Technology may have freed us from the physical confines of the office but in many ways, it has created an invisible tether by which we can be tugged at any location, at any time.
For many workers, this 24/7/365 access further clouds the already problematic issues of work/life balance and productivity. It’s led some employers, like Volkswagen, to limit the hours during which some of its employees can receive email to the 30 minutes before and after a shift.
Other companies are going even farther, planning to phase out internal email entirely during the next few years. Instead, company leaders are advocating for phone/text, in person and social media tools as preferable internal communication methods.
I certainly prefer to walk to someone’s office over calling or emailing them and there are a lot of business benefits to social media. Even so, when it comes to one-on-one communication or communicating collectively within a defined group, email has its advantages. You likely wouldn’t call a colleague at 1 a.m. – or expect to find them via some social media at that hour. You could, however, fire off an email, conveying your message without interrupting anyone’s beauty sleep.
Have you ever reached a colleague by phone only to have them ask you to send your request via email? Sure, it would have been nice to have just relayed your request while you had them on the phone. But putting that information into an email does two important things:
- It gives you a chance to clearly state your request – and to document it.
- It lets the recipient get to the details when it’s convenient for them, providing them with an instant point of reference to your conversation.
While a cluttered inbox can impact productivity, a blanket policy banning all internal email seems unnecessarily extreme. What might be a better approach is to encourage people to exercise discretion in both how and when they communicate by email.
According to a survey of corporate email users by the Radicati Group in May, the typical business user sends and receives more than 100 messages each day. Was every one of these communications necessary? Probably not.
There are so many ways to reach out today. Each has its place and its function. It seems counterproductive then to limit, rather than leverage, our options. Is limiting off-the-clock email use good policy? Does a ban of internal email go too far – or do we no longer need it? Tell us what you think.
COMING NEXT WEEK: Would no inbox be preferable to a jammed one? Read our post before you decide.
Like the author of the Forbes piece, I’m interested to see the reaction Atos will get from employees when this email ban becomes a reality. While I believe face-to-face communication will always be the most effective form of communication, I think I’d be lost without my (almost) always-on inbox.
I applaud the employers mentioned in the blog that are being proactive in addressing the work/life balance that can get out of balance because of the easy access through the various forms of technology. However, I don’t feel the technology itself is the real issue that employers should be addressing – - behaviour seems to be at the root. While there are some circumstances that require an employee to be available outside of business hours, the majority of communication seems to be for convenience and from impatience, not saved for emergencies. An employer whose management contacts their employees outside of work hours is setting an example, and most employees probably feel they must emulate that behaviour. Leading by example and communicating expectations (during business hours
) would go a long way in addressing this 24/7/365 phenomenon, in my opinion. Not emailing, texting and phoning outside of normal business hours is a habit that employers need to support, encourage and practice, from management on down and back up again. The best way to communicate this directive? Face-to-face, of course!
This is an interesting idea to ponder. I disagree with banning internal email. It is a valuable and efficient way to communicate quickly. The benefits listed by the above blogger are two valid reasons for leveraging not limiting. Face-to-face time certainly is still necessary but a blended approach allows workers to be the most productive with their “work” hours.
However, I think a definition of “work” hours can be re-visited by many companies. I am guilty of working weekends and shooting off dozens of emails. It is convenient for me to deliver my thoughts and ideas as they come to my head. But is this really convenient for the recipients to be hit with a full in-box that may have been tidy and empty when they left on Friday? What is worse is that I expect answers almost immediately on Monday since my thoughts flew out of my head days prior and onto an email message. This may be too much to expect.
I would support a limit of when company messaging can be accessed. We need our weekends and “away” time to rejuvenate. The pressure of staying on top leads most of us to work basically 24 hours a day. Time to cut the tether and allow us to tie on and tie off at the end of a “work” day.
I agree that “banning” email may not produce the type of results that one would expect. E-mail is a great tool when you need to ask a quick question or get confirmation on a project. But it should never take the place of face-to-face communication. Often the nuances and meanings are lost in translation of an e-mail, especially in this age of global workforces. I like having access to e-mail on my smart phone because I can get things done in between meetings or while traveling and keep things moving. Having access outside of normal business hours allows me the flexibility to share information when I get brilliant ideas in the middle of the night. I never expect any one to respond to a late night/early morning e-mail immediately. I try to give realistic deadlines if I am asking for a response. After living a 24/7 connected lifestyle for years, I have had to retrain myself that once I leave the office, I’m not expected to resond within 30 minutes. I still haven’t completely broken the habit, but I’m working on it!
I’m curious as to whether the Volkswagon ban actually had much to do with employee work life balance, especially since it applied only employees working trade union negotiated contracts and excluded exempt/management employees. In today’s 24/7 switched-on work environment, more and more employers with hourly or union employees are grappling with the issue of if or how to compensate employees who email or use social media on the company’s behalf after shift hours. My guess is that this was a move negotiated within Volkswagon’s union contract to avoid the issue of “overtime,” but was (wisely) publicized as a work balance move.
I find email to be one of the best ways for me to stay organized and task-oriented. If someone stops by or calls me to request something that I can’t do right then and there, there’s a good chance I’ll forget to do it, even if I jot it down on a piece of paper. My inbox is my action-items list.
I agree that there needs to be a limit in order to maintain work-life balance, but getting rid of internal email completely isn’t the way. Instead, I’d just be asking people to send their request to my personal email.
Pingback: You’ve Got NO Mail: Boldly Banning Corporate Email (Yes, Really) | B2E | Fleishman-Hillard Internal Communications
Pingback: Sound Off: Is work/life balance attainable? | B2E | Fleishman-Hillard Internal Communications