To find the concept of "sparing your inbox" ridiculous and unachievable

[Thepeopleversuswork]

I get something like 400 emails a day at work on an average day. I work in a fairly fast-paced role but it can't be that unusual. People naturally sometimes struggle to keep on top of emails and grumble about it but it is what it is. A lot of what we do is team based so in the nature of the job its necessary to include anything from three to ten team members in an email so people are aware of what's happening even if not directly relevant to them. This means you sometimes end up with a lot of spam or irrelevant email.

Periodically someone will come up with the bright idea of trying to reduce inbox traffic and there will be invocations to not "reply all" to people saying "thanks" etc and campaigns to 'spare inboxes'. A completely understandable sentiment but it never works: in the ten plus years I've worked at my company this has been tried at least five times, usually by a newcomer, always without success, and always quietly dropped.

More recently someone has come up with the idea of "sanctioning" repeat offenders who reply all under what is being called the "spare you inbox" policy. The idea is that people who reply all improperly will be subject to some as yet unspecified sanction.

AIBU to think its futile to try to contain this and trying to mandate it is a bit nuts? It's like trying to hold back the tide. Cutting down on one or two unnecessary emails out of several hundred a day won't touch the sides. Also because in the nature of the work you have to have visibility across what's happening so better for people to have one or two pointless emails a day they can delete than miss something important? And ultimately because it's impossible to police this during a busy working day and giving people sanctions for stuff like this is going to create unnecessary resentment.

I think the whole idea of 'sparing your inbox' (which you see all the time in the world of work) is a nonsense and the answer is just to ignore or delete the emails rather than creating even more pointless and burdensome email etiquette?

Sounds annoying but I do think it's a good idea, at least in principle. Normalising "thanks in advance" or just an assumed politeness sounds better!

Also - hate email culture as it is. I'm always tempted to delete all my emails from my personal inbox but then always panic about deleting something really important. I'd love to get less!

Yabu

400 emails a day is insane and I would want people to cut down on unnecessary "thank you" emails and cc'ing me in on stuff.

How do you get any actual work done? There are 450 minutes in an average work day so even if you only spend a minute dealing with each one you are left with just 50 minutes to do actual work, with no toilet breaks or time to go and grab a drink.

Maybe just filter them. I have a ton of filters that redirect mine to various folders. With thunderbird you can create rules really easily as to how they are handled.

The advantage of filtering is that they are always there if you wish to go back and review. Every now and then I have a quiet minute I go back over one of the folders. And I'll normally hear from the local buzz if something needs to be looked at that has been filed without being viewed.

yabu, it’s an important skill for people to learn (not to do pointless reply alls etc) most of it is common sense, and will save time in the long run if actually followed through on. It’s a good thing

I agree it's important to learn to manage email. I just find the idea of mandating it a bit ludicrous.

Mainly because there are so many grey areas about what is "essential" vs "useful" vs spam. It's easy enough to request that people don't send an email saying "thanks" to 50 recipients, but having the email police retrospectively go through traffic and identify poor use of email just seems a complete waste of time and resources.

It's insane I agree, it's a very hard-driving, information overload culture and people get driven nuts by it.

Management have grappled with it for years, realising it's unsustainable. I just don't think adding another layer of policing/self-policing to people who are already struggling with workload is the solution.

What would you say is the solution then?

Deleting it more regularly and people getting into the habit of deleting email as they go. Better filtering (if needed). Basically allowing people to use their best judgement as opposed to micromanaging them.

I was cc’d in a long series of emails this afternoon, all of which basically said ‘Thanks, have a nice weekend’. There was no need for it.

A lot of emails, particularly short ones, would be better sent in a messaging app like Teams so you can scroll though a lot at once instead of having to open lots of individual emails.

I might send an email to four people one of whom will need to action it. If they don’t reply all then I find it annoying as then I have to reply all telling the other people the issue is sorted. Or ask a question that other need to know so I copy relaxant parties I or send to a group. I don’t do the thanks just use the thumbs up reaction. In fact I don’t reply unless I need to.

It's a cultural thing, that can't be changed by policies. We've moved over to teams chat for all internal comms which has helped massively with reducing inboxes.
Also moving to shared inboxes for external comms, those are managed by admin staff who filter the relevant stuff through to the appropriate people.

People who ‘reply all’ with things like ‘thanks’ or ‘will do’ are fucking idiots and need to be told.

I am really curious OP, what industry you are in…? 400 really seems a lot!

If you literally just email all day, how are any of you doing any other work to email about?

Reducing emails is not micro managing. I'm sure they'd rather not troll for unnecessary emails but if it's the only way to get you all to be reasonable, you're stuck with it.

That is a ridiculous number of emails - you can't be properly reading every one and digesting the full information.

Can't you have a shared mailbox these "for info" emails go to instead, so you still see everything and can search for things or skim through. Then keep your personal inbox focused on emails you really need to read?

Exactly. Of course it's annoying when someone replies "thanks" to 100 people. But it's not something you can police.

Teams chat is part of the solution, I agree. Although people moan about overload on this as well. I don't think there's any perfect solution but people need to be allowed to use their judgement.

There’s a couple of worthwhile things we introduced, but agree hard to reduce, it’s more around how to get through them quicker

1. auto filtering. Does work
2. using title of email as text and eom after- maximum of 1 line. Saves opening the message. Great for simple “thanks” “done” “follow up”
3. questioing value add of every cc you add…a structured way to question and eliminate if not actually adding value
4. the “to” people: must be people who need to take action, or be informed of decision that directly impacts them …otherwise remove them
5. summary: every email over a paragraph must have 2 line summary at start, then background section, then what I need/impact/ decision- massive helps when reading hundreds that have already passed above meticulous use of moving emails onto folders ..not one large in box
6. nuclear option: park emails and don’t respond to repeat offenders of unnecessary emails. When you miss something that is key, point out “crying wolf” noise impact. Usually helps

You need a better communication system. 400 emails a day is mad. I prefer to use a project management tool where you comment on a specific project.

Surely you just spend all day managing emails? I'd recommend cal Newport books world without email (provocative title) and deep work.

I agree it's nuts. We spend most of our day either emailing or on Teams calls, but have to generate prodigious amounts of written work on top of it. The reality is the written work gets done at evenings or weekends. It's a nightmare but that's another story.

The thing is that over 90% of email traffic is necessary for at least one person on the thread. If you send email to only one person and exclude others on that team the others will complain about lack of visibility.

There's no perfect solution and people obviously need to exercise their judgement. I think it's reasonable to complain when people spam others in the office. But I don't think "sanctioning" people who overuse email in this scenario is workable.

I’d think it’s a great idea!
People email me all the time to get me to do things. They are aware that I will not respond. They know I will get the job done but I’m not wasting my time saying “I’ll do it”. I also despise people saying “thanks”. There’s no need.

Management have grappled with it for years, realising it's unsustainable.

It is actually a sustainability issues. All those emails add up and carry a significant environmental cost in bulk.

Do you regularly
Print a page you don't need and immediately bin it?
Leave a light on in an empty room?
Send an elevator up one extra floor for no reason?
Leave a tap running while brushing your teeth?

Probably not.
The environmental cost of one email is tiny, but the problem is scale.

It is also a waste of human resources.

The thing is that over 90% of email traffic is necessary for at least one person on the thread. If you send email to only one person and exclude others on that team the others will complain about lack of visibility.

There are systems and processes to address transparency. Reply all is not it.

Agree. It is really incredibly annoying and unnecessary.

Seriously, read World without Email. You need a communication plan. This is such a wildly inefficient and stressful way to work, it's completely unsustainable.