Cal Newport on an industrial revolution for office work(80000hours.org)
80000hours.org
Cal Newport on an industrial revolution for office work
https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/cal-newport-industrial-revolution-for-office-work/
59 comments
I love email. It is just text, it is truly asynchronous (as in: nobody expects you to answer within a minute) it is sortable, searchanle, you can create automatic filters, everybody has email.
But the best thing is: you have to write everything into _one_ email. I don't have to follow someones fragmented train of thought and glue the shards together in order to make sense of them. No: they want something from me and so the burden of sorting their thoughts is on them.
I also don't hate chats, or a phone call, however this is for different communications. If you do important stuff everybody should know via chat (or worse: recorded speech messages in a chat) you might be doing it wrong.
I know someone whos boss would send multiple 15 min speech messages a day into a group chat to all employees. To find the information you needed to know you would have to listen through the whole thing, write it down for yourself etc. And this times 40 employees just because one person didn't bother.
But the best thing is: you have to write everything into _one_ email. I don't have to follow someones fragmented train of thought and glue the shards together in order to make sense of them. No: they want something from me and so the burden of sorting their thoughts is on them.
I also don't hate chats, or a phone call, however this is for different communications. If you do important stuff everybody should know via chat (or worse: recorded speech messages in a chat) you might be doing it wrong.
I know someone whos boss would send multiple 15 min speech messages a day into a group chat to all employees. To find the information you needed to know you would have to listen through the whole thing, write it down for yourself etc. And this times 40 employees just because one person didn't bother.
I’m creating an account just to reply to this, and for some context: I’m a big Cal Newport fan.
He isn’t arguing against the use of email, but the non intentional default to emailing instead of work. Yes, your ideal scenario- communication between employees will get work done. But in Cal’s scenarios, that one person is having multiple conversations like that through email, and is waiting for the other person to reply. And instead of producing deliverables, they are having these slow conversations.
You mention just get to the email later, but rarely does the application or notification go away after the info is gathered. So your plan of checking email 1-3 times a day is right inline with Cal’s thinking.
Some of his solutions he hand waives away complexities with “we’ll rock and roll” but the idea is email won’t be a springboard for work. It sends pdf’s and reports and minutes great, but planning a project is better done elsewhere.
He isn’t arguing against the use of email, but the non intentional default to emailing instead of work. Yes, your ideal scenario- communication between employees will get work done. But in Cal’s scenarios, that one person is having multiple conversations like that through email, and is waiting for the other person to reply. And instead of producing deliverables, they are having these slow conversations.
You mention just get to the email later, but rarely does the application or notification go away after the info is gathered. So your plan of checking email 1-3 times a day is right inline with Cal’s thinking.
Some of his solutions he hand waives away complexities with “we’ll rock and roll” but the idea is email won’t be a springboard for work. It sends pdf’s and reports and minutes great, but planning a project is better done elsewhere.
Hmm maybe I agree with him more than I think I do then. And yeah I've enjoyed at least one of his books and "feel like" I've read another just because of how often it gets quoted to me, haha.
Definitely there are at least two ways of screwing up, and they're both about using the wrong tool for the job. One is to use urgent methods for stuff that's not urgent (which bothers people). And the other, which it sounds like you're alluding to, is using a non-urgent method (email) for things that truly are urgent. Or that are, to use a metaphor, "bandwidth-intensive." You can usually get a heck of a lot more communication done faster in person than you can by email. Although much of it will be lost into the ether, too... unless someone's taking notes. Everybody just use the right tool for the job okay? Great, that's settled!
Definitely there are at least two ways of screwing up, and they're both about using the wrong tool for the job. One is to use urgent methods for stuff that's not urgent (which bothers people). And the other, which it sounds like you're alluding to, is using a non-urgent method (email) for things that truly are urgent. Or that are, to use a metaphor, "bandwidth-intensive." You can usually get a heck of a lot more communication done faster in person than you can by email. Although much of it will be lost into the ether, too... unless someone's taking notes. Everybody just use the right tool for the job okay? Great, that's settled!
Anytime anyone wants to change something and they give you one of these reasons, run away! 1) We want to modernize it 2) X is so 1990's 3) It is old fashioned.
That means that person is grounded in fashion/trends/what-others-think and not objectivity.
Email didn't come with a date stamped on it - "Hey this technology must be used in 1990-2010 era". For the love of the god people, think from the bottom up. Stop following trends like headless zombies.
Just the other day someone on HN was proposing a better UX/UI for cars without explaining in detail 1) what are the downsides of current steering wheel and 2 or 3 pedals 2) What are the upsides of their idea. Without significant justification for 1) and 2), you ain't changing anything. Stop ruining the world, please.
That means that person is grounded in fashion/trends/what-others-think and not objectivity.
Email didn't come with a date stamped on it - "Hey this technology must be used in 1990-2010 era". For the love of the god people, think from the bottom up. Stop following trends like headless zombies.
