Four Overlooked Email Risks: II

In Part I of this series, we explored how email exchanges are susceptible to differences in the elapsed time between someone authoring a message and its recipients reading it. We called that elapsed time end-to-end latency. One consequence of what we called "end-to-end latency" is a lengthening of the time window during which incorrect message content might be mistakenly regarded as correct. In this Part II, we examine two more consequences of end-to-end latency.

Scrambled time order

Because of variations in latency, the time order (either receipt or origination) of contributions can differ from what would have been their time order if the conversation had been conducted in a synchronous medium environment, such as telephone, teleconference, or face-to-face. For example, in a synchronous medium, time order of contributions is identical for all participants. Not so in email, because of variations in end-to-end latency.

During the During the end-to-end latency
period of a given message,
the conversation can evolve in
ways that render the message
irrelevant, incorrect, or
worse — incorrect but
regarded as correctend-to-end latency period of a given message, the conversation can evolve in ways that render the message irrelevant, incorrect, or worse — incorrect but regarded as correct. Any recipients who read their email in forward time order of receipt (or origination) might be wasting their time, especially if they try to respond to a message that has been overtaken by events. This problem is amplified if they actually send responses based on an outdated understanding of the situation.

To manage this risk, some recipients might read their email in reverse time order of receipt (or origination). But they might have difficulty understanding later messages due to lack of context knowledge and backward references.

Polychronicity

In most synchronous meetings there's some control of the current topic. With more than three to five participants, the chair or facilitator calls on individuals, who are then expected to offer relevant contributions. In smaller meetings, cultural norms usually provide a relevance constraint that similarly ensures that contributions relate to the current topic. Such a conversation structure is called monochronic — it addresses one topic at a time.

By contrast, few email exchanges are facilitated. They are therefore more likely to be polychronic — addressing two or more topics concurrently. Participants are free to contribute whatever they want whenever they want. And because of variations in end-to-end latency, contributions to a particular topic can continue to appear even after most participants regard the topic as closed. The resulting structure might contain multiple "threads," developing in one intertwined and sometimes-confusing jumble. In some cases, a single message might contain contributions to multiple threads.

Some groups try to limit the confusion by means of email subject lines. By carefully pairing their contributions with appropriate subject lines, they can make conversation threads more obvious. But there is no central control. Each contributor is responsible for choosing the right subject line, and deviations are common. And topics can be reopened at any time. Often, confusion reigns.

The results we achieve with email are different from — and often inferior to — the results we would have achieved with actual conversation, either by telephone or face-to-face. Yet we use email because we choose not to spend resources on travel or state-of-the-art video conferencing. The choice might or might not be justified economically, but most organizations don't know, because they don't track the cost of bad decisions. First in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you so buried in email that you don't even have time to delete your spam? Do you miss important messages? So many of the problems we have with email are actually within our power to solve, if we just realize the consequences of our own actions. Read 101 Tips for Writing and Managing Email to learn how to make peace with your inbox. Order Now!

And if you have organizational responsibility, you can help transform the culture to make more effective use of email. You can reduce volume while you make content more valuable. You can discourage email flame wars and that blizzard of useless if well-intended messages from colleagues and subordinates. Read Where There's Smoke There's Email to learn how to make email more productive at the organizational scale — and less dangerous. Order Now!

Reader Comments

By Baylis, HigherEdByBaylis LLC

For all 40 years of my active academic career as a college administrator, I believed that face-to-face communication was preferable to written communications. However, one afternoon, that all changed. As the result of the implosion of a benign meningioma due to a burst an aneurysm produced two life-changing events. It was as if a switch was thrown in my head and my thinking was no longer verbally based. I found myself thinking visually. I read or heard words my mind immediately went to a visual picture. I had to process that picture visually. To communicate back, I had to translate the pictures back into words. Responses will no longer instantaneous. I was fighting a fiendish deficiency, which I call "oral aphasia." I can no longer count on calling up words on demand. In order to have a meaningful oral conversation, I must rehearse what I intend to say before I utter the phrases.

For the past decade, email has become my preferred means of communication because I have time to process my thoughts into appropriate language.

Although I stated earlier that as an administrator I preferred face-to-face communication, early in my career I came to the realization that there were times when the written word was absolutely necessary. In legal terms, a verbal contract is not binding.

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Irrational Self-Interest

When we try to influence others, especially large groups or entire companies, we sometimes create packages of incentives and disincentives that are intended to affect behavior. These strategies usually assume that people make choices on rational grounds. Is this assumption valid?

Presenting to Persuade

Successful, persuasive presentations involve a whole lot more than PowerPoint skills. What does it take to present persuasively, with power?

Changing the Subject: I

Whether in small group discussions, large meetings, or chats between friends, changing the subject of the conversation can be constructive, mischievous, frustrating, creative, tension relieving, necessary, devious, or outright malicious. What techniques do we use to change the subject, and how can we cope with them?

Bemused Detachment

Much of the difficulty between people at work is avoidable if only we can find ways to slow down our responses to each other. When we hurry, we react without thinking. Here's a suggestion for increasing comity by slowing down.

Exasperation Generators: Irrelevant Detail

When people relate stories at work, what seems important to one person can feel irrelevant to someone else. Being subjected to one irrelevant detail after another can be as exasperating as being told repeatedly to get to the point. How can we find a balance?

See also Effective Communication at Work and Writing and Managing Email for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 7: Reaching Agreements in Technological Contexts

Reaching consensus in technological contexts presents special challenges. Problems can arise from interactions between the technological elements of the issue at hand, and the social dynamics of the group addressing that issue. Here are three examples. Available here and by RSS on December 7.

And on December 14: Straw Man Variants

The straw man fallacy is a famous rhetorical fallacy. Using it distorts debate and can lead groups to reach faulty conclusions. It's ad readily recognized, but it has some variants that are more difficult to spot. When unnoticed, trouble looms. Available here and by RSS on December 14.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info