When I see the seemingly innocent and collaborative words "Please be informed" or "For your information" at the bottom of an e-mail, I know the intent of the author was not informational. Especially when the distribution list is not targeted. (See: Flabby distribution lists.) When the body of the e-mail describes a problem that needs resolution, this innocent-looking salutation typically means something like: "There's more to do here. I hereby remove myself from the responsibility to do it." When combined with a flabby distribution list, this phrase further means "I don't know who among you needs to take the next steps. I am adding all of you recipients so that you can figure it out." It is a foist. It declares that the author will take no further steps on the issue. If someone asks the author later why things are still unresolved, he will point to the "hand-off" in the e-mail. Don't fall for it. There is nothing collaborative about this e-mail.
To highlight the issues, let's simplify. Look at the following e-mail: "It is George's birthday today. Please be informed" Why go beyond the simple declarative statement? There must be something else at work here. Is the author is really saying there is a need for you to do something as a consequence of receiving the information? Even though it explicitly says so, "please be informed" is built not just to inform but to call you to arms. You wonder whether you should send a congratulatory e-mail to George. Maybe you should stop by his cubicle to do it in person. Will someone need to get cake and candles?
The purpose of this tortuous analysis of a simple phrase is to point out that the phrase is not so simple. We should be on watch for these magician's phrases, because their purpose is to misdirect. Their job is to get you to put your attention here when it really belongs over there. Check for your wallet! We use many of these kinds of phrases in our daily commerce. This particular class of utterance serves no useful purpose except to ask someone to do something without having to ask them to do it directly. So, how then can the author be disappointed when no action is taken on the topic? The usage of such terms in the stated context may not be intentional. It may be that these phrases are deeply ingrained in a culture of indirection. But we do understand the bad consequences of such a company culture. How it blocks clarity of communications among the team. How it leads to paralysis about how things are going to get done and who is going to do them.
Please be informed.