Just the other day someone on HN was proposing a better UX/UI for cars without explaining in detail 1) what are the downsides of current steering wheel and 2 or 3 pedals 2) What are the upsides of their idea. Without significant justification for 1) and 2), you ain't changing anything. Stop ruining the world, please.
I voted you back up because generally I agree that using weak value judgements (e.g. X is old fashioned) without saying WHY a particular thing needs to be improved is not very useful.
In fairness, in the article he does say why all these communications tools are a problem in his opinion.
In fairness, in the article he does say why all these communications tools are a problem in his opinion.
Email has been around since the 1960s and the best part of it was asynchronous world wide cheap communication.
Today it is a platform that supports all kinds of various business workflows. You can run a business via email alone. It sucks but you can do it.
What's interesting is that these workflows are all in conventions and human protocols and not encoded in email itself.
Email can be seen as a big send and store packet which requires human decoding. Anyone has a public address which you can send to etc...
Anyway, interesting way to think about it.
Today it is a platform that supports all kinds of various business workflows. You can run a business via email alone. It sucks but you can do it.
What's interesting is that these workflows are all in conventions and human protocols and not encoded in email itself.
Email can be seen as a big send and store packet which requires human decoding. Anyone has a public address which you can send to etc...
Anyway, interesting way to think about it.
I think most people that think they hate email just hate Outlook. Some MS product manager decided that it would force you to top post, and then endlessly growing but completely indecipherable quote vomit below the message became the norm.
Back in the day, email was great. A listserv targeted to a specific community of people that know their netiquette is the best way to collaborate.
Back in the day, email was great. A listserv targeted to a specific community of people that know their netiquette is the best way to collaborate.
>Tony Soprano would say, ay it's fuckin' raining, but whaddyagonnadoo.
"You don't wanna work in the rain, go try out for the Yankees." ~ Season 1 Episode 5, "College"
"You don't wanna work in the rain, go try out for the Yankees." ~ Season 1 Episode 5, "College"
I think Tony would say "whatever happened to Gary Cooper"
> everyone got an email address and most lost their assistants
This is important. In the 90s I was working in an office with a half dozen other people, and the director had a secretary who also managed the office. She handled things like everyone's travel bookings, routine administrative stuff, and the like. And she was good at it. Fast forward to today and all but the most senior people spend days dealing with corporate systems to book travel, do expense reports, requisitioning things for our computers and laptops, and other assorted administrivia. In academia even tenured professors do it themselves. And these corporate portals are terrible. Now consider the scenario (set aside pandemic live for now) where a team of programmers working in two or three different offices around the country needs an in-person event. Instead of having one person, who is familiar with the systems and rules and is very good at navigating them, you have half a dozen highly paid professionals blowing half a day or more each wrangling up travel and accommodations. It's such a huge waste of people's time.
This is important. In the 90s I was working in an office with a half dozen other people, and the director had a secretary who also managed the office. She handled things like everyone's travel bookings, routine administrative stuff, and the like. And she was good at it. Fast forward to today and all but the most senior people spend days dealing with corporate systems to book travel, do expense reports, requisitioning things for our computers and laptops, and other assorted administrivia. In academia even tenured professors do it themselves. And these corporate portals are terrible. Now consider the scenario (set aside pandemic live for now) where a team of programmers working in two or three different offices around the country needs an in-person event. Instead of having one person, who is familiar with the systems and rules and is very good at navigating them, you have half a dozen highly paid professionals blowing half a day or more each wrangling up travel and accommodations. It's such a huge waste of people's time.
As long as we have engineers working for days each month on administrative stuff, a shortage of engineers seems to be far fetched.
Fire the expert admins and have non-experts waste a large amount of expensive time on things they're bad at - sounds like a plan.
On the other hand, it can be much more satisfying to book your own travel and accommodations vs. having a corporate travel department book the cheapest, most inconvenient, and most unpleasant travel and lodging they can find - which is also generally non-negotiable and impossible to change. (And often designed to reinforce the status hierarchy - management get nice suites and business class while rank and file get stuck with cramped rooms, room-shares, economy class, etc..) The incentives are usually not aligned with employee interests. The administrative overhead of making one's own arrangements sometimes pays off in spades.
On the other hand, it can be much more satisfying to book your own travel and accommodations vs. having a corporate travel department book the cheapest, most inconvenient, and most unpleasant travel and lodging they can find - which is also generally non-negotiable and impossible to change. (And often designed to reinforce the status hierarchy - management get nice suites and business class while rank and file get stuck with cramped rooms, room-shares, economy class, etc..) The incentives are usually not aligned with employee interests. The administrative overhead of making one's own arrangements sometimes pays off in spades.
Doesn't this tie into a lot what's going on currently such as the work from home controversy?
