Agreed. I learned that in emails, a multi-paragraph, multi-item text means the recipient will randomly reply to only one of the points (often the least important one). So an effective email will make a single point, in as brief a manner as possible.
Indeed, I don't think email can be reliably used to convey complex topics.
> The problem remains that people refuse to do the reading required for their job.
Communicating effectively means accepting common flaws of people who are unlikely to change, and delivering your message in the most effective way. Whether people are right or wrong or should be fired (as another comment says) is not truly relevant.
I often fail, by the way. I'm not saying I have this all figured out.
Adjusting communication to the audience is a good guiding principle, but not an absolute. There comes a point where no attempt at communication works for a given audience. If the communication must happen nevertheless, then the audience must change, whether through training or replacement.
1. Exceptions do exist (eg if the message is intended solely for and addressed to a single recipient, and includes a disclaimer / request / reminder about general email hygiene), but they're vanishingly rare.
I worked in a big multinational at the time ;-). So, yes. Mostly my direct managers were alright. Some were excellent even. But organizational politics and learning to read between the lines is part of working inside of big organizations.
> You get a short reply that is a reply on a 1 sentence you wrote, twisted upside down ignoring completly the point that you had.
Usually a clear sign that you are not communicating effectively. If it's important to you, you might want to figure out how to fix it. Talking is usually a good way.