Email ping pong: Managing the game

January/February Edition, 2008: Like an addictive game of ping pong, the faster you email back and fourth the easier it becomes to make mistakes, waste time and cement words that can’t be taken away. IDM spoke to email guru, Sharon MacNevin to find out why users are succumbing to the ‘email overload’ disease, and how they can be cured.

From the outset, it was self-evident emails would become the bane of most organisations. Creeping up slowly from a message free world not so many years ago, the echo of ‘you’ve got mail’ has increasingly sounded through not just offices, but trains, buses, restaurants, anywhere an office worker can carry their communication tools.

Technology continues to evolve the ease of sending and receiving, while consistently upgrading to exceed out expectations of where we can and wish to receive email. Unfortunately, the management side of the people equation of the technology/email relationship may have fallen to the wayside.

“We’ve all been conditioned to upgrade our software,” says Sharon MacNevin, of corporation training services, Email Management Solutions. “But we haven’t come to realise that what we’ve got is a brilliant machine, but we don’t know how to drive it well.”

Research suggests employees are averaging somewhere between 50 to 200 emails a day, and spending two to four hours dealing with their inboxes. MacNevin labels the syndrome ‘email overload,’ a term describing not just our obsession, but also the anxiety our inboxes can cause.

With this, it’s not necessarily the receiver that needs to figure it out but the sender who needs to ensure their message gets heard. Senders have, according to Email Management Soltuions, just 4.5 seconds to get the attention of a recipient in the corporate world. That means subject headers are essential, marking a well crafted message a key enabler in business.

MacNevin notes that while email is often the backbone of a modern organisation, these same organisations are still running the same rules as the 1990s with little to no boundaries as to how email should be used.

“There’s no protocol whatsoever to what we do with email,” says MacNevin. “We tend to address it the same ways as we would a conversation on the phone – unless it’s something important where litigation may come into play. “Email can be interpreted in a different way, like a game of ping pong, the faster the game the more likely you will make mistakes.”

The problem, according to MacNevin, can only be addressed by reinventing the wheel. Organisations need to step back to the creation of their messengers and implement processes and practices for communicating via email, clearing the inbox, producing clear and concise messages and ensuring archived email is easily searchable.

“We have to step back to the creation of the message to ensure that it’s going to become successful,” she says. “Because later on, if you can’t find that information quickly, you’re not going to be able to use it.”

As messages are passed back on forth, CCing and BCCing various stakeholders along the way, MacNevin recommends changing the subject line on messages in order to have the information easily identifiable later on. “But don’t rewrite the book,” she says.

The problems start and end with the end-users, so it’s up to the policies and procedures of organisations to form effective and protective email management. “It starts by educating employees on correct policies for good written communication,” says MacNevin.

Personal email is still jamming inboxes, a problem MacNevin suggest can be addressed by simply allowing employees to access their Web addresses from their desktops. Allowing the two platforms can minimse litigation risks, prevent pornography ending up on the network, eliminate inbox clutter and keep employees happy.

The impact of changing eDiscovery laws in Australia and the increasing role of email looks set to inspire an increased look at management in the future. “Organisations are going to have to change the way their employees are using email,” says MacNevin. “They could even take a certain risk factor out of it, which is to set up that separate platform for personal use.”

Comment on this story.