Slashdot Mirror
'No, You Can't Ignore Email. It's Rude.' (nytimes.com)
Yes, we're all overwhelmed with email. One recent survey suggested that the average American's inbox has 199 unread messages. But volume isn't an excuse for not replying. Ignoring email is an act of incivility, reads an opinion piece. From the story: "I'm too busy to answer your email" really means "Your email is not a priority for me right now." That's a popular justification for neglecting your inbox: It's full of other people's priorities. But there's a growing body of evidence that if you care about being good at your job, your inbox should be a priority. When researchers compiled a huge database of the digital habits of teams at Microsoft, they found that the clearest warning sign of an ineffective manager was being slow to answer emails. Responding in a timely manner shows that you are conscientious -- organized, dependable and hardworking. And that matters. In a comprehensive analysis of people in hundreds of occupations, conscientiousness was the single best personality predictor of job performance. (It turns out that people who are rude online tend to be rude offline, too.)
I'm not saying you have to answer every email. Your brain is not just sitting there waiting to be picked. If senders aren't considerate enough to do their homework and ask a question you're qualified to answer, you don't owe them anything back. How do you know if an email you've received -- or even more important, one you're considering writing -- doesn't deserve a response? After all, sending an inappropriate email can be as rude as ignoring a polite one. [...] Whatever boundaries you choose, don't abandon your inbox altogether. Not answering emails today is like refusing to take phone calls in the 1990s or ignoring letters in the 1950s. Email is not household clutter and you're not Marie Kondo. Ping!
I'm not saying you have to answer every email. Your brain is not just sitting there waiting to be picked. If senders aren't considerate enough to do their homework and ask a question you're qualified to answer, you don't owe them anything back. How do you know if an email you've received -- or even more important, one you're considering writing -- doesn't deserve a response? After all, sending an inappropriate email can be as rude as ignoring a polite one. [...] Whatever boundaries you choose, don't abandon your inbox altogether. Not answering emails today is like refusing to take phone calls in the 1990s or ignoring letters in the 1950s. Email is not household clutter and you're not Marie Kondo. Ping!
I've got over 31,000 unread emails. I must have some kind of super power or something.
Let me correct the thinking in the title here. "Yes I can. No it isn't." There we go.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The whole business of developing etiquette from scratch in the age of electronic communications is interesting as hell. It used to be that people thought of email as a typical letter, delivered nearly as slowly as actual physical mail. Now it is merely the world's slowest form of instant message.
One skill needed for effective management is good organization.
An overflowing inbox is a sign of difficulty with this skill.
How hard is it to "archive"? You don't have to have a fancy folder structure. Most email applications today have an "archive" feature.
If you can't deal with it now, send a quick note saying you can't, and move on. Then archive the email.
I read/reply to email if and when I want to. Same goes for text messages and voice mails.
It's my device and my time and I will use them as I please.
If you want something from me, send me an email. I'll read it during work hours, maybe today, maybe tomorrow.
If you need me to read it faster, send me an SMS. I'll read it in an hour if I am not sleeping.
If you need something from me RIGHT NOW, call me. As a bonus, you will know immediately whether I can talk to you right now and whether I now know about your problem.
Email conversation is slow, even if I reply you instantly, you will probably take some time to reply, which will stretch out our conversation (say, 5 emails each) to a whole day or maybe two days. So, if you are writing an email, then it is not that urgent to you.
Paying for email hosting + domain means unlimited aliases. A custom one for each vendor means I can turn them off when abused and I know who sold my contact info. So when Comcast sells my email address to T-Mobile I know they did it (and they lost a fiber connectivity contract - consequences...). When companies sign you up for marketing emails not matter how apparently placebo options are checked (most recently Overstock.com) I can delete that alias.
I will not unsubscribe when I never subscribed. I will make a server side filter that forwards anything from them to one of their live person email addresses though. They can turn off the spam or not, I won't see it. Why would anyone feel obligated to respond?
I don't think a timely response is as important as one you have considered. Once it is out there, its gone and you can't take it back.
With email there is some time to respond, not immediately unless it really has to be that way.
When people see thought in the response it's a good sign you've considered what they had to say.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
An average of 199 unread messages and all of them unwanted newsletters and spam.
Get a better spam filter. I see a spam email less than once a week.
I’ve got one particular coworker who often emails me a question multiple times over the course of a few months - even though I have almost always already answered the question in a response to her first email. She loses track, and rather than checking whether I’ve already answered... asks the same question again.
