By Caroline M. Cole

In a digital world, letters are less common than they used to be, but when they do appear, they may incorporate outdated salutation references or presumptuous forms of address, both of which can start communication on a problematic note.

From the Latin word salutationem, meaning “greeting” or “salute,” a salutation is the “Dear… “ portion of a correspondence in a conventional letter or, increasingly, an email exchange. In addressing readers we know, the salutation may require minimal thought. Whether we opt to use the reader’s first name or nickname (e.g., “Dear Liz,” “Dear B–,” ), omit the reader’s name completely (e.g., “Hey,” “Greetings!”), or bypass the salutation altogether, we assume that the reader will use the context of our larger relationship to receive our message in good faith. Writing messages to individuals we do not know, however, can be more complicated.

Depending on the culture and context, for example, salutations may require an awareness of position, titles, degrees of formality, gender, and other context-specific protocols to confer the appropriate respect upon the reader without appearing overly formal, clumsy, or just oblivious.

Considering that people have seconds to make a first impression, and considering that those impressions can shape immediate and subsequent interactions, this discussion examines how writers can use a salutation to target and engage an unacquainted individual in the most professional manner.

• • •

One consideration is salutation consistency with other elements in the message. Although unnecessary for electronic messages, traditional letters need writers to consider two parts of the document (the inside address and the actual salutation) to craft an effective salutation, because references to the reader in these areas should coincide. For instance:

Reader’s Name, Reader’s Title
Company’s Name
Street Address
City, State Zip Code

Dear Reader’s Name:

When writing someone we know, the inside address and the salutation may show greater variation. For example, the inside address—a carryover from the address that would appear in the window of a envelope—should adopt mailing address conventions (which often include the reader’s title, as well as a full, formal name) to ensure the materials are delivered to the designated individual; the salutation, however, may reflect our level of familiarity with the document’s recipient, as the following example demonstrates:

Dr. Thomas K. Osborn, M.D.
Chief of Surgery
Mercy Hospital
9876 Main Street, Suite 874
New York, NY 10000

Dear Tom:

When, however, we are writing to someone we do not know or have not met, we would incorporate components of the reader’s name, as it appears in the inside address, in our salutation:

Dr. Thomas K. Osborn, M.D.
Chief of Surgery
Mercy Hospital
9876 Main Street, Suite 874
New York, NY 10000 

Dear Dr. Osborn:

Comparable salutations might appear in electronic communication, where inside addresses are replaced by email headers:

—————————————————————–
To: thomas.osborn@mercyhospital.com
From: joanne.grant@mercyhospital.com
Subject: Tuesday’s Staff Meeting
—————————————————————–

Dear Tom:

OR…

—————————————————————–
To: thomas.osborn@mercyhospital.com
From: smtyler@osmedicaltraining.com
Subject: OS Training Seminar Opportunities
—————————————————————–

Dear Dr. Osborn:

In viewing these example, some people may ask why the salutation uses a colon, rather than a comma. There are different theories. Some suggest using a comma when the salutation uses only the reader’s first-name and a colon when it uses the reader’s full name. Others will say it depends on context. For some, that context is cultural, as each country may have its own formatting conventions; within those contexts, choices may also depend on whether the document appears in a professional or social context. America business communication conventions dictate that salutations use a colon, regardless of how the reader is referenced.

As for using “Dear” in the salutation, this reference is neither overly intimate, nor suggestive of amorous feelings in American business communication; rather, this phrasing has become a generic convention signaling the beginning of a letter, in much the same way that “Once upon a time…” indicates the beginning of a fairytale. Variations to this salutation, however, will change the sentiment. “Dearest…,” “My Dear…” and other modifications can suggest greater intimacy than warranted by a professionally cordial greeting, especially between strangers. Therefore, when writing to individuals we have never met, we should use a neutral salutation, and “Dear…” fills that need.

Another salutation consideration is specificity. The salutation portion of a letter or email is often the first place readers look to see whether the information is, in fact, directed to them. It is precisely for this reason that generic salutations, like “To Whom It May Concern,” can work against writers. After all, the more generic the reference, the less familiar and more distant the writer will seem to the reader. And considering how quickly we tend to dismiss messages with generic salutations, we must recognize that others might be equally dismissive, saying “It doesn’t concern me… .”

Equally problematic salutations are “Dear Sir,” “Dear Sir or Madam,” or “Dear Sir/Madam.” Somewhat better than “To Whom in May Concern,” these references are still overly general, making it not only harder for readers to see if they’re being targeted for any particular reason, but harder for writers to identify specific details a reader may want or need to know when defined only by gender. These references also create problems for those trying to make an inside address and salutation correspond with each other. Writers will not, for example, target the most appropriate reader with the following details:

Sir or Madam
Hasburrow Financial
876 Townsend Circle
Houston, TX, 77005

Dear Sir or Madam:

Certainly removing references to a generic reader in the inside address will create a more aesthetically pleasing mailing label, but not specifying a particular reader will suggest the information has no particular audience and, as such, will probably get little or no attention.

