Write Your Own E-mail Protocols

If you study the transcripts of most e-mail threads, the back and forth messaging will reveal a highly inefficient process for accomplishing the thread’s goal.

There’s a simple explanation for this reality. When most people (myself included) check e-mail, we’re often optimizing the wrong metric: the speed with which you clear messages.

Boosting this metric feels good in the moment — as if you’re really accomplishing something — but the side effect is ambiguous and minimally useful message that cause the threads to persist much longer than necessary, devouring your time and attention along the way.

I’m as guilty of this as anyone. For example, look at this terrible reply to a meeting request that I actually sent not long ago:

I’m definitely game to catch up this week.

Ugh. As I sent the above I knew that in the interest of replying as quickly as possible, I probably tripled the number of messages required before this meeting came to fruition.

E-mail Protocols

What’s the solution?

Here’s a tactic that I’ve sporadically toyed with and that seems to work well: when starting or first replying to an e-mail thread, include in your message a “protocol” which identifies the goal of the thread and outlines an efficient process for accomplishing the goal (where “efficient” usually means a process that minimizes the total number of e-mails sent).

Consider, for example, the following improved version of my above response:

I’m definitely game to catch up this week. See below…
—–
Here are three time and date combinations that work for me to talk this week. If any of these three work for you, choose one: I’ll consider your reply a confirmation of the call. You can reach me then at <number>.

If none of these work, reply with a few combinations that do work, and I’ll choose one.

Option #1: <date and time>

Option #2: <date and time>

Option #3: <date and time>

Notice the format of this message. It opens with the normal informal tone that people expect from e-mail, and then segregates the more systematic protocol portion under a dividing line. In this case, the sample protocol is designed to reduce the thread to two e-mail messages if at all possible.

Pros and Cons

The hard part about this strategy is that it takes a little more time to craft each of your messages. It returns, however, two important benefits…

The first benefit is obvious: a well-designed protocol will reduce the number of e-mails you send and receive, and therefore reduce the overall time you spend tending your inbox (even if the messages you do send take slightly longer to write).

The second benefit is less obvious in the abstract but clear in practice: you feel less stress. When you fire off a quick and ambiguous e-mail, your mind knows the related project is still open, and therefore it will reserve some mental space to keep worrying about it.

If you instead identify the relevant goal and lay out a clear process for accomplishing it, your mind believes things are handled, and it’s more willing to let it go.

I know it sounds weird, but it’s true: including protocols in your e-mail, though somewhat clunky and artificial, really does reduce the grip your inbox has on your mood and attention.

I don’t use this strategy nearly as much as I should, but whenever I do, it works wonders for me. If your inbox is frustrating you, it’s worth experimenting with. I’ll be interested to hear about your experience.

The E-mail Productivity Curve

A Mixed Response

Late last year, Pew Research found that online workers identified e-mail as their most important tool, beating out both phones and the Internet by sizable margins. Almost half of the workers surveyed claimed that the technology made them “feel more productive.”

As Pew summarized: “[e-mail] continues to be the main digital artery that workers believe is important to their job.”

Around the same time this research was released, however, Sir Cary Cooper, a professor of organizational psychology, made waves at the British Psychological Society’s annual conference by identifying British workers’ “macho,” always-connected e-mail culture as a factor in the UK’s falling productivity (it now has the second-lowest productivity in the G7).

Cooper went so far as to advocate companies shutting down their e-mail servers after work hours and perhaps even banning all internal e-mail communication.

This bipolar reaction to e-mail — either it’s fundamental to success or terrible — extends beyond research circles and often characterizes popular conversations about the technology.

So what explains this oddly mixed reaction?

I propose that the productivity curve at the top of this post provides some answers…

The E-mail Productivity Curve

The above curve shows the rise and fall of productivity (y-axis) as e-mail use (x-axis) increases from a minimum of no e-mail to a theoretical maximum of non-stop e-mail use.

Notice, at the left most extreme (i.e., no e-mail use) productivity remains healthily above zero. This captures the obvious reality that even if e-mail (and similar digital communication tools) were banned, companies could still get stuff done, as they did in the many decades before such technologies were introduced.

As we begin to move to the right (increasing e-mail use) productivity increases. This point should also be obvious.  It’s hard to argue against the proposition that e-mail is an immensely useful technology: universal addressing, instant information transfer, asynchronous storage and retrieval — these are all hard communication problems that e-mail solves elegantly.

As we continue to move to the right, however,  things get interesting.

Eventually we will arrive at a theoretical maximum point on the x-axis where all workers ever do is check and send e-mails. At this point, no time is left for any actual work, so productivity would be zero.

If we step back, we see our three obvious observations from above tell us the following about any curve that describes a measure of productivity versus increasing e-mail use: the curve will start above zero; it will rise for a while; and it will eventually decrease all the way down to zero.

Any curve matching these criteria will, like the sample curve above, features two crucial points: one where the productivity produced by e-mail use hits a maximum point (marked by the first blue X above), and a break-even point after which  e-mail use makes users less productive than if they didn’t have e-mail at all (the second blue X).

I propose that the mixed reaction to e-mail summarized at the beginning of this post can be better understood with respect to the different regions of this curve.

In more detail…

Those who aggressively defend the e-mail (like the workers surveyed by Pew), are responding to the reality that much of this productivity curve is above the no e-mail level. That is, they’re reacting to the true observation that e-mail can make you more productive than no e-mail.

Those who decry e-mail (like Cary Cooper), are responding to the reality that an increasing number of organizations are to the right of the first blue X (and perhaps even to the right of the second X), and therefore their e-mail habits are making them less productive than they could be if they were more discerning about their use of this technology.

It’s possible, in other words, for your e-mail use to be both making you more productive (as compared to no e-mail) and less productive (as compared to its optimal use).

Holding both these thoughts in one’s head at the same time can be confusing — thus explaining, to some degree, the muddled polarization of e-mail rhetoric.