What Does Your Email Signature Say (About You)?
In the last twelve years my autosignature (as Outlook calls it) has changed numerous times. One of these days I will have to go back into my email archives and compile a list of them. Looking back I am truly embarrassed at how some of those emails were signed. It would be like showing up to a client meeting dressed in a leisure suit. Over the years I have also gotten a chuckle out of my co-worker’s signoffs. Sometimes you can learn a lot about people based on their autosignatures.
A few weeks ago I wrote that we are going through a “reorganization” at work. I prefer the term “coup d’etat,” but that is neither here nor there. Having just been in my previous role for seven months, I now have a new job title, a new boss, a new team and very little idea about what I am supposed to be doing. Just yesterday I got an email from one of my peers, whom I have never met. It was basically a “hello, how’ya doin’ buddy?” kind of communication. As I read the email I surprisingly found myself sizing up the competition. The autosignature is what caught my attention (and precipitated this post).
Below are screenshots of four email signatures that belong to me, my peer, my boss and my boss’s boss (the big Kahuna). *Click on the image to enlarge.*
Given the information available, can you tell to whom each signature belongs? What kinds of conclusions do you draw from them? Are these simply stereotypes or do you think there is something there? Keep in mind that this is mainly for fun. Note: The names and numbers have been changed. Consider AAA+ to be a professional designation. I also removed the company logo.
BIG BOSS = 3
LITTLE BOSS = 1
PEER = 2
YOU = 4
What do i win?
Rob
Sorry Rob, you only got one right!
UBER BOSS: 4
BOSS: 3
YOU: 2
PEER: 1
(I realize that knowing that Rob got one right makes one of my answers wrong, but I decided to put what I actually thought)
With that in mind I submit a second chance with this:
UBER BOSS: 4
BOSS: 3
YOU: 1
PEER: 2
Whoa!.. he got two chances… Here is my second chance.
BIG BOSS = 3
LITTLE BOSS = 2
PEER = 4
YOU = 1
Reasoning behind the choices.
#3 has a assistant.. and more than likely a big boss doesn’t have time to fool around with signatures, nor does he care, therefore he leaves it as is, or has some IT guy do it.
Little boss is #2 becuase he is trying to emmulate his boss.. he wants the job bad, but doesn’t want it to seem like he is going overboard. He threw in the copyright to impress.
The peer #4 is a female, she just wanted enough to play with her signature and bringhten her name. She asked for help to do this and is happy the way it is now. She claims that one color is “bland”
Yours is #1 becuase you have the skills and knowledge in computers to accomplish it.
stelmodad got it half right on his first try, but all wrong on the second. Rob, you got the same one right the second time around. Below are the match-ups (incl. gender).
1 – Peer (F)
2 – Me (M)
3 – Big Boss (F)
4 – Boss (M)
Rob’s is right about the big boss being #3 because she has an assistant. Also, I was thinking that perhaps it’s so plain due to sending emails with her Blackberry?
About the copyright thing, we are supposed to put those on all of our emails. However, anytime an email goes outside the company it gets tacked on automatically anyway (probably why the big boss doesn’t have one on hers).
I knew the bosses where 3 and 4 and that you and the peer were 1 and 2. Gut reactions picked that out and then failed me on the follow up.
I don’t like this game anymore.. give me one i can win. ;(
@rob: Sorry, but you can’t play in any more reindeer games.
@stelmodad: I hate it when I talk myself out of a hunch!
@All: My autosigs used to be fairly showy or artsy. It’s not that I’m not artsy, but I’ve come to believe that simple and clean is better. No one can complain if your signature has just enough information, but do you really want people trying to figure out (true story!) if that’s a cat or a rat bitmap image next to your name?
Rob did think that little boss was copying big boss, but I must confess that I copied my current style off of my ex-ex-ex-boss.
The peer sig…that AAA is basically a certification you can get in our field (take a week long class, study, do a presentation and pass an exam). I have no idea why it’s superscripted, like to the tenth power or something. The company logo is also superscripted. I’m not sure that was intentional. Maybe it’s just my own hang up, but it seems like flashing your credentials (for whatever they’re worth). I have even seen one with eight or more of those acronymns on one line! You should see that one (it’s pink).
Regular boss’s signature…the first part is okay, except for the “Thanks,” part. Everyone at work signs their emails with ‘Thanks,’ even when thanks is not warranted! “Scott, I left the case file on your desk. Thanks, Jim.” I’m also not a fan of the multi-colors, but at least it’s not like the one that is rainbow colored (I’ll have to dig that one up, too). And the stuff at the bottom…who’s going to read all that?
Oh, and I’ve never understood why people have to list their email address in their signature. It’s in the header of the message!
I just want to chime in and say that I don’t use the autosig feature as an actual signature.
Because of my job responsibilities I end up giving the same answers over and over. At the help desk we use the autosignature as a way to have standard responses department wide. So in my autosignature file I have over 20 signatures.
Working with IT I see my share of excessive designation flashing in autosig files. My favarorite however was a coworker who had claimed the following professional designations: MIC KEYM OUSE
OT: Scott, I wish I’d known you were heaing the cross race today at Greenway farms. I took my kids and they enjoyed ringing the cowbell at the entire B race field. I now wish I’d introduced myself.
Rob, that guy was way too clever! *chuckle*
I actually wish I had known about the cross race, but alas you must mean the other Scott Kennedy. We share the same name and love of bicycling, but have never met (though I have emailed him before via the old bike club forum . . . before it became SCV).
i got all four right, but that is because i re-read your opening paragraphs and came to the conclusion on a few things. numbers 1 and 3 were gimmes, and i thought for a bit on numbers 2 and 4. i have been going through the email signature for over 10 years, and i too looked back on my past signatures, and i am glad that i have evolved over time.