The final consideration concerns the use of professional and social titles. Referencing readers who have a professional title can be fairly straightforward. More challenging is what to do when we may not be sure if someone has a title or when we may be in circumstances where a professional title is unnecessary. The information below examines strategies for each of these circumstances.

When Professional Titles are Appropriate

Some professions confer a title that becomes part of an address. Although titles are frequently linked to academic degrees or training—as in the case of Dr. for individuals with an M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., or Ph.D.—some titles may be acquired through the individual’s office or position, as in the case of some government officials, diplomats, clerical and religious leaders, military personnel, and university officials. For instance:

Dear President Obama:
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
Dear Governor Richards:
Dear Representative Carley:
Dear Judge Stone:
Dear Mayor Attkins:
Dear Commissioner Osborn:
Dear Cardinal George:
Dear Rabbi Adler:
Dear Chancellor Delany:
Dear Colonel Wakayama:
Dear Sergeant Major Stuart:
Dear Dean Fong:
Dear Professor Ligossi:

Business card references, e-mail signature blocks, degree abbreviations following the individual’s name can help writers identify which of these titles, if any, would be appropriate. Writers should recognize, however, that while some graduate degrees identify expertise in a given field or context, they may not translate into a salutation title; some of these degrees include an M.B.A., a Juris Doctorate, and M.S.W..

Similarly, some professional titles are dropped in social forums. For instance, using the title “Dr.” or “Professor” when addressing those with an M.D. or a Ph.D. is appropriate when sending materials or e-mails to an office address or work-affiliated email account, but using these titles in a social context (say, an invitation to a party) can be pretentious.

When Professional Titles Aren’t Available or Appropriate

At times, we may find ourselves needing to correspond with someone who does not have a professional title, or we may need to address an individual in a social forum, prompting us to modify our approach to salutations. The challenge is addressing individuals we do not know or have not met in a way that conveys sincerity and respect.

Many writers default to conventional social titles, namely Mr. for males and Ms., Mrs., or Miss. for females. As harmless as some of these honorific titles may seem, however, they can raise concerns—especially among unacquainted individuals. The discussion below examines the advantages and disadvantages of these choices, allowing writers to select the most effective reference, regardless of the context.

Master, Mr., Messrs.
The title Mr. is derived from the word master, a term used to describe someone who owned or oversaw property; Messrs., the plural of Mr., comes from the French courts, which used the monsieur (from mon sieur, meaning “my lord”) as an honorific title for the eldest living brother of the king.

Originating in or extending the titles used to recognize nobility, high ranking officials, and other distinguished individuals, the word Mr. is followed by a name—unless addressing a stranger in conversation, as in “Excuse me, Mister.” As such, an inside address and salutation for a male reader would be written:

Mr. Sherman Marlow
9918 Beverly Drive, #998
Chicago, IL 60602

Dear Mr. Marlowe:

Or, when addressing two or more male readers, as so:

Messrs. Sherman Marlowe and Thomas Bentley
Marlowe, Bentley, and Associates
340 Lake Shore Drive, Suite 608
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Messrs. Marlowe and Bentley:

As the abbreviation Mr. became more common in business matters, the title Master became the honorific for addressing young males in both oral and written communication. In correspondence, the title would appear in the mailing address and salutation as follows:

Master Jonathan Quibly
573 Elm Street
Toledo, Ohio 43606

Dear Master Quibly,

Although this reference has fallen out of favor among members of the general public, it still appears in the correspondence of writers from particular cultures and generations.

Miss, Mrs. Ms., Mmes.
Originally having little to do with age or marital status, titles for females—like those for males—had to do with one’s position in society. For example, the word Mistress, or it shortened form Miss., was the equivalent of master, referencing married and unmarried women who oversaw household matters and its personnel.

In the 19th century, “Mrs.” came to reference married females, while “Miss.” was used to refer to both unmarried adult women and children.

Casey Miller and Kate Swift, authors of Words and Women: New Language in New Times, suggest this shift was due to the Industrial Revolution, when women began working outside of the home, thereby making it harder for males to tell by appearance alone “to whom she ‘belonged’ or whether she was ‘available.’” Attaching “Miss.” to all unmarried females, Miller and Swift note, thus served a dual purpose. First, it gave males insight into a females’ availability. Second, by lumping all unmarried females into a single, generic category of “young and inexperienced,” the reference pressured females into marriage in order to avoid the stigma of being considered unwanted beyond the age of 18.

The honorific “Ms.” made its appearance at the start of the 20th century, when and unnamed (and presumably male) writer proposed the reference in a November 10, 1901, edition of The Sunday Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts—most likely for simple etiquette and expediency to address the “embarrassing position [caused] by ignorance of the status of some women,” rather than for feminist motives. The suggestion got modest circulation in the months that followed, but faded from view until 1932, when a letter to the New York Times reintroduced the possibility of “Ms.” to refer to females whose marital status was unknown. As with the original proposal, the suggestion was quickly abandoned, but resurfaced again in the 1950s, when business writing guides offered “Ms.” as a way to minimize debates between “Miss.” and “Mrs.”; the fact that business guides advocated its use gave “Ms.” more traction, but mostly with in secretarial circles. In late 1969 or early 1970, the 50th anniversary of suffrage gave a new, and more lasting push for using “Ms.” to reference women in a manner that was not defined by marriage.

