As IORG Social Media Chair, for the past four weeks my theme has been whether or not email overload will still be a problem in 2019 and if so how to reduce it.
Clearly, there are now multiple excellent other ways to communicate electronically from instant messaging via Skype for Business or What’s App to sophisticated collaborative tools like Slack or SharePoint. Sadly, what often happens is that organisations adopt alternatives to email with no clear guidelines on what to use when. With no clear conventions and frameworks all that happens is that email overload turns into a severe attack of information overload because now you have at least three if not four or five different channels to check.
In the absence of organisational guidelines, here is a simple framework which others with whom I have worked have found very useful. Its called the PNPD Framework for Thinking Outside the Inbox
For any form of communication, there are basically four factors to consider when deciding which medium to use.
- Privacy – what level of privacy is needed?
- Numbers – is it one-to-one or one-to-many
- Permanency – do you need an audit trail of the exchange?
- Delicacy – how important is it to be able to see the other persons reaction as you converse so as to moderate what you say accordingly?
Here are two examples of how to apply the PNPD framwork to think outside the inbox to reduce email and information overload.
For more information on the PNPD Thinking Outside the Inbox Framework see Taking Control of Your Inbox.
It is my view that email is here to stay and the real challenge is how to manage our use of it better.
What is your view?
Recently at Emailogic we had the opportunity to take part in an academic study to have email training tested for its effectiveness on productivity and well-being.
Busy senior service managers at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London UK all agreed that email overload was an issue needing attention.
100 of these senior managers attended an email best practice training course.
We can learn a lot from history… even in the field of Information Overload and Meeting Culture.
Consider this true story, quoted as is from Plutarch, about a spicy event in the senate of ancient Rome:
The possibility that social networking tools will take a bite out of email in organizations suffering from IO has been discussed for a while, and some forward-thinking companies have been seeing progress in this direction.
But the news from France last week takes this to a new level: the CEO of IT services firm Atos Origin, an international 49,000 employee corporation, has declared that he plans to make the company Email-free in 3 years. The intent is to replace all internal email with alternative comm channels using the new crop of social networking and collaboration tools.
One of our members sent a pointer to this article on TechCrunch. Apparently, the Nielsen Media Research’s management had taken action to remove the Reply to All button from the interface of all its 35,000 employees’ email clients, as part of a drive to eliminate bureaucracy and inefficiency.
It is fascinating to read the comments to the post. As my own experience confirms, suggestions like this tend to stir heated emotions. And indeed, on one hand, it is easy to identify with the views that it would be better to educate people to act sensibly; on the other, with thousands of users, we know that will never suffice. My own take on this is that the more aggravating RTAs – the ones that are a clear result of thoughtlessness – may be solved even if you don’t remove the button, but simply move it on the toolbar away from REPLY. Even such a tiny change might eliminate some of the reflexive use of RTA when REPLY would suffice.
What do you think?
We all know those meetings where everyone is “doing email”; we know that this affects the attendees’ hearing – nobody listens. But there are cases where it also affects their speech, as transmitted to other attendees in a different location.
To see how, check this post on Commonsense Design, my other blog.
I can’t remember where I heard the EOM technique originally, though I was certainly teaching it widely at Intel as early as 1999, and it was published externally in 2001 as an “Intel Email commandment”. The idea is simple:
When possible, send a message that is only a subject line, so recipients don’t have to open the email to read a single line. End the subject line with < EOM> , the acronym for End of Message.”
I was pleased to read on the Gmail blog (via Lifehacker) that Google have added this as a feature to Google Mail; or rather, they made Gmail recognize it: if you add (EOM) to the end of your subject line, Gmail will skip the usual prompt asking you if you want to send the message without any text in the body.