At my previous employer, the definition of a successful employee was someone who did anything anyone asked of him enthusiastically. This included but was not limited to, massive overtime, answering e-mails, texts and phone calls day or night. Being available on weekends and Holidays. Agreeing to arbitrary deadlines, always being on slack. etc.
Once, the VP sent me an email at 4:30am. at 7:30am he called my direct boss to ask why I hadn't answered him. My bosses response, "I assume he is sleeping, like I was."
I also once managed a team in India, it was awful. I would wake up to an inbox full of questions, so I'd start answering their questions, head into work, and do any legwork needed, write them extensive instructions, then start my own work for the day. Just about the time I'd get home, they'd be waking up and stumbling into the office asking for clarification on my first e-mails. I actually physically became sick due to the lack of sleep, stress, etc. Meetings with them were either in the middle of the night for them or myself.
It's only the engineers sometimes myopic viewpoint which assumes everyone is seeking efficiency. I want the efficiency which is most meaningful to me-- to spend the least amount of time at work and produce the most, so I can have a predictable life and spend time doing things that are more meaningful to me.
I think the real answer is that managers in many environments don't actually care about efficiency. I think they view it almost in the opposite way. The more they put on you, the more you may accomplish, the better "value" they're getting from you.
At my previous employer, the definition of a successful employee was someone who did anything anyone asked of him enthusiastically. This included but was not limited to, massive overtime, answering e-mails, texts and phone calls day or night. Being available on weekends and Holidays. Agreeing to arbitrary deadlines, always being on slack. etc.
Once, the VP sent me an email at 4:30am. at 7:30am he called my direct boss to ask why I hadn't answered him. My bosses response, "I assume he is sleeping, like I was."
I also once managed a team in India, it was awful. I would wake up to an inbox full of questions, so I'd start answering their questions, head into work, and do any legwork needed, write them extensive instructions, then start my own work for the day. Just about the time I'd get home, they'd be waking up and stumbling into the office asking for clarification on my first e-mails. I actually physically became sick due to the lack of sleep, stress, etc. Meetings with them were either in the middle of the night for them or myself.
It's only the engineers sometimes myopic viewpoint which assumes everyone is seeking efficiency. I want the efficiency which is most meaningful to me-- to spend the least amount of time at work and produce the most, so I can have a predictable life and spend time doing things that are more meaningful to me.
I think the real answer is that managers in many environments don't actually care about efficiency. I think they view it almost in the opposite way. The more they put on you, the more you may accomplish, the better "value" they're getting from you.
> Fixing the hive-mind is going to be a billion dollar industry
Cal Newport was one of the inspirations for https://inboxwhenready.org. At this point, people have paid me over $100K to make it harder for them to read their email.
I've made some effort to persuade the Gmail and Superhuman teams to take this issue seriously, but to no avail, yet. If anyone here is building an email client or popular Gmail extension, I'm happy to talk about this stuff whenever.
Cal Newport was one of the inspirations for https://inboxwhenready.org. At this point, people have paid me over $100K to make it harder for them to read their email.
I've made some effort to persuade the Gmail and Superhuman teams to take this issue seriously, but to no avail, yet. If anyone here is building an email client or popular Gmail extension, I'm happy to talk about this stuff whenever.
You know 17 years ago I used to work at a company that only delivered email at 5 minutes before the hour (9:55, 10:55, etc) and then didn’t deliver email at all between 9pm and sometime in the morning like 4am or 5am. It was amazing. Email from customers were delivered immediately as were internal emails if you marked it high importance (with the “!”).
I'd like a way to get bulk new notifications pushed to me as a small popup in the bottom right of my screen once every 1-2 hours, if there's new emails during that window. That eliminates the need to check the time to see if it's 9:56am yet and I need to check my email.
If you're using Gmail, you could get a setup like this by installing "Checker Plus for Gmail".
Enable notifications, then in the "Accounts / Labels" tab set the "Polling interval" to 2 hours.
You can also set a "Do not disturb" schedule, during which no notifications will be delivered.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/checker-plus-for-g...
Enable notifications, then in the "Accounts / Labels" tab set the "Polling interval" to 2 hours.
You can also set a "Do not disturb" schedule, during which no notifications will be delivered.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/checker-plus-for-g...
This is what I want from Thunderbird from the receiver end. The most you can do is set the interval at which to check for new messages. But I want to specify some times at which mail is retrieved.
Of course, having the organization agreement where you know your email won't be delivered till a specified time would be even better. But that's beyond my control.
Of course, having the organization agreement where you know your email won't be delivered till a specified time would be even better. But that's beyond my control.
Yea, the great thing about the organization-wide decision was that everybody in the company knew it, so nobody expected quick responses.
Is your extension collecting email addresses? I got an email after trying it out.
Yes, it collects your email when you install. This lets me send a couple onboarding messages and determine what plan you are on. There's more info in the (human readable) privacy policy.
When I started this project I wanted the onboarding experience to be as simple as possible, i.e. no annoying sign up stage. I wondered whether this approach would lead to lots of questions like yours: in fact, I think less than 5 people have asked about this since 2015. My sense is that, on balance, most people benefit from the "install = sign-up" flow.
https://inboxwhenready.org/terms-privacy/
When I started this project I wanted the onboarding experience to be as simple as possible, i.e. no annoying sign up stage. I wondered whether this approach would lead to lots of questions like yours: in fact, I think less than 5 people have asked about this since 2015. My sense is that, on balance, most people benefit from the "install = sign-up" flow.
https://inboxwhenready.org/terms-privacy/
I’m a longtime Thomas Sowell fan but I only just recently started reading his most celebrated work, Knowledge and Decisions, first published in 1980. In one of the early chapters there is a reference to the old physical mailbox systems of pre-networked offices, and how the cost of distracted attention from hundreds of employees never seems to deter managers from dumping all manner of low-value correspondence into said boxes.
Email and Slack may have kicked this problem into overdrive, but managers’ inability to efficiently organize knowledge work appears to be a long-standing open problem.
Email and Slack may have kicked this problem into overdrive, but managers’ inability to efficiently organize knowledge work appears to be a long-standing open problem.
People are focusing on the mention of email but that's just a detail. What Newport is really onto here is horrible state of office organization, of which having to deal with email is just a symptom.
The hive mind arises because instead of having 1 or two people handle things like coordinating a meeting, everyone involved has to coordinate with everyone else.
> Rather than strategic thinkers, managers work as human switchboards, answering and forwarding dozens of emails on any and every topic to keep the system from seizing up.
You could take out "email" and replace it with "slack threads" or "text messages", or just about any other tech, and you'd still have the same problem: there's no sane organization any more, just a bunch of people running around trying to connect and work with each other.
The hive mind arises because instead of having 1 or two people handle things like coordinating a meeting, everyone involved has to coordinate with everyone else.
> Rather than strategic thinkers, managers work as human switchboards, answering and forwarding dozens of emails on any and every topic to keep the system from seizing up.
You could take out "email" and replace it with "slack threads" or "text messages", or just about any other tech, and you'd still have the same problem: there's no sane organization any more, just a bunch of people running around trying to connect and work with each other.
I'm only part way through the book, but agree with this assessment.
I know I try to create ways of automating or semi-automating things to not be in e-mail or slack. The problem I have is that people just direct their reports to e-mail me or @me in slack. I think that's likely because of the "hyperactive hivemind" where that's the quickest way for them to move a task on.
Likewise I see the problem he mentions where people half-ass an e-mail just to move it out of their inbox. I have to fight not to do that myself and it's usually when someone wants "one thing", but that one thing is actually 3+ high level things with other sub-tasks that need to be accomplished.
I know I try to create ways of automating or semi-automating things to not be in e-mail or slack. The problem I have is that people just direct their reports to e-mail me or @me in slack. I think that's likely because of the "hyperactive hivemind" where that's the quickest way for them to move a task on.
Likewise I see the problem he mentions where people half-ass an e-mail just to move it out of their inbox. I have to fight not to do that myself and it's usually when someone wants "one thing", but that one thing is actually 3+ high level things with other sub-tasks that need to be accomplished.
This is what I thought too.
"And if any individual tries to opt out and focus on one thing for an entire day, they’re throwing a wrench in the ‘hyperactive hive mind’, which explains why calls for individual discipline have done so little to fix the problem."
Another HN thread recently linked the essay "Meditations on Moloch," which among other things talks about multi-polar traps, things like the prisoner's dilemma in which the players are incentivized to defect. I never thought of the email problem this way, but it definitely feels right now that I think about it.
I'm privileged to work somewhere where my bosses specifically tell me to turn off my email and just pair program with someone, but honestly I still leave my chats up and allow myself to be constantly diverted. I've clearly internalized this way of working and the fear of being "rude" or whatever by not instantaneously responding to the point where it's the natural way I work. This is in spite of the fact that it's something I work to break out of.
Another HN thread recently linked the essay "Meditations on Moloch," which among other things talks about multi-polar traps, things like the prisoner's dilemma in which the players are incentivized to defect. I never thought of the email problem this way, but it definitely feels right now that I think about it.
I'm privileged to work somewhere where my bosses specifically tell me to turn off my email and just pair program with someone, but honestly I still leave my chats up and allow myself to be constantly diverted. I've clearly internalized this way of working and the fear of being "rude" or whatever by not instantaneously responding to the point where it's the natural way I work. This is in spite of the fact that it's something I work to break out of.
> Usually after six hours of real actual work they need to go home and rest.
People think I'm nuts when I bring up a 6 hour work day. I do my best work in 6 hours, the rest isn't my best even if I'm still productive. Things I do during my personal time are part of what I bring to the table. When work takes away from fulfillment outside of work then I have less to offer.