Since the 1970s, “Ms.” has served as a default title for females but, its connection to the feminist movement and to women who wanted to be seen as more than an extension of their husbands has made the title’s acceptance a contentious one. Even today, people will pause to see if, in fact, “Ms.” is the best honorific title, and therein lies the problem: People hesitate to consider whether a female is married before deciding the most appropriate form of address in ways they do not hesitate when addressing males.

In his turn of the century work The Devil’s Dictionary, a collection of satirical comments about various words in the English language, journalist Ambrose Bierce commented on conventional social titles, going as far as to propose that we introduce a term for unmarried males to remain consistent in our forms of address:

Miss, n. A title with which we brand unmarried women to indicate that they are in the market. Miss, Missis (Mrs.) and Mister (Mr.) are the three most distinctly disagreeable words in the language, in sound and sense. Two are corruptions of Mistress, the other of Master. In the general abolition of social titles in this our country they miraculously escaped to plague us. If we must have them let us be consistent and give one to the unmarried man. I venture to suggest Mush, abbreviated to Mh.

An easier solution, however, may be to work around honorific titles and adopt the following principle for all professional and social correspondence in which we are addressing someone we have not met:

When professional titles are available, use them.
When professional titles are unknown or unavailable,
use only the reader’s first and last name(s).

Applying this principle would result in an inside address and salutation like the following:

Stephen Ellison
128 Pine Grove
Los Angeles, CA 90096

Dear Stephen Ellison:

* * *

Linda Eng, CEO
Stylus Printing
9951 Heather Lane, #320
Albany, NY 12227

Dear Linda Eng:

* * *

Amanda Whitney-Bower
341 Jefferson Blvd.
Harrison, MI 48625

Dear Amanda Whitney-Bower:

* * *

Chris Fox
Needlework Enterprises
7800 Seaside
New Port, OR 97365

Dear Chris Fox:

* * *

T.K. Powers
637 Frederick Drive, Suite 15
Clarksville, MA 21029

Dear T.K. Lewis:

* * *

Yu-Ting Chen
5667 Lily Drive
San Jose, CA 95014

Dear Yu-Ting Chen:

* * *

In adopting this strategy, we:

 • Remain professional, even in times of uncertainty.
Some people will argue that deleting a social title is unprofessional, and several cultures maintain protocols that use conventional titles, even those which are grounded in the reader’s gender. American business communication protocols, however, allow us to retain professionalism by using both the reader’s given and family name(s). Even when we might err because we do not know the reader’s professional title, we minimize the faux pas by using the reader’s first and last name in our address. The key, here, is both names.

Contrary to popular belief, using only the reader’s first name—especially with individuals we have never met—is not friendly and welcoming; it is overly familiar and presumptuous, suggesting the writer and reader are peers or intimates when context or other conventional hierarchies may suggest otherwise (for example, job applicant appealing to a hiring manager, a novice reaching out to an expert, a junior member seeking advice from a senior member, a younger individual addressing and older person). By using the reader’s first and last name, we demonstrate respect even when we may not be certain of other dynamics at work.

• Minimize errors in title selection.
Some people have names that make it easier to identify the person’s gender, but gender-neutral names are becoming more common. Moreover, an increasingly global community is exposing us names we may not have enough cultural cues to see as “male” or “female.” In such cases, we would have a 50-50 chance of using an inaccurate social title and, is some contexts, such a gaffe can be costly. By removing honorific titles altogether, we can accurately reference readers without inadvertently insulting them.

• Demonstrate consistency in practice.
By applying a single, uniform rule for males and females, we need only remember one strategy, rather than individual terms that may or may not be appropriate in various contexts, allowing us to be more consistent in our practices. As importantly, we suggest that respect is not contingent upon gender or marital status—categories that are grounds for discrimination within the United States.

In cases where a person’s name is unknown and, despite all of the advances we have gained in an Internet age, the target reader’s name cannot be found, the next best strategy may be to use a title to help direct our message to the most plausible audience. For example:

Dear Hiring Manager:
Dear Human Resources Manager:
Dear Admissions Committee Member:
Dear Director of Marketing:
Dear Homeowner:
Dear Community Member:

Such references can be equally appropriate when writing to P.O. Box addresses or their equivalent, giving messages a better chance of reaching the intended audience by trying to narrow the possibilities with less generic references.

* * *

Conventional letters are increasingly being replaced by electronic communication, making salutations less common. But it is all the more reason to consider salutation protocols, because with fewer examples in circulation, the ones that do appear will receive more attention. By greeting someone in a neutral, but respectful manner, we can set a favorable stage for the interactions that follow.

Working toward Areté…
Use the space below to share your strategies for addressing people you have not met in your correspondence—or your experiences in being addressed by unacquainted individuals.