By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this episode:
Abstract: This article discusses effective strategies for following up with contacts who have not responded to initial requests or messages. It begins by reviewing psychological research on factors that can influence response times, such as personality traits, cultural norms, and procrastination. It then provides guidelines for optimal timing of follow-ups based on priority level and contact type. Specific suggestions are offered for composing follow-up communications, including restating the original request, expressing the need for a response politely, acknowledging time constraints, and problem-solving rather than blaming. The article stresses the need for flexibility based on individual relationships and contexts. It offers examples of appropriately customizing follow-ups for scenarios like status updates, project kickoffs, and external partnerships. By understanding reasons for delays, timing follow-ups appropriately, and adapting language sensitively, leaders can productively follow through to obtain needed information and cooperation while preserving goodwill.
We've all been there - you reach out to someone about an important issue, project, or opportunity, but you don't receive a response. The silence is frustrating and leaves you wondering: Did they get my message? Are they interested or just dragging their feet? How many times should I follow up before giving up? In the professional world, following up on outstanding requests and issues is crucial to getting work done. However, doing so requires tact, patience, and adaptability.
Today we will provide research-grounded strategies for productively handling follow-ups when facing radio silence, backed by practical application examples relevant to organizational leadership. With an understanding of communication norms, psychological influences on response times, and culturally-sensitive follow-up approaches, leaders can improve their chances of getting the feedback or cooperation they need.
Psychology of Response Times
Before diving into follow-up tactics, it's important to understand why some people take longer to respond than others. Psychological literature offers insight into typical response norms and what might cause delays. According to Ho and Lim (2006), promptness correlates with conscientiousness—those who are organized and detail-oriented tend to reply quickly. However, others high in openness may take extra time mulling over responses. Delays can also stem from procrastination, lack of priority, or information overload (Lee et al., 2005). Cultural norms further influence speed - low-context and individualistic cultures typically respond faster than high-context or collective ones (Gudykunst et al., 1996). These individual and cultural differences mean that different types of employees and external contacts may warrant distinct follow-up approaches.
Timing of Follow-Ups
The optimal timing for follow-ups depends on initial response norms as well as the nature of the request or issue. For internal responsibilities or more time-sensitive matters, one approach is the "24/72 rule" - following up 24 hours and again after 72 hours if no response (Chen, 2020). For external partners or less pressing concerns, longer intervals may be preferred to avoid coming across as pestering. Choosing when to follow up requires balancing urgency with allowing people reasonable processing time. Research points to a few guidelines:
Within 1 week for high priority issues - Crucial decisions, deliverables, or opportunities typically warrant follow-ups every few days if silence persists (Berk, 2008).
Within 2 weeks for standard internal requests - Routine matters like status updates or approvals usually see follow-ups spaced one week apart to balance politeness and productivity (Cialdini, 2001).
Within 3-4 weeks for standard external contacts - When reaching out to external parties, sticking to monthly follow-ups avoids escalating pressure too quickly (Cialdini & Rhoads, 2001).
Content of Follow-Ups
The specific messaging used in follow-ups also impacts effectiveness. Keeping communications polite yet problem-focused helps move stagnant conversations forward. Some best practices backed by persuasive communication research include:
Briefly restate the original request to refresh their memory in a concise, high-level summary (Fogg, 2003).
Express that a response is still needed to re-establish the importance of their feedback without an accusatory tone (Cialdini & Rhoads, 2001).
Appreciate their time thus far to acknowledge possible constraints and maintain goodwill (Fiske, 2010).
Ask how you can assist or expedite a response to problem-solve rather than assign blame (Miller et al., 2007).
Use a personal, signature-based close from the original sender to preserve perceived familiarity and build rapport over multiple touches (Bagozzi et al., 2013).
Necessary Adaptability
While guidelines exist, individual context requires adaptation. Follow-up strategies must account for each person's preferences, position, temperament, and past interactions. Leaders attuned to such nuances experience higher response levels. Some examples:
For introverts, limit follow-ups to email and allow more processing time between contacts to avoid feelings of pressure (Cain, 2013).
