How has email evolved?

Email was designed as a messaging tool, for sending clear, unequivocal, unemotional and preferably short messages. That has not changed in the 30 years it has been around, but what has changed is its accessibility. It is no longer confined to a few boffins or geeks with large computers. Today everyone, everywhere, can use emails at any time to send and exchange information anywhere, from the smallest to largest computer. You don’t need permission to send an email as you did in the early days of its use in business. Email software has become more and more sophisticated and feature-rich. However, whatever email software you use (from Notes to Outlook to Googlemail), its core purpose is to be a simple messaging system. This is something most of us forget as we hit ‘Send’ without giving a thought to the alternatives available to us.

Speed versus depth and breadth of communications

Email is easy, always on and takes little effort. Other options may require more effort and time. With email you get a very blinkered dialogue, whereas even a short conversation often reveals information about other seemingly unrelated, yet often important, topics (a cursory reference to a job vacancy, a way someone else handled a difficult customer, a new competitor, the opportunity for a new story, etc.)

With one client we had an email-free afternoon as part of a major internal campaign to improve efficiency through better use of email. One senior director openly spoke about how, after walking and talking to several colleagues, he had a far greater insight into what people were doing, their workload and the depth and breadth of activities with which his department was involved.

Most people quite rightly think that email is quicker and that using the phone can take much longer. For instance, suppose you wanted the opinion of five key colleagues about a short proposal or document. Using email, this might take a maximum of 15 minutes (five to send the email and ten to scan their responses). By phone the minimum is around 30 to 45 minutes – five minutes per person and then at least five minutes to assimilate their comments.

If speed equals productivity, then email wins hands down. But is this the correct way to make a judgement about communications?

Minimising misunderstandings and communicating more accurately

A framework called ‘media richness’ was developed by Daft and Lengel. The aim was to categorise different communications channels by their ability to allow the sender to communicate information accurately, without it being misunderstood by the recipient. In an age where the norm is email or text messaging, this concept can help you decide when to use alternatives to email.

Based on this, an overview of the current array of ways to communicate is shown in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Spectrum of communications media

The conclusion was that the more surrounding body language and gestures that accompany a message, the richer and so more easily understood it will be. Therefore, the richer the communication medium, the better it is for conveying complex and emotive messages, especially those easily open to differing interpretations, such as reviewing performance, a lost sale, negotiating a deal.

Using a ‘rich’ communication medium like a face-to-face meeting allows any misunderstandings or misperceptions to be quickly corrected and the communications re-aligned. A simpler or ‘lean’ medium like text messaging and email has no associated context. Once the message has been received and misinterpreted it can take time to re-align understandings and retrieve a situation.

Additionally, the longer the gap between the misunderstanding and the opportunity to rectify it, the harder it can become to retrieve the situation because the incorrect picture will have become established in the recipient’s mind.

Drawing on the ‘media richness’ framework, here are the three rules of thumb for making decisions and choosing the optimum communications channel:

Media richness at work – justifying the choice

A simple medium like email and text messaging is excellent for factual non-emotive messages. These leave no scope for misunderstanding and, even if there were any, there would be no extra cost to you and your business. Ideally you should not sack employees by email, let alone by text message, as this is a very emotive matter.

However, consider this example: in 2009 Hyde Park Corner Autocentre sacked its entire staff by email. Was it easy for the message to be misunderstood? No. Did it matter to the business? No. The company had just ceased trading. Employees were outraged at being sacked by email, feeling it was the wrong medium. The managing director defended his choice of medium by saying ‘I wanted to tell everybody at the same time and that [email] was the best thing to do and follow it up with a phone call.’ For the sender it worked and the negative consequences were zero. Hence it was probably the most cost-effective choice of media.

While I don’t endorse the use of email in such circumstances, do not be put off by headlines like ‘Payout for worker sacked by email’ and ‘Teacher sacked by email’. The case is generally about the cause of and grounds for dismissal rather than the manner.

Nonetheless, where there is scope for misunderstanding, even if the message seems uncontroversial, look for a richer medium as there will be a high cost if it all goes pear-shaped.

Consider this example: you want to take a day’s leave. It’s the busiest part of the month but your reason is important to you (for example, a friend’s wedding). An email message could be misinterpreted as ‘I don’t care’ and the response could be no. There would then be little scope for renegotiating. The optimum channel here would be a conversation, as then you can explain yourself and sell your case better.

Email does have many considerable advantages over other media in the communications spectrum, in particular talking. However, these advantages can quickly become disadvantages if email is used irresponsibly, as the next chapter will demonstrate.