Abstract
Request emails are vital in workplace communication. This study uses a three-round Delphi method to investigate the types, frequencies, and perceived burdens of request emails in Korean organizations. Fifty workers from large corporations identified and evaluated 32 common email scenarios, revealing that the most frequent requests are sent to superiors asking for approval, feedback, and document reviews whereas the most burdensome requests are sent to colleagues asking them to perform tasks. Highlighting the hierarchical dynamics of Korean workplaces and the importance of culturally appropriate communication strategies, the findings from this study can inform global training programs and curricula on workplace communication.
Keywords
Email, as a form of computer-mediated communication, allows for quick and accurate exchanges regardless of geographical or temporal constraints, enhancing organizational productivity and efficiency (Evans, 2012). As a primary medium for internal and external business communication, email has transformed individual work habits and corporate processes (Hewitt, 2006). Compared to traditional business letters, which follow formal structures, email communication in the globalized workplace is more flexible and adaptive (Kankaanranta et al., 2018), prompting significant research on its role within organizations. But despite its importance, employees still face common challenges, such as adapting to their audience and being assertive, in their email communication (Coffelt et al., 2024).
Among the various types of business emails, request emails are frequently written by employees for work-related purposes (Park et al., 2021). Ho (2018) defined a request email as “an email whose main communicative purpose is to request the recipient to provide information or perform an action for the sender or the organization to which the sender and the recipient belong” (p. 71). Writing request emails, compared to general information emails, often requires more caution because they can pose a threat to both the sender's and the recipient's face. In business contexts, writing a request email that is culturally inappropriate could be perceived as a face-threatening act (FTA) that might jeopardize a business relationship (Bousfield, 2023; Brown & Levinson, 1987). But in most companies, avoiding FTAs such as requests is often difficult due to the nature of business tasks and goal attainment. Therefore, training on how to manage FTAs in request emails is crucial for effective business communication.
Despite the significance of email in business, collecting actual email samples from corporate environments remains challenging due to concerns about information security (Leopold, 2015). As a result, many business communication textbooks are based on authors’ intuition rather than data, limiting their practicality (Mackey, 2004). Comparing real-life business requests with textbook examples reveals that these authors’ intuitive assumptions may not always align with real-world practices (Nezakatgoo & Alibakhshi, 2014; Schmidt, 1994). For example, the structure of a simple request email may vary based on the recipient and the degree of burden involved, yet most textbooks do not fully explore these nuances. Consequently, understanding the types, frequency, and burden of request emails sent by employees—as well as the challenges they face when writing them—is crucial for developing effective business communication training.
In this study, we employ the Delphi method to identify the types, frequencies, and perceived burdens of request emails exchanged in Korean corporate environments. We also explore the cultural dimension of “burden” because the degree of perceived burden in request emails may differ across cultures. Understanding the level of burden perceived by specific cultural groups is important because what may be perceived as burdensome in one culture may be perceived differently in another (Economidou-Kogetsidis, 2010; Hofstede, 2001). Moreover, because a request email can be more difficult to write if the writer perceives it as a burden, business communication training must address not only the easy and routine aspects of email writing but also the challenging scenarios and how to manage them. Thus, in this study, we examine the following three research questions:
What types of request emails do Korean employees write, depending on the recipient? What request emails do Korean employees write most frequently? What request emails do Korean employees find most burdensome to write?
The results of this study have educational, academic, and social implications. From an educational perspective, the results provide essential information for business and cross-cultural communication training. Academically, it offers valuable insight into the types, frequencies, and perceived burdens of request emails written by Korean employees, a relatively underexplored area. From a social perspective, as global business interactions continue to increase, the results shed light on Korean business culture and provide information necessary for building and maintaining effective business relationships with Korean employees.
First, we will review the literature on business email communication and politeness strategies, identifying key research gaps. Next, we outline our methodology, the Decision Delphi approach, including how we selected participants and collected data. Then, we present our findings on the types, frequencies, and perceived burdens of request emails and discuss these findings in the context of politeness theory and workplace communication norms. Finally, we summarize the contributions and limitations of this study and suggest directions for future research.
Literature Review
Email, enabled by computers and the internet, is a unique communication genre that blends aspects of written and spoken communication (Gimenez, 2000). Compared to traditional letters or face-to-face communication, email can be a more efficient and flexible form of communication (Bloch, 2002). In businesses, the use of email has steadily increased since the 1970s (Radicati Group, 2020) and has surged even more with the expansion of global business interactions. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a sharp increase in email use within companies as remote work became prevalent (DeFilippis et al., 2022). And with some companies permanently adopting this remote working environment, the reliance on email for business communication is expected to grow (Lerman & Greene, 2020).
Previous studies have analyzed the characteristics (Gimenez, 2000), language usage (Millot, 2017; Park et al., 2021), impact on work efficiency (Derks & Bakker, 2010), and intercultural interactions (Incelli, 2013; Kankaanranta, 2006) of business emails. To uncover the trends and features of business emails in the 1990s, Gimenez (2000) analyzed 63 business emails and 40 letters, finding that emails are a unique genre (see Swales, 1990) that blends spoken and written communication. Emails tend to be more informal and personalized than traditional business letters, using more direct and concise language. This style can facilitate quicker communication, but it can also lead to misunderstandings. Therefore, organizations must provide training and guidelines for the effective use of email communication.
AlAfnan (2014) studied the role of politeness in business emails, analyzing how ethnicity, power relations, and social distance affect the politeness strategies used in request emails. The study revealed that participants used indirect politeness strategies to foster rapport with recipients and that the politeness strategies varied according to the participants’ ethnicity. But the sample size was too small to generalize the findings, and the wide range of the participants’ roles, from assistant professors to administrative staff, introduced limitations. To address this limitation, our study focuses on a more homogeneous group of professionals.
In the research on business emails, much attention has been given to request emails because they account for a large proportion of email communication in companies (Evans, 2012; Gimenez, 2006). But most of this research has focused on the language, strategies, and politeness used in the requests (AlAfnan, 2014; Kankaanranta, 2006; Park et al., 2021) rather than their perceived burden.
Requests and Their Perceived Burden
A request is an utterance in which the speaker asks the listener to perform an action that benefits the speaker, which can place a burden on the listener (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In this process, the speaker may threaten the listener's face, a concept referring to public self-image. That is, the listener may either accept the request in order to maintain a positive face or refuse it and risk causing a negative face. At the same time, speakers may feel burdened when making a difficult request because failure to have their request accepted could harm their own face.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), FTAs such as requests are influenced by three factors: the social distance (D) between the speaker (S) and the hearer (H), the relative power (P) that the hearer holds over the speaker, and the imposition of the request (R). Thus, the weight of face threat (Wx) can be expressed as Wx = D(S, H) + P(S, H) + Rx. But in the Korean context, the concept of face must be understood not only through Brown and Levinson's framework but also through the Korean notion of chemyon (Kim & Yang, 2011). Whereas Brown and Levinson's face emphasizes individual autonomy and personal image, chemyon reflects both personal and social dimensions (Choi, 2000). The former relates to personal moral development and behavioral maturity, aligning with Western notions of face (Choi & Kim, 2000; Lim & Choi, 1996); however, the latter reflects a person's role-based reputation within a social hierarchy and the expectation to uphold social harmony, group reputation, and hierarchical respect (Lim & Choi, 1996).
In Korean workplace settings, a request does not simply threaten an individual's face but can also affect the individual's perceived social standing within the organization. Unlike in Western corporate environments, where politeness strategies focus primarily on individual autonomy and efficiency, in Korean corporate environments, employees must navigate a dual-layered politeness framework that considers both the face concerns and the broader sociocultural expectations of chemyon. As a result, business email communication in Korea reflects both relational and hierarchical norms (Kim & Lee, 2017). This interplay between hierarchy, politeness, and relational considerations directly influences how the request burden is perceived. The greater the social distance and power imbalance between the speaker and the listener, the greater the face threat posed by a request. Further, the burden of a request is influenced by not only the effort required to fulfill the request but also the potential impact that fulfilling the request might have on the interpersonal relationships and hierarchy in the workplace.
As the burden of a request increases, the impact of the request extends beyond social positioning and hierarchical dynamics to the emotional responses of the recipient. Because maintaining politeness and relational harmony is crucial in workplace communication, the psychological strain imposed by a burdensome request cannot be overlooked. Requests that require more time and effort from the recipient tend to create negative emotions (Forgas, 1998; Niiya & Ellsworth, 2012). Niiya and Ellsworth found that as the burden of a request increases, the positive emotions experienced by the recipient decrease. Although this effect is seen across cultures, the relational impacts of burdensome requests from close associates may vary depending on the cultural context.
