7 Ways We Can Work Together to Restore E-Mail Sanity
Just like you, I’m locked in a perpetual battle against e-mail. I spend the whole day fending off the incoming messages, like some cranky old dude standing on his porch with a weed whacker. I feel compelled to do this, because if I don’t, my inbox will quickly swell beyond my ability to tame it. It’s exhausting and depressing.
So I’m always on the lookout for new tips and tricks that might shift the balance. (Or a better weed whacker.) If you’re a longtime reader, you know that I’ve written many columns exploring palliatives for the e-mail plague, with titles like How I Declared E-mail Bankruptcy and Discovered the Bliss of an Empty Inbox, and Okay, You’ve Declared E-mail Bankruptcy, Now What?, and Gmail Fail: The Problem with Priority Inbox, and Could A Game Be the Answer to Your E-mail Woes?
But while each of those articles made useful points, they were all were focused on things that individuals can do on their own to manage their e-mail burden. For a long time, I thought I just needed to find ways to be more efficient about my incoming messages and how they get prioritized, labeled, answered, archived, or deleted.
More recently, though, I’ve come to believe that the real problem isn’t how I process messages. It’s how to ensure that I get fewer of them in the first place. There’s no point in struggling to be more efficient about processing my e-mail if the time I save is just going to be eaten up by an ever-increasing volume of incoming messages. (And increasing it is. The average corporate e-mail user gets 110 messages per day, according to a study this spring from the Radicati Group, a Palo Alto, CA-based research firm. That’s expected to grow to 125 per day by 2015. Unfortunately, my average is already much higher.)
Stemming the flow of incoming e-mail is something none of us can do on our own. Every message you receive started somewhere, after all. And conversely, every message you send ends up burdening someone else. So the e-mail crisis is really a collective one. We all have to deal with it, we all share some responsibility for it, and we’ll only fix it by acting together.
What I’m proposing is that we focus for a minute on the outbox instead of the inbox. If we all sent fewer outgoing messages, it’s a mathematical certainty that we’d have fewer incoming messages to deal with.
So here are a few concrete suggestions for ways to throttle back the e-mail volume. No, not suggestions—pleas. Desperate appeals for understanding and cooperation. Help me out here, people!
1. If you don’t need a reply to an e-mail, put NNTR in the body of the message.
Many e-mails are informational and do not need to turn into two-way interactions. If you can be more explicit about which of your messages actually require an answer, and which ones can simply be acted upon and deleted, your correspondents will thank you for it.
I suggest highlighting these types of messages using the handy acronym NNTR, for No Need To Reply. You can put that next to your signoff, or even in the subject line. I’m going to use this mechanism a lot more in the future, because there’s nothing worse than spending hours answering and archiving all of my messages, only to find that my inbox now contains dozens of replies to my replies.
2. Unless someone explicitly asks you to reply to their e-mail, don’t.
It may feel unceremonious and impolite to let an e-mail thread die without some kind of cheery reply, along the lines of “Will do!” or “Thanks, see you soon!” But as I was just saying, there isn’t enough time in the universe to delete all these needless messages. It’s kinder to let the conversation drop.
By the way, I’m referring to business e-mail here, not necessarily to personal correspondence. There are still some types of e-mails—formal invitations, expressions of sympathy, catching up with friends, flirtation, etc.—where a little conversational badminton is in order.
3. Don’t use the cc: or bcc: lines.
Did you know that cc: stands for “carbon copy”? The phrase dates back to the pre-computer era, when a typist would insert a sheet of carbon paper between two pieces of paper to make a duplicate. All of that went out sometime after Mad Men, and today cc: and its devious cousin bcc: (for blind carbon copy) belong on the same scrap heap.
Think about why you would add someone to a cc: list in the first place. It’s not because you really need to reach them, or you would have put them in the to: line. Well, if you don’t need their direct input, then don’t bother them in the first place. If you must cc: someone, do it for the right reasons. My friend Stever Robbins, a career advisor and productivity guru, has an excellent post here on exactly what those are. By the same token, … Next Page »
Trending on Xconomy
By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.