At one of the national brand restaurants I worked for, we received two e-mails:

• Each was concerned with a complaint from a customer.

• Each included the text of the original complaint.

• Each was forwarded to us from the highest levels of the company.

• Only one was worth a damn.

The first e-mail was from the president of the company. It began with a letter from a customer who was a doctor. He had observed an employee accidentally cut himself. No big deal normally, but instead of properly sanitizing the knife, board, and area where he bled, the employee wiped it with a paper towel and kept serving customers. As anyone with any experience in restaurants, blood, or basic common sense can tell you, this is a major no-no and unfairly puts customers at risk.

The second e-mail was from our franchise group’s operating partner. It, too, began with a letter from a customer. This customer had been using the restroom and observed one of the restaurant’s managers leave the restroom after performing the kind of hand washing (three, maybe five seconds, no soap) that is more likely to spread disease than it is to kill it. Again, anyone familiar with food service, pathogens, or common sense can tell you that this was a major no-no that unfairly put customers at risk.

Both e-mails contained some talking points from the president or operating partner along the lines of “don’t do this - there will be consequences,” and delivering that message was the point of sending the e-mails.

So, what was the difference between these two e-mails?

It was the customer’s complaint.

In the first e-mail, the writer was respectful, clearly thoughtful and educated, and seemed concerned that this dangerous event be properly addressed. He recounted his observations, shared the consequences he could foresee from the problem, and politely requested further information. By the end of the e-mail, I wanted to apologize to him and guarantee that the situation would improve, despite having no involvement in it. The e-mail carried a gravity and level of impartiality that only eyes from outside of the organization could.

In the second e-mail, the writer was belligerent, profane, insulting, and even went so far as to suggest that the manager was intentionally trying to get customers sick. (An absurd accusation on its face - one that seems even more reckless to anyone who has ever experienced the hurried result of needing to pee during a rush.) By the end of the e-mail, I wanted to find this guy and punch him in the throat. It gave him a level of credibility on par with Baghdad Bob.

Both of these e-mails addressed very serious problems that were direct results of customer complaints by sharing the complaint. The problem was that the second complaint was made by someone who was (and this is being generous) so upset that he lost any sense of how to properly address his concerns.

I knew the operating partner who forwarded the e-mail, and I can tell you that he was not abusive, demeaning, or even ill-tempered. He was a great person to work for. But when he chose to forward the text of that e-mail, he made it his message, along with its curmudgeonly demeanor.

Given the importance that the delivery of your messages has for your young employees, my claim that the second e-mail wasn’t worth a damn isn’t entirely accurate. That second e-mail was worse: it was downright damaging.