->Show as conversation" that changes that.
    – rasan076
    Commented May 23, 2019 at 8:19

2 Answers 2


List all their names at the top of the email.

Instead of breaking up the email by person, break it up by topic by using inline quotes and address the specific issues in the email itself.

For example

Dear Mr A, Mr B, Mr C,

Standard introduction

>>This is what A said

This is an answer to the part above.

>> This is something else A said.

This is the answer to this part.

>> This is something B said.

This is the answer to this part here.

Standard closing



This way the whole email is inclusive of everyone, but cleanly defines what you are responding to.

  • 5
    In addition, structure the email so that the people you are directly addressing, those being A and B are in the To field of the email, and the people you are keeping in the loop are in the CC field. Commented May 23, 2019 at 8:32
  • This also makes sure everyone knows everybody else's questions have been answered and what the answer was. After all, if everyone was originally in the email thread that means everyone should be up to data.
    – skymningen
    Commented May 23, 2019 at 15:56

The thing to do is difficult to answer because we don't all the details of the questions, but you have three options:

  • Send three single emails all addressed to each person
  • Send an email to all of them like the one suggested by さりげない告白
  • Send three emails, but cc any person who you might want to keep in the loop.

I would highly suggest against the first seeing as this seems like a conversation between you all.

I'd suggest option 2, if the questions feels highly related to the question by A and doesn't stand well on their own. I'd suggest option 3, if the questions are only loosely related to the question by A.

  • 5
    Do not send 3 emails. If it's an email chain, that increases the chance of email chain splits, increasing the chances that important information is not effectively shared with all people. As a general rule, if the question was made visible to all people, the answer should be made visible to all people. Even if people don't care about the answer, they may care that it gets answered. Commented May 23, 2019 at 7:57
  • The exception is if you think the question should not have been asked in front of someone else. In that case, you should communicate privately with the asker. For instance, if you're in an email conversation with a client, and your boss asks how your children are doing, you should let your boss know ASAP that he may have not intended the client to see that. Then your boss can decide how he wishes to approach the scenario. Commented May 23, 2019 at 8:00
  • I definitely agree, which is why I only suggest doing it if it is loosely related and even then, cc the people who needs to be in the loop. Commented May 23, 2019 at 8:03
  • 1
    The problem I have is your line manager has made a decision to include those people in this discussion. Silently removing people from a conversation can mean that other information that is shared in the chain may not reach the right people. (Generally when removing people, you should clearly state so at the top of the email.) If you state that you are removing people it may look like you're second guessing your line manager. Commented May 23, 2019 at 8:09
  • 1
    It says that A, B and C were all looped in on the last email. You can't tell if this is deliberate or not, but given the question is on a related matter, and it's trivial to remove people from the email chain, I'm not sure why you'd make an assumption that your boss didn't want somebody to be privy to the response. Your assumption is that either your boss is lazy or incompetent, and I'm not sure you want to be in a position where you have to explain to your boss which you think they are. Commented May 23, 2019 at 8:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .