Cal Newport, whose writing I enjoy and respect, has been going on a tirade against email of late. He’s been making some very good arguments against answering email.
I just thought I’d provide the counterpoint. I think Cal’s advice probably works well for researchers – I can understand that there’s enough going on with having to teach students while pursuing research and email must be a distraction. Also, Cal must receive multiple speaking and interview requests that must be a drain on his time and just distraction in his attempts to be a superstar computer scientist. But, if you are working in the connection economy where working with other human beings is a critical part of building something meaningful, then email is an important part of making and building those connections.
Yes, people overdo it by spending all their time responding to emails. That doesn’t make the essence bad. I’ve met so many wonderful people and had access to some really cool opportunities thanks to email that I would not have otherwise had. I also know many busy and productive folk who are attentive and responsive. If done well, I think the discipline and responsiveness can serve us very well. Additionally, just as many tout phone calls to be a big time saver (and they are in the case of long discussions), emails can be a useful time saver for short interactions, follow up, and status checks.
So, set some boundaries if you will but answer your email. Set aside 30 minutes in the morning to clear your email and respond to anything that can be answered within 2 minutes during the day. At the very least, give this arrangement a shot for 3 months and see how you feel about it. Inbox zero is a wonderful thing.
A Learning a Day 