Have you gotten any emails with this Email charter attached that points to “10 Rules to Reverse the Email Spiral”?
I’ve seen a few examples, but the “email charter” is one of the better and more organized attempts I’ve seen. Unfortunately, these email etiquette screeds suffer from the problem that they focus on email.
I’m convinced that you can’t solve email overload by just addressing email. Email is just one part of the overall information workplace that consists of many communication and collaboration mechanisms (technical and non-technical). If doing certain things in email is a no-no, then where should you do them. Here are examples from the email charter and my response:
- “Quash Open-Ended Questions”: Fine, then what is the appropriate time, method, process to ask open ended questions?
- “Give these Gifts: EOM NNTR”: Maybe there’s a better technology for sending short messages? There’s several, including one actually named “short message service”!
- “Slash Surplus cc’s”: Agreed, but what do I do when I want to let lots of people know I’m fully open to informing them and acknowledge that any one of them may be very interested in what’s going on?
- “Tighten the Thread”: OK, this one is on the right path. It mentions the etiquette breach(“it’s rare that a thread should extend to more than 3 emails”) and then suggests an alternative (channel switching to a phone call instead).
This advice usually lacks an understanding of the need even if you don’t like the medium with which it was addressed. Yes, sometimes people want others involved in determining the point or action items rather than encapsulating it up top in the first sentence. Sometimes people need to communicate very short messages. Sometimes they want to have unstructured, open ended discussions. Sometimes they want to let a large group of people know they are included and can be informed if desired. Sometimes they want to quickly deliver a multi-megabyte presentation to a group of people Just telling peers that these make for annoying emails and to “stop it” is not productive.
Face it: these different conversational needs exist and if email isn’t the right way to do them, then the right answer isn’t to lengthen, shorten, reword, and re-address the message to shoehorn it into your ideal email. The right answer is to treat the message need as valid and describe what other channel should be used instead.
If you’re trying to give advice to information workers, rather than an email etiquette primer, spend that time instead advising them to log into their IM tool every morning and keep the presence status up to date, making use of discussion forums for long conversations, using wikis and document libraries instead of attachments, using blogging or social networking to keep people informed without long cc lists.
Moreover, recognize that every organization has a different mix of culture, behavior patterns, information needs, and technology. I’d rather see advice that helps organizations craft their own responses to their information environment (like my attention management conceptual architecture) rather than a stock set of rules that can’t possibly take an organization’s expectations, needs, and capabilities into account.
Read Complimentary Relevant Research
Predicts 2017: Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence is changing the way in which organizations innovate and communicate their processes, products and services. Practical...
View Relevant Webinars
The Mobile Scenario: Taking Mobility to the Next Level
The definition of "mobile" in the post-app era will involve new interactions such as bots and conversations, new devices such as wearables...
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.