For the sender, high-burden requests are more challenging to articulate because they may require more politeness strategies to mitigate the face-threatening nature of the request (Holtgraves & Yang, 1992). Highlighting how burden interacts with cultural and relational factors in request making, Jeong (2016) compared the politeness strategies of Korean and Japanese university students in high-burden request situations, finding that Japanese students took longer to formulate requests and that the two groups used different strategies.
Despite the growing body of research on politeness strategies, there is a lack of research on the content, frequency, and burden of request emails exchanged within Korean companies. Understanding these aspects is important because business communication education should be closely aligned with real business practices. By addressing this gap in the research, our study can help companies develop more efficient email communication strategies and improve employee productivity. And by exploring not only the types and frequency of request emails but also the perceived burden associated with them, this study can enhance communication training for effective business practices.
Cultural Characteristics of Korea
Korea's cultural characteristics are deeply influenced by Confucian values, which emphasize hierarchy, collectivism, and interpersonal harmony (Kim & Yang, 2011). Hofstede's (2001) cultural dimensions framework identifies Korea as a collectivist society with high power distance. In such a collectivist society, individuals prioritize group goals over personal ones and respect hierarchical relationships within organizations. High power distance in Korea is often manifested in workplace dynamics in which employees defer to authority figures, and communication reflects these hierarchical structures. Koreans are highly attuned to the asymmetry inherent in hierarchical relationships and readily acknowledge the unequal distribution of power as a cultural norm (Jung, 2005).
Additionally, Hall and Hall (1990) categorized Korea as a high-context culture in which communication often relies on implicit understanding, shared experiences, and nonverbal cues. In contrast, communication in low-context cultures tends to be explicit and detailed. The high-context communication in Korea, then, makes indirectness and politeness essential, particularly in sensitive interactions such as making requests. These cultural traits significantly influence how burden and face are perceived in communication. Requests in such a context often require careful phrasing to align with cultural expectations and avoid disrupting interpersonal harmony. In Korean culture, face is highly valued, so the loss of face due to a rejected request can cause significant psychological stress (Choi & Kim, 2000; Kim & Yang, 2011). These cultural traits—particularly, hierarchical norms and Confucian values—play a significant role in shaping the burden of requests and the perceived threat to face in high-context communication.
Previous research has explored various aspects of workplace communication in Korea, such as power dynamics in email requests (Kim & Lee, 2017), intercultural comparisons of business email practices (Park et al., 2021), and hierarchical influences on communication (Kim & Yang, 2011). Although these studies provide valuable insight into workplace communication, there is a lack of research on the specific types of request emails that Korean employees send and how the perceived burden of these requests varies depending on the recipient. Addressing this gap is essential for understanding the nuances of workplace communication in Korea and for developing practical guidelines to enhance training on email communication.
Delphi Study
The Delphi method is a structured communication technique that uses iterative surveys in order to gather and refine expert opinions (Ungvarsky, 2024). It is particularly useful for investigating phenomena with limited data or evidence (Skulmoski et al., 2007). Operating on the premise that collective judgments are more accurate than individual opinions, the Delphi method is designed to minimize the influence of dominant opinions, groupthink, or hierarchical pressures within a group (Aichholzer, 2009). The anonymity this method provides helps reduce social pressure and facilitates unbiased input from participants (Jorm, 2015).
Delphi studies can be classified into Classic Delphi, Policy Delphi, and Decision Delphi, depending on the purpose (Aichholzer, 2009). Classic Delphi is primarily used for forecasting future trends and relies on expert consensus to make probabilistic predictions about uncertain developments (Linstone & Turoff, 2002) whereas Policy Delphi is employed to explore diverse perspectives on policy-related issues, facilitating structured debate rather than consensus-building (Meskell et al., 2014). Unlike those two approaches, Decision Delphi is specifically designed to guide structured decision-making processes that require expert input to categorize, evaluate, or refine a specific set of options (Aichholzer, 2009). Therefore, for this study, we employed Decision Delphi to systematically categorize request emails and establish expert consensus on their frequency and perceived burden in workplace communication.
The iterative process of Decision Delphi allows experts to refine their evaluations over multiple rounds, ensuring that the final categorization not only represents but also practically applies to corporate email communication. By leveraging Decision Delphi's structured decision-making framework, we were able to enhance the reliability and validity of our findings, providing a well-defined classification of request emails that aligns with expert perspectives. The number of iterations ensures that expert consensus is reached and improves the quality of Delphi research (Wilson et al., 2003). The iterative process typically involves, in the first round, open-ended questions to gather diverse opinions and then two or three rounds of structured surveys to achieve consensus (Ungvarsky, 2024). Most decision-making processes stabilize by the third round, making additional rounds unnecessary (Park, 2001).
Methods
We designed this study to gather information on the request emails that Korean employees send within the workplace, focusing on the types and frequency of request emails based on the recipient and the perceived burden of these requests. To achieve structured decision-making and expert consensus, we employed the Delphi method, following its iterative, expert-driven Decision Delphi approach. Unlike the other Delphi approaches—Classic Delphi (used for forecasting) and Policy Delphi (used for policy exploration)—Decision Delphi is specifically designed to refine expert judgments and establish a validated classification system (Aichholzer, 2009). Given this study's objective of categorizing request emails and assessing their perceived burden, Decision Delphi provided a systematic framework for progressively refining expert evaluations through multiple rounds of structured feedback.
We followed a three-round Delphi process involving a panel of experts (see Table 1). The purpose of Round 1, in which the experts responded to open-ended survey questions, was to explore and identify categories of request emails based on the recipient. The purpose of Round 2, in which the experts reviewed categories that emerged from Round 1 and rated each category, was to find the frequency and perceived burden of each category. The purpose of Round 3, in which the experts were shown the group's mean and standard deviation for each item from Round 2 and were asked to reevaluate and rerate the categories in light of this aggregated feedback, was to promote consensus among the panel regarding the categorization of request emails and the perceived burden associated with each type. Expert feedback in each round was anonymized, aggregated, and redistributed to the panel in the subsequent round to ensure independent and unbiased refinement of judgments. We received approval for this research (ewha-202203-0023-01) from the Institutional Review Board at Ewha Womans University.
Research Procedure Overview.
Participants
The selection of participants is a critical component of Delphi research (Fitch et al., 2001). For this study, we recruited (via phone or email) participants for our expert panel who were office workers from large Korean companies, regularly used email for work, and could provide a comprehensive perspective of their email use. We informed participants that the survey would be conducted over three rounds. Many of these participants had experience sending and receiving emails in English due to the global operations of their company. To ensure a broad understanding of request emails, we selected participants who were general office workers from large domestic corporations in various industries because the type and frequency of requests may differ by industry.
The size of a Delphi panel can vary widely, ranging from as few as 7 to more than 350 participants (Anderson, 1997). Ewing (1991) suggested that at least 10 participants are needed to ensure the reliability of a study whereas Murry and Hammons (1995) found that panels of 30 or more participants do not significantly impact the results. For this study, we selected 50 participants, accounting for the possibility of dropouts over the course of the repeated surveys. All 50 participants completed Round 1 and Round 2, but only 36 of them completed Round 3, resulting in a response rate of 72% (Table 2).
Delphi Study Participants.
Data Collection and Analysis
We conducted our survey using an online survey platform (http://ewha.qualtrics.com) to ensure participant anonymity. Because we wanted to identify the types, frequency, and perceived burden of request emails rather than analyze linguistic differences, the survey asked participants to reflect on their general experience with writing request emails in the workplace, regardless of the language they used in the email. All 50 experts participated in Round 1, in which they answered open-ended survey questions on the types of request emails that they sent to superiors, colleagues, and subordinates. We analyzed the content of these responses to find the request scenarios for each hierarchical relationship. We carefully reviewed the content of the Round 1 responses several times to merge similar responses, resulting in the identification of 32 specific scenarios. To ensure the validity of these categorical scenarios, they were reviewed by experts in the field of business communication.
In Round 2, the survey asked participants to rate on a 10-point Likert scale the frequency and burden of each of the 32 email scenarios identified in Round 1. Then, the system calculated the descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation, for each scenario. Figure 1 shows an example of this survey.
Example of Burden Rating from Delphi Survey in Round 3.
These statistics were presented to the participants in Round 3, in which the survey asked them to reevaluate and adjust their responses in order to achieve consensus. Using the coefficient of variation (CV), we were able to see the degree of consensus, which decreased across the surveys, indicating a convergence of opinions (i.e., participants’ opinions had become more aligned). The consensus was particularly strong regarding the scenarios involving requests sent to superiors, colleagues, and subordinates (see Table 3). Specifically, from Round 2 to Round 3, the CV for the frequency of requests decreased from .41 to .26 for requests sent to superiors, from .43 to .34 for requests sent to colleagues, and from .54 to .46 for those sent to subordinates. Similarly, from Round 2 to Round 3, the degree of consensus regarding the burden of requests improved, with the CV decreasing from .54 to .44 for superiors, from .50 to .43 for colleagues, and from .62 to .55 for subordinates. Because a CV below .5 suggests a high degree of consensus, no further surveys were necessary (Khang et al., 1998).
Consensus Levels on the Frequency of Email Requests and the Burden of Those Requests.
Note. CV = coefficient of variation.
Results
To analyze the types of request emails sent within the workplace, we collected, in Round 1, responses from our expert participants to open-ended questions. The content analysis conducted on these responses identified specific categories of request emails. The responses were further categorized based on the recipient's hierarchical level: subordinate, colleague, or superior. Our goal was to reflect the participants’ responses as closely as possible using their own language. After the content analysis, we summarized and organized the findings according to hierarchical level.
Requests to Subordinates
The analysis of the request emails sent to subordinates identified 13 types of requests (see Table 4). The most frequent type was “collecting and organizing data” (13 responses). Other common requests included “reporting on work progress” (12 responses), “investigating issues or causes” (11 responses), “preparing documents according to specific formats” (11 responses), “handling external requests” (11 responses), “drafting, revising, and finalizing documents” (11 responses), and “taking over tasks on behalf of the requester” (9 responses). Less frequent requests included “preparing for meetings” (6 responses),” “performing designated tasks” (5 responses), “suggesting ideas” (5 responses), “meeting deadlines” (5 responses), “processing internal requests from other departments” (4 responses), and “sharing information” (3 responses).
Types of Request Emails Sent to Subordinates.
Requests to Colleagues
The analysis of the request emails sent to colleagues identified eight types of requests (see Table 5). The most common request was “taking over tasks on behalf of the requester” (25 responses) followed by “sharing information” (22 responses). Other requests included “verifying facts” (16 responses), “reviewing documents” (12 responses), “dividing tasks” (10 responses), “suggesting ideas” (9 responses), “inputting information into consolidated data” (6 responses), and “attending meetings” (4 responses).
Types of Request Emails Sent to Colleagues.
Requests to Superiors
Emails sent to superiors typically fell into 11 categories (see Table 6). Of these categories, “requesting decisions” was the most common (14 responses) followed by “confirming schedules” (12 responses) and “requesting evaluation or feedback” (12 responses). Other types of responses included “coordinating task” (10 responses), “reviewing documents” (9 responses), “requesting approval” (8 responses), “requesting solutions to difficult problems” (8 responses), “requesting detailed explanations” (7 responses), “attending meeting” (6 responses), “sharing information” (3 responses), and “requesting work support” (2 responses).
Types of Request Emails Sent to Superiors.
The Frequency of Request Email Scenarios
In Rounds 2–3, we investigated the frequency of request email scenarios, categorized by the hierarchical level of the recipient, in order to assess communication patterns and identify trends. We found that 23 of the 32 scenarios that the experts identified had an increase in mean scores from Round 2 to Round 3 whereas 9 scenarios had a decrease, reflecting changes in email patterns over time (see Table 7). In terms of standard deviation, 30 out of 32 scenarios exhibited a decrease from Round 2 to Round 3, indicating a growing consensus among the participants. But two scenarios—“requesting subordinates to perform designated tasks” (e.g., program development, large-scale surveys) and “requesting subordinates to take over tasks on behalf of the requester” (e.g., attending meetings, delivering materials, responding to inquiries)—either remained the same (2.3 to 2.3) or slightly increased (1.6 to 1.9), respectively.
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of the Frequency of Request Email Scenarios From Round 2 to Round 3.
These findings highlight key trends from Round 2 and Round 3 of the Delphi survey. For the most part, the mean scores for the frequency of the identified email scenarios slightly increased in Round 3, and their standard deviation decreased, indicating a convergence of opinions. This reduction in the standard deviation indicates that the expert participants formed a stronger consensus as the rounds progressed, a common characteristic of Delphi studies as experts refine their opinions.
The three most frequently sent request emails remained consistent in both rounds. The most frequent request in both rounds was “requesting superiors to approve various matters” (e.g., attendance, business trips, corporate card usage), with its mean score increasing from 7.9 in Round 2 to 8.4 in Round 3. This type of email is critical for ensuring that formal work processes are approved by higher management. The second-most frequent request was “requesting superiors to review documents” (e.g., reports, memos, letters), with its mean score increasing from 7.3 to 8.1. This request reflects the importance of ensuring accuracy and thoroughness in work products that require high-level approval. And “requesting superiors to evaluate or provide feedback” was the third-most common request, increasing from 7.0 to 7.8. Feedback from superiors is essential for guiding work direction and aligning efforts with organizational goals. These results align with findings from other Delphi studies, in which the opinions of the expert participants became more refined and aligned in subsequent rounds, gradually building consensus on the most significant or frequently occurring phenomena.
The Burden of Request Email Scenarios
To compare the burden of writing request emails, we analyzed the mean scores and standard deviation from Round 2 to Round 3 (see Table 8). The results indicated notable shifts: In 14 of the 32 scenarios, the mean score increased in Round 3 whereas in 13 scenarios, the score decreased, and in 5 scenarios the score remained unchanged. The standard deviation decreased or remained the same from Round 2 to Round 3 in 30 scenarios, suggesting a growing consensus of the participants. This finding is consistent with the Delphi survey methodology—and with the results of other Delphi studies—in which repeated rounds help refine the participants’ views, leading to more alignment and, in our study, a clearer picture of the perceived burdens.
Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of the Burden of Request Email Scenarios From Round 2 to Round 3.
The three most burdensome request email scenarios remained consistent from Round 2 to Round 3. “Requesting colleagues to take over tasks on behalf of the requester” (e.g., attending meetings or delivering materials) was rated as the most burdensome task in both rounds, with a mean score of 7.0 in both rounds, reflecting the discomfort employees feel when requesting colleagues to handle tasks that may impose on their time or responsibilities. “Requesting subordinates to take over tasks on behalf of the requester” was ranked the second-most burdensome scenario, with its mean score slightly increasing from 6.5 in Round 2 to 6.6 in Round 3. Although subordinates are expected to assist, this type of request still poses a burden for the requester, especially if the task is considered to be inconvenient or time-consuming. “Requesting superiors to suggest solutions for difficult problems” (e.g., resolving conflicts with other departments, fixing sudden issues in daily operations, or making plans to address urgent challenges) ranked as the third-most burdensome scenario. The mean score for this scenario increased from 5.9 to 6.3 from Round 2 to Round 3, highlighting the challenge that employees face when asking higher-ups to intervene in complex situations.
Discussion
The results of this study provide important insights into the types, frequency, and perceived burden of request emails within Korean corporate culture. By categorizing emails based on hierarchical relationships—superiors, colleagues, and subordinates—this study highlights communication patterns that underscore the influence of cultural and organizational norms on email interactions.
One key insight from this study is that the high frequency of request emails directed toward superiors reflects the hierarchical nature of Korean workplaces, where approvals and feedback from higher management are essential for decision-making. For example, requests for document reviews and evaluations underscore the critical role of superiors in ensuring quality and alignment with organizational goals. This finding reaffirms the role of hierarchical structures in Korean organizations, in which decision-making typically occurs at higher levels (Bae et al., 2002), and is particularly evident in the types of requests observed, which vary depending on the recipient's position within the hierarchy.
Our findings regarding the burden of request emails, particularly those involving sensitive tasks such as delegating work or asking for difficult problem-solving, offer nuanced insights into the interpersonal dynamics in high-context cultures. These insights align with FTA theory, in which the cultural emphasis on preserving face necessitates thoughtful communication strategies. While we focused exclusively on Korean corporate settings, our findings resonate with broader discussions of how cultural norms shape workplace communication (e.g., Kankaanranta, 2006; Kim & Lee, 2017).
This study contributes to the growing body of literature on organizational communication by providing a detailed, empirical look at the communication dynamics between different hierarchical levels in Korean corporate culture. By highlighting distinctions in email practices based on hierarchical levels, the study helps bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks of hierarchical communication and real-world practices, offering insights into how organizational norms influence communication patterns.
