That’s what I am thinking. There are some things that make sense to take while but it seems weird to me to ask for a semi-blank check like this. I have coworkers that are awful at responding (weeks oftentimes) and it’s super frustrating.
If you need a fast response, don’t use email. In general, here’s my order of urgency and expected time to resolution:
- physically meet w/ them or phone call - <1 hr
- IM/SMS/etc - <1 day
- meeting invitation - by the meeting time
- physical mail/note on their desk - 1-2 weeks
- email - <1 month, but probably <1 week
- create a “ticket” - ??
I try to go as far down that list as possible, but no further.
If you’re getting frustrated, it means you’re probably going too far down that list.
This is wild to me, to be honest.
One of the great things about email, versus IMs and other more real-time forms of communication is that it gives the recipient the ability to address it in a more offline manner. In that way, I’ve always viewed it as more respective of people’s schedule and work habits, since it’s naturally asynchronous.
So I’m having trouble following the idea that people would view it as intrusive and obnoxious while also saying that the only way to get a reply from them the same week is to get in front of them with a real-time communication like a call or physical visit–way more disruptive to concentration.
The benefit of things like Slack is that you can ask a group instead of a specific individual, so I treat group chats like others treat email. You can do that with email, but there’s always the risk that someone will forget to reply all (so multiple people will try to do the same work), or the annoyance that someone replies to the group accidentally. With Slack, I can easily check if someone has responded at my regular check interval.
I very rarely directly message anyone on Slack, because that’s disruptive to their workflow. In the odd case where it needs to go to a single recipient and isn’t urgent, I’ll prefix the message with “not urgent” so they know they can safely ignore the message. The net result is that I can fit multiple use-cases into one system (broadcasts, less urgent one-on-one communication, urgent one-on-one communication), so I only need to check the one place.
At one company before we switched to Slack, I would have to check:
- email - beginning and end of day
- IM - only one-on-one, check 3-4x/day
- notes on my desk - whenever I returned to my desk
- in-person - people were bad at checking email, so I’d to physical followups periodically
Email was our primary communication method, and that had some issues:
- I’d spend way more time answering an email than I do w/ Slack because I want to anticipate as many questions as I can to keep the email conversation short
- we didn’t have groups properly set up, so inevitably we’d forget to add someone to the email chain, which means forwards and whatnot to keep everyone in the loop
- emails would frequently turn into in-person communication because something that seemed less urgent became more urgent
Slack fixed a number of these issues:
- time - whenever I get an urgent notification, I’ll go through and respond to a bunch of less urgent notifications while waiting for a response
- anyone can add anyone to a group, or you can add yourself if you browse groups
- it’s trivial to bump a notification in Slack by @ mentioning someone, either in a reply to a comment, or in a channel
I can usually hold 3-4 separate conversations at the same time in Slack, which I think has reduced our need for meetings. I can give short responses without having to anticipate other potential questions, because I know they’ll probably respond soon. So I end up engaging with Slack more often than email, but I spend less total time using it vs email because I don’t need to think through my responses nearly as carefully.
I check my email like I check my mail, once every couple of days - once a week. We have faster modes of communication and (especially in a work setting) if something is time sensitive you can give me a call or text/IM.
I mean, all of this is subjective and relative to context, but if someone can’t even respond to let you know they’re working on it in under a week, you probably have multiple other issues in your company beyond the individual.
And what does “fast” mean? I’m sending emails that are not urgent to respond to, but it feels like that lack of urgency is milked for all it is worth. I send them to people I know are in meetings all day. That way it’s harder for it to get lost. When 6 weeks go by and they’ve responded in no way, I don’t think the problem is that I sent it as an email. Even if it were only like 6 business days, that just feels like they’re either extremely disorganized or doing the job of three people (not the case with the biggest offenders at my company).
I honestly don’t check my work email at all unless I’m expecting something. Like 95% of the stuff there is crap from corporate (person X in dept. Y is retiring, make sure to fill out that survey, etc), and if it’s important, someone will mention it in our team meetings and I’ll search my email for it. All of our real work happens on Slack (so #2), so we pretty much never go beyond #3.
This certainly varies by company and role, but at least for mine, emails are where you send something if you want to say you sent it, but don’t actually want to follow up. So if we have a transient issue with one of our cloud services, I’ll email their support department and consider the matter resolved. Maybe they’ll fix it eventually, maybe they won’t, but it’s not worth my time to actually follow up. But if they do respond, that’s pretty cool!
That said, if your company culture is to respond to emails quickly, then that’s different. I’ve just never worked at a company or role like that, all of my actual work is over IM or meetings.
