Are incoming messages unnecessary interruptions or necessary tasks?

 

In recent months there appears to have been a proliferation of articles describing peoples attempts to work without email (you can read some here and here)

We know that this movement is in response to the overwhelming volume of incoming email but we ask if it's really the answer. We believe that managing the flow well is better than turning off the tap.

Firstly we agree with their actions in getting rid of the slightly-better-than-junk emails – the notifications you subscribed to but haven't used in some time. Simply unsubscribe.

Secondly, the newsletters and notifications that are useful, create a filter that puts them in a separate folder and schedule a time to read them to get the necessary information out of them.

Adhere to good email etiquette yourself, by only sending succinct relevant emails and spend time training those you correspond with on this.

Schedule a couple of times a day to go through incoming messages (and turn off the new message notification). Incoming messages are no longer just emails but may be coming in from a number of sources. One of the articles above made reference to their boss sending a Twitter DM instead of an email. We'd argue it's still an incoming message and will take the same processing time. In which case, it is good to have all your messages in one inbox (saves time checking multiple sources) and going through them at set times.

While doing the scheduled message check you are transforming messages into tasks – and these tasks are going to be a part of your workflow (or someone else's, if delegation is appropriate) over the next few hours, days (or weeks depending on urgency).

So despite the number of people attempting to work without email, we maintain that emails are just one form of incoming messages that every person needs to be able to manage and that getting the right training and finding the right tools is more effective than simply stopping using email.