Why "Per My Last Email" can create friction
People use familiar workplace shorthand because it feels efficient in the moment. The problem is that a familiar phrase can still leave the real ask, the real stakes, or the expected next step unstated.
That gap gets more expensive in Slack and email, where the reader cannot rely on tone or a quick follow-up question to fill in the missing context.
Clarity Score: 2.9/10
Clear scores workplace language across directness, specificity, tone safety, and async clarity. "Per My Last Email" lands here because:
- Directness: 5/10. It does point the reader back to prior context, which is a real communication task.
- Specificity: 5/10. It can be specific if the earlier message was specific, but it still forces the recipient to reconstruct the context.
- Tone Safety: 1/10. This is where the phrase fails. It is widely read as irritated, condescending, or pointed.
- Async Clarity: 5/10. The reader understands the reference, but not always which action you want now.
A clearer version of the same message
If you want to keep the intent but remove the guesswork, a stronger version looks like this:
Sharing the key point again here so it is easy to find: the contract needs legal approval before we send it to the client.
What people hear when you say "Per My Last Email"
The phrase survives because it feels efficient to the sender. The sender already wrote the information once and does not want to repeat it.
The problem is that the emotional message often becomes louder than the operational message. A calmer recap usually gets the job done faster.
3 Clearer Alternatives
Different situations call for different rewrites. These examples keep the original intent while making the message easier to understand on first read.
Direct
Best when: when you need to restate the point
Repeating the key point here: the contract needs legal approval before we send it to the client.
It gives the needed information again without the sting.
Diplomatic
Best when: when the reader may have missed context
In case it got buried in the earlier thread, the contract still needs legal approval before it goes out.
It preserves the reference while giving the other person a graceful out.
Async-Friendly
Best when: when you want the thread to close quickly
For convenience, here is the relevant part again: legal approval first, client send second. Once legal signs off, I will move it forward.
It reduces friction and keeps the conversation moving.
Before and After in Slack
The stronger version works better because the reader can see the request, the timing, and the expected response in one pass, even if the message is slightly longer.
Before:
Per my last email, this still needs legal approval.
After:
Repeating the key point here so it is easy to find: this still needs legal approval before we send it to the client.
What changed
The rewrite keeps the factual correction but removes the social cost that makes the original phrase so charged.
Common questions about "Per My Last Email"
What does "per my last email" mean at work?
"Per my last email" means "as I already said in the earlier message." It usually points to real prior context, but it also often signals frustration that the first message was missed.
Is "per my last email" passive-aggressive?
Often, yes. Even when factually correct, the phrase tends to sound like a verbal eye-roll because it foregrounds the other person's failure before the needed information.