People think I'm nuts when I bring up a 6 hour work day. I do my best work in 6 hours, the rest isn't my best even if I'm still productive. Things I do during my personal time are part of what I bring to the table. When work takes away from fulfillment outside of work then I have less to offer.
Every single communication product that I tried which was meant to replace email, had a worse impact on my productivity than email itself.
If you want to change the rules of communication in the workplace, sure let's have a discussion. But that doesn't have anything to do with email vs. some other tool.
If you think the problem is some protocol (as in email protocol) or some client[1]... Then my BS detector will go off.
[1] I recognise that some email clients are better than others. It should also be noted that email is one of the few communication modes where you are free to choose whatever client you want, so thee argument "email is bad because Client X is bad" doesn't really hold.
If you want to change the rules of communication in the workplace, sure let's have a discussion. But that doesn't have anything to do with email vs. some other tool.
If you think the problem is some protocol (as in email protocol) or some client[1]... Then my BS detector will go off.
[1] I recognise that some email clients are better than others. It should also be noted that email is one of the few communication modes where you are free to choose whatever client you want, so thee argument "email is bad because Client X is bad" doesn't really hold.
I think asynchronous communication (https://blog.doist.com/asynchronous-communication/) moves in the right direction on this.
99% of things are not urgent, and people should not be expected to be available instantaneously. But implementing that requires discipline on the part of the person sending the message.
99% of things are not urgent, and people should not be expected to be available instantaneously. But implementing that requires discipline on the part of the person sending the message.
This seems good but falls apart with.long approval chains (which are maybe the core issue).
If I need library PR approved so I can make a service 1 PR so I can make a production release request so that I can deploy a one line change then it's hard to get things done with 4 hour ping time.
If I need library PR approved so I can make a service 1 PR so I can make a production release request so that I can deploy a one line change then it's hard to get things done with 4 hour ping time.
I get the sense that the real problem isn't so much synchronous communication but the need to get information or reconcile state with a specific person. If any team member was equally capable of providing input, each individual would only have to poll 1/n as often
Interesting, but a person who prefers to poll once a day in the morning, perhaps, gets nothing because there's someone else who prefers to poll at the end of the day. How do you allow them the flexibility to design their schedule?
My best guess would be a pre-arranged "on call" schedule where a shuffled set of blocks of time are reserved / allocated to each team member
> By contrast, most knowledge work today operates with no deliberate structure at all. Instead of carefully constructed processes to get the most out of each person, we just hand out tasks and leave people to organise themselves organically in whatever way feels easiest to them.
I've very much felt this pain in a few of my roles. I understand the need for this sort of many-hats-wearing, elbow-greased approach to solving business problems in a startup. But it's infuriating working in late-stage startups (or even mid-sized tech companies) that fail to get away from this 'throw people at the problem' mentality and spend the time and resources to explicitly define what the business' core processes are and how they work.
I know not everyone thinks about problems in terms of process flows, but it still drives me crazy!
I've very much felt this pain in a few of my roles. I understand the need for this sort of many-hats-wearing, elbow-greased approach to solving business problems in a startup. But it's infuriating working in late-stage startups (or even mid-sized tech companies) that fail to get away from this 'throw people at the problem' mentality and spend the time and resources to explicitly define what the business' core processes are and how they work.
I know not everyone thinks about problems in terms of process flows, but it still drives me crazy!
I think The Phoenix Project does a pretty good job of diagnosing the problem: in knowledge work, the WIP is generally not visible. Not only that, the WIP often consists of simply entries in a database or files on a hard drive, so there is effectively an infinite capacity for creating and storing more WIP.
Even with well-defined processes, poor instrumentation for revealing the true scale of the backlog at each stage can lead to this “always firefighting” mode of operation.
Even with well-defined processes, poor instrumentation for revealing the true scale of the backlog at each stage can lead to this “always firefighting” mode of operation.
I barely use email, I wish we came back to more email and letting me decide when to answer it vs "always on" immediate response Slack.
I love email, ya it takes some control and if your organization is out of control it can suck. But I love the entire concept.
I can email anyone in the world, that is mind blowing. I've gotten amazing responses from authors whose books I love, people I admire, old friends I lost contact with and found, etc...
I can email anyone in the world, that is mind blowing. I've gotten amazing responses from authors whose books I love, people I admire, old friends I lost contact with and found, etc...
Here are my shower thoughts on this subject - since I have been bombarded with emails at all times, and been guilty of now having to address them.
In my dream setup, there are 2 kinds of emails, and the onus is set by the sender of the email.
1) The priority email - in which the sender expects a single person receiver to act on specific aspects, as soon as the receiver is able to.
The receiver gets the email asap, and because he receives less emails, he can address it. Like a hot potato, if there is more info he needs, he can pass it around the same way.
Everyone else is on cc or bcc - and these folks get it delivered to them as #2 below.
This email has only 1 person in the 'To' field, and if there are many, then the system makes it so that everyone in the 'To' field get the email as #2 below.