Wasting my time with pointless emails like that is far ruder than me not responding with a third or fourth or fifth email containing information I’ve already sent more than once.
And yes, when I answer a repeat I do append the first message and point out that I did answer weeks ago... it doesn’t deter her. She is seriously vapid. Many of us wonder how she has held onto her job (and no, none of the things which probably have popped into your head there can explain this one).
#DeleteChrome
You don’t have a right to my time or attention unless we have an established social or business relationship. I have a pretty good multi-layer spam filtering system. That takes care of 90% of the incoming mail. It takes a few moments to highlight and permanently delete most of the rest a few times a day. That leaves a handful for me to actually read and sometimes reply. Damn, perhaps I am organized.
As far as I know 48 hours is the default time period to allow for an email recipient to respond.
"... you just have to answer mine. "
Would it be rude to simply assume the author's article is BS, and simply not read it? Asking for a troll.
It's prudent exactly because "I don't have time to read your email." translates to "Your email isn't a priority for me at this time.". Technically I do read all my email, at least as far as the sender and subject, but the first thing I'm looking for when I skim it is "Is this email relevant to something that's one of my priorities right now, and if so which one?". If it is, that email has the priority of whatever it's related to and I'll get to replying to it when my priorities permit. Which means if it's a low priority item I won't be working on for some time, don't expect a quick reply. If it's a high priority for you but not for me, either you or your manager need to stop bothering me and go talk to my manager about getting relative priorities adjusted (in fact this should've happened when the priority for the item was set, that this is coming up indicates a severe lack of communication on the part of one or more of the managers involved). I'll be happy to help bring it to my manager's attention, provide estimates on how quickly things can be done and what the effects of shuffling priorities will be, but don't expect me to go upending my priorities without my manager knowing about it and approving it. Note: bug reports already have a (really high) permanent place on my priority list and get a same-day or faster response (if nothing else, indicating how long I think it'll take to nail the cause down and get a handle on a fix). Regular updates on progress and ETA from me are required and I rarely miss sending them out so be really sure you've checked your folders and there really isn't a relevant update before bugging me about progress.
Personal email I handle on the same basis, and I feel absolutely no obligation to respond to email merely because you sent it to me. If I don't respond it's usually because either I don't know you and your email had nothing in it to interest me, or I know you and don't want to talk to you about whatever your email was about (or possibly at all, depending). The exceptions involve things like my being in the ICU in a coma, and if you're close enough friends to expect a response from me you're already on the list of people who'll get notified about things like that in some way.
Yes, I'm an old codger who refuses to be nickel-and-dimed to death by people wanting "just a few minutes of my time". Time is ultimately the only currency we have, and I'm as careful with it as I am with the dollars in my bank accounts. My friends understand this and we've worked out a mutually-acceptable balance. Failing to understand it, in turn, is one of the fastest known ways to get put into my twit filter.
I remember this conversation with an older worker and it struck me as sensible at the time and very wise now.
Without going full "four yorkshiremen *" on it...
Some years ago people sent typewritten memos; you could get 4, maybe 5 carbon copies if you were lucky - any more and a second copy needed to be typed. Result: you thought long and hard about what was said, kept it brief , and considered exactly to whom you would send the message - every addressee counted.
Then came the photocopier - you could easily send memos to 20, 30 people (more involved negotiation with the custodians of the copier and/or negotiations with the stationery dept.) - people were less rigorous about addressees and the volume of less relevant and less valuable info increased.
Then came email - the cost of sending to hundreds of people was minimal; it was quick and easy. Whilst increased communication helps the 'signal to noise' ratio took a nosedive and we got increasing volumes of decreasing quality messages.
Moving on from that conversation, we have social media where absolute crap is broadcast to the whole world and kept for eternity - but the majority of it is inane, inaccurate, disingenuous and unhelpful.
Seems like we have an analogue to the gas law:
Volume x Quality = Constant
----
* Monty Python -- a classic sketch
Agreed. My counterpoint to the article - don't send emails demanding other people's attention unless you have reason to believe that *they* would want to interact with you.
It's far more rude to carelessly demand someone else's attention in the first place than it is to ignore such demands. Attention is a precious resource, paying attention to something disrupts what I'm doing, and sacrifices a slice of my life that I can never get back.
If you do email me, be concise: tell me what you want, and why I should want to give it to you. And do so in as few words as possible because every word I read is costing me a moment of my life. Show that you respect my time and attention, or don't expect me to treat you with any greater respect.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.