With senior executives, follow-up intervals may need to double as their calendars fill with more strategic concerns (Kotter, 1990).
After previous tensions, rebuild goodwill through empathetic, solution-oriented communications before pressing on critical issues (Holmes & Rahe, 1967).
Cross-culturally, understand and accommodate different interaction norms to build trust over time (House et al., 2004).
On large, complex requests, offer to break issues into smaller action items or priorities as an alternative to yes/no responses (Lewin, 1947).
This flexibility helps ensure follow-up strategies fit each relationship and situation to optimize cooperation rates.
Practical Application in Organizational Leadership
To understand how leaders can apply these research-backed strategies, consider some organizational scenarios:
Status Update Follow-Ups
As director of a nonprofit, you require bi-weekly updates from program managers but Sam's reports have grown overdue. Send a concise email within 1 week respectfully inquiring about status and how you can assist. Express confidence in their work but emphasize the importance of updates for board reporting. Offer flexible formatting options as an alternative to a full write-up if needed.
Project Kickoff Follow-Ups
As VP of a manufacturing firm, you gave the green light for a big new initiative last month led by a director known to thoroughly consider decisions. Send a follow-up email within 2 weeks thanking them for thorough review and politely asking for next steps. Reassure there's no rush but express your excitement to support launch planning. Suggest setting a 1:1 meeting within the next month if still finalizing details.
External Partnership Follow-Ups
As the CEO of a startup, you reached out a month ago about a potential marketing collaboration with a larger firm's director. She seemed interested but understandably busy. Follow-up via phone within 3 weeks thanking her again and briefly reiterating the synergies discussed. Offer a short introductory meeting without commitments to allow exploration of how a partnership could be mutually beneficial over time.
These real-world examples demonstrate how research-backed follow-up guidelines can be sensitively applied across organizations. With understanding, flexibility and focus on problem-solving over pressure, leaders improve response rates on even their most pressing outstanding items.
Conclusion
From procrastination to cultural norms, many factors influence whether and how quickly people reply when they've gone silent. As organizational leaders face such unpredictable delays, structured yet adaptable follow-up strategies help ensure issues don't fall through the cracks. By appropriately timing, wording and customizing follow-ups, leaders maximize cooperation while maintaining positiv relationships vital to the work. With a research foundation supporting recommended best practices and examples demonstrating practical application, this essay shows how following up professionally paves the way for critical information exchange and progress even when first messages go unanswered. In an increasingly collaborative, global business environment, this balanced approach to follow-through saves time, builds trust and ultimately fuels organizational success.
References
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2000). The role of emotions in goal-directed behavior. In N. Schwarz & Y. Trope (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to advertising (pp. 36–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berk, R. A. (2008). Effective feedback techniques for dental and medical students: A literature review and commentary. Medical Teacher, 30(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701873910
Cain, S. (2013). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking. New York: Broadway Books.
Chen, K. (2020, January 8). The 24/72 rule: An effective follow up strategy. HubSpot. https://blog.hubspot.com/service/24-72-rule-effective-follow
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cialdini, R. B., & Rhoads, K. V. (2001). Human behavior and the marketplace. Marketing Research, 13(3), 8-13.
Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 510-543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x
Ho, M. Y., & Lim, W. S. (2006). Conscientiousness, neuroticism and self-completion. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.022
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of psychosomatic research, 11(2), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press.
Lee, J. W., Chang, J. Y., Linawati, E., & Kamins, M. A. (2005). Cultural differences in responses to need for cognitive closure. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(3), 338-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104273653
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human relations, 1(1), 5-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
Miller, R. L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). Attribution versus persuasion as a means for modifying behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 430.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Handling Follow-Ups Professionally: Strategies for Getting Replies When Facing Silence. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.13.1.7