2) The FYI email - this email is sent by the sender, but is kept in a safe place till the receiver pulls for it.
The sender is made aware that the receiver has pulled for it or not, and if the sender is not satisfied with the speed of response, this email can be upgraded into #1.
---
I think this does not change too much of the systems, just small tweaks to workflow, and is something that can be achieved if the team puts their mind to it.
In my dream setup, there are 2 kinds of emails, and the onus is set by the sender of the email.
1) The priority email - in which the sender expects a single person receiver to act on specific aspects, as soon as the receiver is able to.
The receiver gets the email asap, and because he receives less emails, he can address it. Like a hot potato, if there is more info he needs, he can pass it around the same way.
Everyone else is on cc or bcc - and these folks get it delivered to them as #2 below.
This email has only 1 person in the 'To' field, and if there are many, then the system makes it so that everyone in the 'To' field get the email as #2 below.
2) The FYI email - this email is sent by the sender, but is kept in a safe place till the receiver pulls for it.
The sender is made aware that the receiver has pulled for it or not, and if the sender is not satisfied with the speed of response, this email can be upgraded into #1.
---
I think this does not change too much of the systems, just small tweaks to workflow, and is something that can be achieved if the team puts their mind to it.
Front[1] is for customer-facing teams but functions roughly like this.
Teams collaborate on a shared inbox but Rules can route emails so they only show up in one individual’s inbox. With this setup, everyone else can still text or tag search and find the email but it’s only in the inbox of the person it is assigned to. If you are the lead for a given project then you’ll receive the client emails in your inbox but the rest of your team in To: or CC: will not. If you used to be the lead for something, handed it off months ago, and the client continues to include you on emails, you won’t see those emails because they’ll be assigned to the current lead.
[1] https://front.com/
edit: I guess this is still missing the sender intent component. A similar setup to what I mentioned above could be created for a single gmail inbox using rules and folders but the system falls apart without the sender being in on it.
Teams collaborate on a shared inbox but Rules can route emails so they only show up in one individual’s inbox. With this setup, everyone else can still text or tag search and find the email but it’s only in the inbox of the person it is assigned to. If you are the lead for a given project then you’ll receive the client emails in your inbox but the rest of your team in To: or CC: will not. If you used to be the lead for something, handed it off months ago, and the client continues to include you on emails, you won’t see those emails because they’ll be assigned to the current lead.
[1] https://front.com/
edit: I guess this is still missing the sender intent component. A similar setup to what I mentioned above could be created for a single gmail inbox using rules and folders but the system falls apart without the sender being in on it.
But this happens on a completely different UX, right...
I am thinking of a product that is built on top of existing clients like Outlook etc, and implements a set of rules and prevents emails from going out, explains why it blocks the sending etc.
I am thinking of a product that is built on top of existing clients like Outlook etc, and implements a set of rules and prevents emails from going out, explains why it blocks the sending etc.
Sounds like JIRA?
In Cal Newport's latest book what he winds up suggesting is pretty much Jira.
Which is amusing to anyone who has worked with such systems for 10+ years. Yes they improve things, but well, there are still loads of issues with where old knowledge is and so on.
Of course it's in a wiki, the current one, or the old one, or maybe in Sharepoint....
Which is amusing to anyone who has worked with such systems for 10+ years. Yes they improve things, but well, there are still loads of issues with where old knowledge is and so on.
Of course it's in a wiki, the current one, or the old one, or maybe in Sharepoint....
to an extent, yes. However, it still uses the email protocols, etc. The more the underlying system changes, then its harder to replace the system.
A lot of what I was suggesting could be implemented as client-side rules?
---
The 'priority email' is assigned to a person, and when the task is completed, no one is put in the 'to' and everyone who needs to know is in the 'cc'.
Further categories can be created to automatically 'archive' this, and maybe a weekend summary email - showing the completed and WIP ones.
---
One of my pet peeves is folks using the same subject line, while changing the purpose of the email, or not using one at all.
I am hoping that AI can be used to catch these kind of emails somehow and make the sender improve it.
A lot of what I was suggesting could be implemented as client-side rules?
---
The 'priority email' is assigned to a person, and when the task is completed, no one is put in the 'to' and everyone who needs to know is in the 'cc'.
Further categories can be created to automatically 'archive' this, and maybe a weekend summary email - showing the completed and WIP ones.
---
One of my pet peeves is folks using the same subject line, while changing the purpose of the email, or not using one at all.
I am hoping that AI can be used to catch these kind of emails somehow and make the sender improve it.
> How about just not needing an email address?
Simply don't understand this, I am not person with great writing skills, but I prefer email most of the time, because to me it is more concise communication medium without time pressure, when it is up to me, usually my work pattern is like this ( emails -> chart -> may be meeting ) or ( emails -> meeting(s) ).
