Seven email openers that sound like the person in charge

Your message has been sitting in his inbox for six days, waiting to be read. Opening a blank reply, you type "Just checking in on this!" and add an exclamation point, trying to sound breezy. It doesn't. That exclamation point is exactly what reveals the frustration you were attempting to conceal. The second message simply resends the first, prefaced by a line conceding that the first never landed.

"Just checking in" neither requests anything nor offers anything, and it names no deadline. To the reader it sounds like a nudge from someone who doubts she is allowed to nudge. People who are truly in charge don't send check-ins like this. She states what comes next. Below are seven openers, drawn from five situations, that project the same assurance.

1. Following up on an unanswered request

Weak: "Just checking in on this!"

Stronger: "I need your sign-off by Thursday to lock the vendor date in West Allis." Alternatively: "Returning to this one. Should I not hear back by Friday, I'll proceed with option B."

Why it works: every line pairs a deadline with a consequence. The first hands the reader an obvious next move. The second turns silence into a choice he has to make in writing, which is very different from silence that drifts on indefinitely.

2. Requesting time from a senior leader

Weak: "I'd really appreciate picking your brain sometime if a spare minute ever turns up."

Stronger: "I have one question about the Q1 pricing decision. Twenty minutes next week?"

Why it works: it states the subject, the duration and the deadline in one breath. Busy executives tend to agree to contained requests and let open-ended ones slide, since an open request is work they must define before they can even turn it down.

3. Sending work for review

Weak: "Apologies for the interruption, but here's a draft, so do share any thoughts you might have!"

Stronger: "Draft attached. I need your take on the pricing section; the rest is final."

Why it works: "any thoughts" opens the door to a full rewrite of everything. Limiting the request to a single section yields a decision on exactly the part you need, and it costs them far less of their time.

4. Delivering news nobody wants

Weak: "Regrettably, things have been held up a little, and I'm truly sorry about that."

Stronger: "The Milwaukee launch has moved to the 14th." Reason: the integration did not pass load testing. The fix is underway and I'll confirm Monday." Or, for a longer update: "Two things you need to know and one decision I need from you."

Why it works: the apologetic version makes the reader handle your feelings before they learn what happened. The plain version supplies the fact, the reason, the plan and the date, so it can be forwarded up the chain untouched.

5. Declining work you cannot accept

Weak: "I feel terrible, as I'm absolutely buried at the moment, but could we revisit this down the line?"

Stronger: "This week is out of reach for me." "Lena in Oak Creek has both the bandwidth and the background, and I've copied her here."

Why it works: a no that points to a next person is a handoff, not a rejection. You resolved the sender's actual problem, the reason they reached out to you, and you did it without a paragraph describing your calendar.

The principle that ties all seven together

Any message from a leader in Greenfield, Franklin or Germantown answers three questions in its opening lines: what this concerns, what you need from the reader, and when you need it by. Include those and you can delete every "just," every "sorry" and every exclamation point you were using to cushion the message. No one reading that note will judge you rude. They will assume you were tied up, and you were.

Forward this to the teammate in Muskego or Menomonee Falls who just sent "just checking in" to a client.