Moreover, by revealing the burden associated with writing request emails, particularly those that delegate tasks to colleagues or subordinates, this study presents a new angle in understanding how Korean employees manage interpersonal relationships in high-context cultures (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Choi & Kim, 2000). That is, the study emphasizes the importance of understanding perceived burdens in workplace communication because these burdens may influence employees’ strategies for crafting emails that align with organizational norms and expectations.
Implications for Business Communication Training Programs
The results of this study have several practical implications for business communication training programs, particularly in hierarchical, high-context cultures. To write business emails effectively, employees must balance being clear, concise, and polite while adapting to the workplace power dynamics and cultural expectations. Thus, based on our findings, training programs should focus on
understanding request types and burden levels: Employees should recognize the different types of request emails they send to superiors, colleagues, and subordinates. Additionally, they should be aware of how recipients may perceive the burden (high versus low) of their requests and how the request might influence workplace interactions, distinguishing between routine and sensitive situations. writing clear and concise routine emails: For routine or low-burden requests, employees should prioritize clarity and efficiency to facilitate smooth workflow processes. Concise emails without unnecessary complexity help ensure that messages are quickly processed. But conciseness should not exclude politeness. Employees must still maintain a professional tone and show respect by using softeners (e.g., “please,” “could you”), strategic phrasing, and well-structured messages. managing sensitive or high-burden requests with politeness strategies: When making requests that could be highly burdensome to recipients, particularly in hierarchical settings, employees should incorporate appropriate politeness strategies to maintain positive workplace relationships. The messages need not be long, or overly complex; rather, they should be structured, to the point, and strategically polite. Unlike casual communication, business communication values clarity, efficiency, and directness (Bovée & Thill, 2021). At the same time, various politeness strategies, such as using indirect phrasing, acknowledging the imposition, or providing justifications, are commonly used to mitigate FTAs. Given these factors, training should emphasize how to balance clarity, conciseness, and politeness in different workplace interactions and how to apply these strategies efficiently without making emails unnecessarily long. structuring request emails: Beyond balancing politeness and conciseness, employees need to structure their request emails strategically in order to have clear and professional workplace communication. A well-structured email helps the recipient to respond efficiently and reduces unnecessary back-and-forth messages. Although request emails generally follow common organizational patterns, the level of detail or justification may vary depending on the perceived burden of the request. In high-burden requests, employees may need to sequence the message carefully to maintain clarity but still be appropriately polite. Business communication training, then, should emphasize how to structure emails effectively by balancing clarity, conciseness, and politeness while maintaining professional and culturally appropriate communication practices.
Conclusion
This study has advanced the application of FTA theory in business email communication, particularly in hierarchical and high-context cultures such as Korea. By categorizing different types of request emails and evaluating the senders’ perceived level of burden, this study provides insights into how employees navigate workplace requests in corporate environments. In doing so, the study contributes to an understanding of how perceived burden influences how professionals approach making requests in written communication.
Our findings illustrate the utility of the Delphi method for capturing expert perspectives on business communication. Unlike traditional survey-based approaches, which capture static individual responses, the Delphi method facilitates an iterative process in which participants refine their classifications over multiple rounds. In our study, this approach allowed for a more validated categorization of workplace request emails so that the findings reflect collective expert consensus rather than isolated opinions. Thus, by applying Delphi to the study of workplace request emails, we were able to highlight the value of expert-driven methodologies in reaching consensus on complex professional communication patterns, offering insights that traditional surveys and interviews may not provide.
This study, however, is limited in scope because it focuses solely on request emails without examining other types of workplace email interactions, such as refusals, responses, and negotiations. These email types may involve different politeness strategies and burden perceptions, so future research should explore how professionals navigate politeness and efficiency in a broader range of workplace communication contexts. Additionally, future research should examine the applicability of our findings across different industries and cultural settings, particularly by comparing hierarchical and nonhierarchical workplace cultures. Investigating how request burden levels and politeness strategies vary across organizational structures and professional fields would provide a more comprehensive understanding of workplace email practices. Further research could also examine how recipients perceive and respond to request emails of varying burden levels. Qualitative methods, such as interviews and discourse analysis, could provide deeper insights into how employees interpret politeness strategies and how their burden perception influences their response behavior. Finally, this study did not distinguish between request emails written in English and those written in Korean. Future research could explore how language choice influences perceived burden, particularly in contexts in which English functions as a business lingua franca. A comparative study could examine whether senders feel a higher or lower burden when composing emails in their native language for a local context versus in a nonnative language for an international business context.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.