Simply don't understand this, I am not person with great writing skills, but I prefer email most of the time, because to me it is more concise communication medium without time pressure, when it is up to me, usually my work pattern is like this ( emails -> chart -> may be meeting ) or ( emails -> meeting(s) ).
'Email' seems to be a trigger word for a lot of people, but I never see Slack or IM mentioned in these discussions. Slack is just as disruptive in my experience.
I long for the days when email was the only medium of electronic communication. Now it's email, Slack, Basecamp, Teams, Jira and Zoom.
I long for the days when email was the only medium of electronic communication. Now it's email, Slack, Basecamp, Teams, Jira and Zoom.
These thing’s are highly subjective and being on both ends of the spectrum doesn’t help someone. Email is bad no; email are perfect of course not. As long as it make your life easier and productive it’s a good thing.
Email is just a tool. Unlike powertools it doesn't remove limbs or leave gaping wounds, but you still have to use it safely and in a manner that doesn't destroy your productivity and mental health.
Personally, I don't even have email running all day. I just start the mail client about an hour before I am leaving the office, answer the important emails, delete or forward most others. And I get lots of work done!
Personally, I don't even have email running all day. I just start the mail client about an hour before I am leaving the office, answer the important emails, delete or forward most others. And I get lots of work done!
Disagree with the host that the net effect of 10x increase on productivity on climate change would be a wash. If production capacity increases that much faster than social consciousness and direction of capital, the result will be catastrophic for climate change. Boosting productivity should be explicitly done in tandem with using that increase in a way that's beneficial to humanity and not just profitable.
Everyone is responding to the email part but in the actual interview Cal claimed pair programming is 10x more productive than non-pair programming.
Anyone have any experience to back that up?
Anyone have any experience to back that up?
Article discusses the problem, but does not discuss solutions much. About the only concrete statement involves "column based task boards".
He seems to have no sense of how IP law could stifle the benefit to humanity. He assumes that no matter who innovates something very useful, that it will spread to everyone's workflow. I think the host was correct to suggest that the government should fund this research, as you might be able to ensure it's available for public benefit and not "owned" (licensed?) by Atlassian or whoever it may be.
Not to mention he only describes the benefit in terms of dollars of profit to companies. Broaden your scope of the potential benefit to humanity!
Not to mention he only describes the benefit in terms of dollars of profit to companies. Broaden your scope of the potential benefit to humanity!
There are a large number of process management tools out there, not just Atlassian. If your office is more creative, they could adopt one of the BPMN-based or similarly generic tools and build out their own processes properly instead of trying to shoehorn everything into whatever Atlassian is pushing.
He talks about two benefits: One for the companies (profit and real improvements in productivity), one for the employees (better focus means less unpaid OT answering after hours emails and texts, or even paid OT that still leads to burnout). The reason to focus on that former one is that it's pretty much the best way to convince the people who care most about profits (that is, people at the top of the hierarchy) to care about something. Not that they don't care about employee wellbeing at all (though some may be truly uncaring), but it's too remote from their present position or too low a priority compared to keeping the company operating.
That's why he talks about how in this case he thinks incentives (in particular between management, shareholders, and employees) are actually aligned to potentially produce a win-win.
He talks about two benefits: One for the companies (profit and real improvements in productivity), one for the employees (better focus means less unpaid OT answering after hours emails and texts, or even paid OT that still leads to burnout). The reason to focus on that former one is that it's pretty much the best way to convince the people who care most about profits (that is, people at the top of the hierarchy) to care about something. Not that they don't care about employee wellbeing at all (though some may be truly uncaring), but it's too remote from their present position or too low a priority compared to keeping the company operating.
That's why he talks about how in this case he thinks incentives (in particular between management, shareholders, and employees) are actually aligned to potentially produce a win-win.
I don't think framing the world as employers and employees is the right way to reconcile with a potential 10x increase in human productivity. We could consider making employers obsolete at that point. At this point in time, it isn't certain that employers (or capital, largely) will own the benefits of this 10x, is it? Can we make sure to wield it for the benefit of humanity? This is potentially beyond the scale of individual companies, if we don't let them eat all the profits.
> Cal Newport: But this had a huge impact on the ability of those frontline workers to produce the work that actually was measured, the work that actually brings profit into the organization, because now they had to wrangle with word processors and they had to wrangle with email and they had to wrangle, later on, with these intranet forums where they’re trying to enter in their travel reimbursement, and they’re trying to do their conflict of interest declaration in some sort of weird format that makes life really easy for the HR department, but takes up the whole afternoon. And you ended up having to hire more of the frontline workers to get the same amount of work done. Their salaries were more expensive than the support staff. You actually ended up worse off. [emphasis added]
This is one of the big ones. My previous office took a 10-year break from having real support staff. They tallied the numbers (because time entry was detailed enough) and realized that with 1200 or so engineers and scientists each having to do their own training reports, HR paperwork, travel planning and financial reporting, they were costing themselves a huge amount of money. They ended up hiring small support teams for some of this work at a fraction of the previous cost (numbers not coming to mind so I'm not including them, but the support teams totaled to under 20 people, I just can't remember if it was closer to 10 or 20). The savings showed up within the first couple of months as the new staff quickly become experts (from doing it constantly) in the work and people handed off the non-core work to them.
