Lately there have been a lot of critique against email and also a lot of ideas on how to improve email. For instance, the idea from the company Shortmail.com about a new form of really short emails. And the idea of an "email charter" by the famous internet thinker Chris Anderson, or "Work smart: conquering your email inbox" by Gina Trapani at Fastcompany.
The assumption, or fact, behind that all these attempts is that the number of emails are increasing and take up way too much of our working time. Email is seen as a "time-suck". The conclusion for most is that we need to reduce the number of emails, or make them shorter, or easier to work with, so we do not have to spend so much time with our emails.
Even though all this sounds rational and sound, I am not sure that the basic premise is correct. I agree that the number of emails have been increasing, but I am also quite sure that reading and answering emails today is not necessary time wasted or time taken away from "real" work. To "work" with your emails is in most cases real work, it is not something else than work. When I work with my inbox, I do real work. A very small number of the emails I "work" with are not important at all (apart form some occasional spam) or are not about something that is a genuine part of my work.
So, an increasing number of emails is not necessary the same as work distraction.
There are of course some consequences of reducing the use of email. First of all, we could have to go back to a system where meetings and close geographical location is a requirement for "work". But that will not be accepted of course. So many things of what I do when I am "working" is considered to be normal and required for someone in my position, and is not possible to do without email.
We can of course use other technologies for communication, such as social media and other commonly used technologies. However, many of these new technologies are not specifically designed for asynchronous communication that leave a clear trail and a creates a record and is not very useable for ongoing professional communication, which probably is why email completely dominates among professionals. Email offers a functionality that is hard to replace.
Anyway, enough of this. I truly find email to be an extraordinary tool for "work" (and I am consciously using the word "work" here instead of "communication"). Of course, this does not mean that email can not be improved, for instance, the world would be better if we all followed the proposed rules in the "email charter" but that is another issue.
The assumption, or fact, behind that all these attempts is that the number of emails are increasing and take up way too much of our working time. Email is seen as a "time-suck". The conclusion for most is that we need to reduce the number of emails, or make them shorter, or easier to work with, so we do not have to spend so much time with our emails.
Even though all this sounds rational and sound, I am not sure that the basic premise is correct. I agree that the number of emails have been increasing, but I am also quite sure that reading and answering emails today is not necessary time wasted or time taken away from "real" work. To "work" with your emails is in most cases real work, it is not something else than work. When I work with my inbox, I do real work. A very small number of the emails I "work" with are not important at all (apart form some occasional spam) or are not about something that is a genuine part of my work.
So, an increasing number of emails is not necessary the same as work distraction.
There are of course some consequences of reducing the use of email. First of all, we could have to go back to a system where meetings and close geographical location is a requirement for "work". But that will not be accepted of course. So many things of what I do when I am "working" is considered to be normal and required for someone in my position, and is not possible to do without email.
We can of course use other technologies for communication, such as social media and other commonly used technologies. However, many of these new technologies are not specifically designed for asynchronous communication that leave a clear trail and a creates a record and is not very useable for ongoing professional communication, which probably is why email completely dominates among professionals. Email offers a functionality that is hard to replace.
Anyway, enough of this. I truly find email to be an extraordinary tool for "work" (and I am consciously using the word "work" here instead of "communication"). Of course, this does not mean that email can not be improved, for instance, the world would be better if we all followed the proposed rules in the "email charter" but that is another issue.
Comments
With SociaLens, we've encountered many gripes about email. So much so, Christian Briggs coined terms for different flavors of inbox overload. However, digging deeper than the tool, we always find interpersonal dynamics and skills issues at the heart of the problem. People who took a long time to adapt to email are often resistent to changing to other tools. Policies that dictate "rules of use" for email typically neglect the wide variance in how individuals and groups within an organization communicate. Raising the digital fluency—the information, interaction, and innovation skills that individuals need to help them do their jobs—addresses these problems where they are.
Firehose Overload—More information coming in than the person can physically or mentally process. This tends to happen after significant changes in personnel, tools, internal policy, or external behavior.
Too Much Hay, Not Enough Needles Overload—A nagging sense that a person has missed an important needle in their information haystack. This form of overload usually comes after experiencing the Firehose for a while, as a person tries to deal with how to filter through all that information to make it useful.
Sinbox Overload—A nagging guilt over unread emails and other messages. This form of overload is typically a byproduct of rejection of the Firehose as useful.
Interestingly, only two of the 50 people we interviewed said that they did not feel overloaded. One said it was her job to swim in lots of information. The other had taken very draconian measures (only reading emails in the morning, etc.) to manage it.
Yes, there is some stuff for which email is great. But to simply say "you're working" is side-stepping the main issue - working on what, for whom, and why.