I recently told a coworker on a different team in an email (with 10 people on CC as part of the conversation):
I expect you to talk to me regarding [issue], and not wait for things to happen. Please do so in the future.
I received feedback that this was taken badly. Is this poor etiquette in the workplace? Maybe it's because English isn't my native language, but I don't quite see what is wrong with this phrasing. Note that I do not manage this coworker.
You've mentioned that you don't manage this guy. Your choice of using "I expect you to" rather than "I would like you to" or "It'd be better if you would" sounds very much like an order. But since you aren't his manager, you really can't order him around like that. Especially in front of other people.
Personal criticisms like that should always preferably be shared in 1 on 1 meetings or private email (read: without CCing 10 people) first. Your goal (I hope) isn't to embarrass your coworker, so don't needlessly do that.
For future reference, to avoid needless confrontations like this, try:
1 on 1... whether you manage someone or not, you should never make public the fact that you feel someone else has under-performed. That's terrible management/workplace etiquette (delete as appropriate depending on whether you're their manager)
Commented
Jul 14, 2016 at 15:20
This would probably get better answers on https://english.stackexchange.com/
I expect you to talk to me regarding [...]
You're stating very clearly that they have to talk to you regarding [...] If you have the authority to do so, this is perfectly fine. You do not need to be the manager of someone in order to make statements like these. There are countless situations where you're allowed to expect others to do something. People don't say "could you pretty please attend my meeting?" if the meeting is mandatory.
Of course if you're asking them for a favor and phrase it "I expect", that's wrong. There is a difference between asking for a favor and stating an expectation. Using the same language for both creates trouble
... and not wait for things to happen
This is a veiled accusation that you assume they would "wait for things to happen" if left to their own. This can be interpreted as a reprimand.
Please do so in the future.
This strongly implies they did not "do so" in the past. I.e. they did not satisfy expectations, and they did wait for things to happen. In this context, this is a reprimand.
Conclusion: Unlike some others, I don't think "expect" is the core of the issue here. If you need someone to do something, don't say "I was hoping you will" or "It'd be better if you would", that only introduces harmful ambiguity - use these terms when you'd like them to do something but can't expect them to do it. In a professional environment, you can tell your coworkers if you expect them to do something, and they can answer that they will or won't do it. But if you reprimand your coworkers, as you did, you need to expect that some will take it badly. Especially so if you CC the reprimand to 10 people.
The entire phrasing of this is very "dominant". It's establishing that your colleague has done something wrong, and that you are taking it upon yourself to tell him off.
I expect you to talk to me regarding [issue]
"I expect you to" establishes you as the authority figure. It moves the reason for him doing it away from "there is a good reason" to "because I say so". I would normally avoid this kind of implication unless the other party can't be trusted to respect the reason, even if you are in that position of authority, because it immediately puts the other party on the defensive.
and not wait for things to happen.
This is just a straight up criticism of how your colleague has behaved. It's also potentially very unfair, because they probably weren't "just waiting" for things to happen, they were doing something else of value, which you've dismissed as unimportant.
Please do so in the future.
This is redundant and very formal. The impression it gives is that you are "formally reprimanding" your colleague in public. That is unacceptable under almost any circumstances, because it can seriously humiliate that person. It also makes everything that comes before it worse in a sense, because by formalising it, you can't excuse the rest by blaming your annoyance.
A simple rephrasing might be:
Just so we don't get into this situation again, please talk to me regarding [issue] before you act on it, so I know what's going on.
Same ground, but it establishes your motivation for saying this, and thus seems more assertive, less aggressive.
Alternatively, drop the formality completely and go with.
At least let me know next time before you do this stuff!
Which minimises the impact because it's more casual, and feels less like an official reprimand.
EDIT: One user's pointed out that your original e-mail could be completely fine in some cultural contexts, and while I agree, I feel that my re-drafted response is just as clear and straight-forward, and is more likely to be acceptable in all cultural contexts.
One potential cause for the poor reception of your remarks - quite apart from "I expect you to" and "Please do so" which are both rather hectoring and apparently critical - is the use of the cc function to involve other people.
If you were unaware, cc is an abbreviation for "carbon copy": traditionally people who needed to know about the contents of a paper memo (pre e-mail, but the same connotation still exists) but were not necessarily expected to take part in the conversation, would receive a carbon copy of the original document rather than a typed original. Using cc to notify other people of an exchange says - especially given the wording of your e-mail - that you need them to know that your colleague is failing, needs to be reprimanded and that no fault attaches to you for this as he has failed to meet your expectations (despite the fact you are not his manager) and that you have now issued him with an ultimatum.
If my manager - let alone a colleague - had done that to me I would have been utterly livid and considered raising a formal complaint with the HR department and demanded - at the very least - either a retraction to the 10 people on the cc list or a clarification.
Language can be a tricky thing, but try to imagine someone sending an e-mail to you, copying in 10 of your co-workers, saying "you have seriously disappointed me, get off your backside and get things done rather than sitting around ignoring the situation. I expect you to comply with my instructions." Especially if it came not from your boss but from a colleague. It's a bit grim, isn't it?
Don't beat yourself up over it but perhaps find a trusted colleague with good language skills to be a proofreader before your send out mass-receipt e-mails again.
I'll address the culture aspect of things here. In my native language and culture we are much more direct than people are in English speaking countries (from what I hear, countries like Germany are similar). We don't use flowery language for asking for things. Our waiter may ask "What do you want?" instead of "What would you like?/What can I get you?"and in turn we say to our waiter "Give me a coffee" instead of "Good morning, could I please have a coffee. Thank you".
In most English speaking countries you cannot be as direct and when you are direct, it comes across as you are insinuating things. Furthermore, when you are asking people to do things you need to use "flowery" language. "Hi Mark, we need to get this done prior to this deadline so if you could ensure that's done I'd really appreciate it. Any troubles, let me know. Thanks again". If he is the kind of person who leaves things to the last minute, the culture here generally speaking requires that this is addressed privately with the person, and if unsuccessful, then with their manager.
As mentioned above, the first part sounds like you're ordering your co-worker to do something, even though you are not in a senior / manager position to him.
The other issue for me, is with "and not wait for things to happen". It sounds very passive-aggressive, especially in a large conversation, and would be better to turn it around and say what he SHOULD do instead of what he SHOULD NOT do. Say "and have a more pro-active approach", which is less negative loaded, while still getting the point across.
The only situation that comes to mind, where the message that you sent may be appropriate, is if you decided to make a stand.
For example, the team member did something wrong, and sneakily tried to put the blaim for the resulting faillure on you.
In this case it could be very strong (yet of course still a bit rude) reply to tell him that you expect him to do his job properly (which is basically what you are saying). If this directly and obviously makes clear that it was his fault, rather than yours that caused the problem, you can put him in your place and show that it should be him apologizing according to you.
NOTE: I do not say that this is typically how you should respond if he did something wrong, but I am just saying that your message is, and should only be used as, a retaliation.
Even if your message makes it very clear it is unlikely that he will feel the urge to apologize, so seriously consider whether you would want to use this 'weapon'.