Specialists in mundane "administrivia" (essential but not necessarily interesting) work don't cost a lot, but can save a company a ton of time and money in the end.
> I actually think, and this is a provocative claim, a lot of economists don’t agree with me here, but I think actually in the non-industrial sector, so in knowledge work, productivity has actually been going down. The only reason why it looks stagnant is that we have added a lot of off-the-book hours in the early morning and the evening.
My present team is definitely guilty of this. I, personally, refuse. At 1630, my work day is done. The most I'll respond to (because we support multiple sites) is a text asking if I can be at some specific location the next day. I will not write up a report (official on my work computer or unofficial as an answer to a question over text, if it's actually important I'll have already sent an email during the work day). The rest of the team is not as effective at quitting at the end of the day (as evidenced by the 50 messages I just saw on that muted text thread they have going). They aren't getting paid for this time spent thinking and communicating about work, they're all salaried (by my contract I'm paid by the hour, I'll accept the 1 minute or so every week for the "where can you be" question, but nothing more).
This is one of the big ones. My previous office took a 10-year break from having real support staff. They tallied the numbers (because time entry was detailed enough) and realized that with 1200 or so engineers and scientists each having to do their own training reports, HR paperwork, travel planning and financial reporting, they were costing themselves a huge amount of money. They ended up hiring small support teams for some of this work at a fraction of the previous cost (numbers not coming to mind so I'm not including them, but the support teams totaled to under 20 people, I just can't remember if it was closer to 10 or 20). The savings showed up within the first couple of months as the new staff quickly become experts (from doing it constantly) in the work and people handed off the non-core work to them.
Specialists in mundane "administrivia" (essential but not necessarily interesting) work don't cost a lot, but can save a company a ton of time and money in the end.
> I actually think, and this is a provocative claim, a lot of economists don’t agree with me here, but I think actually in the non-industrial sector, so in knowledge work, productivity has actually been going down. The only reason why it looks stagnant is that we have added a lot of off-the-book hours in the early morning and the evening.
My present team is definitely guilty of this. I, personally, refuse. At 1630, my work day is done. The most I'll respond to (because we support multiple sites) is a text asking if I can be at some specific location the next day. I will not write up a report (official on my work computer or unofficial as an answer to a question over text, if it's actually important I'll have already sent an email during the work day). The rest of the team is not as effective at quitting at the end of the day (as evidenced by the 50 messages I just saw on that muted text thread they have going). They aren't getting paid for this time spent thinking and communicating about work, they're all salaried (by my contract I'm paid by the hour, I'll accept the 1 minute or so every week for the "where can you be" question, but nothing more).
> The rest of the team is not as effective at quitting at the end of the day
In my experience, the older one gets the more effective one is at setting these limits.
Is that also your experience?
In my experience, the older one gets the more effective one is at setting these limits.
Is that also your experience?
In general, yes. Though in this office I’m the youngest (at 38) and I’m the best at it. Being paid hourly may help, if they want more they have to pay me. The rest are salaried.
I was definitely awful about working excessive hours in my 20s, but once paid OT was off the table, I kicked that habit quick. Even when it came back, I would work OT on occasion, but I realized I enjoyed my life more than work.
I was definitely awful about working excessive hours in my 20s, but once paid OT was off the table, I kicked that habit quick. Even when it came back, I would work OT on occasion, but I realized I enjoyed my life more than work.
There’s no comments in here yet, but I cant possibly read the article. Guess Ill go check Slack.
"He spent 1/3 of his time at work answering emails!" Outrageous!
vs.
"He spent 1/3 of his time at work communicating with the other workers." Yeah sounds about right, if not a little low.
The other thing nagging at me is that this feels like Cal Newport woke up one day, got annoyed at his inbox and wrote a whole book about it. I'm all for re-thinking and re-designing, but I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of people who hate email or whatever, and want to re-make the world in that image. It's like the people who get all pissy when it's raining out. Tony Soprano would say, ay it's fuckin' raining, but whaddyagonnadoo.
Interruptions, yes, those are harmful. But that's why there's email. I guarantee an email is easier to delay than someone calling, instant-messaging or physically approaching you. It's got "mail" right there in the name; far as I'm concerned that means you have free license to delay for a day or multiple days, just like the postal service. Check it once or twice a day, during times when you're not trying to concentrate, and then close out of it. Anything useful, copy it to where it belongs (task list, calendar, etc.). If it needs action at some point, mark it "Pending." After that, archive that shit and forget it. If you get too much, tell people to stop sending it. Or just take so long replying that they stop. I dunno.