| >Before email I had more letters and phone calls Funny: When I forced people to call me by not being on IM, I got far fewer calls than I did IM's. And I doubt people were getting 5-20 letters per day every day. The lower the barrier to communication, the more the communication. Phone presents a higher barrier. >If you disrupt your flow to answer emails and that is not mandated by your manager, that is your fault. If you disrupt your flow to answer emails because your manager insists, then that is your managers fault. I have worked, and know many who have, under managers who will keep flip flopping between the two as it suits them. They will berate you for wasting time on emails, but then they'll penalize you during reviews because customers/peers send in feedback that you are unavailable. I try not to leave it unambiguous. I make sure I ask during interviews: If I check emails 3 times a day and am by default not on IM, is that a problem? I don't mind in-person or phone interruptions, because they are always far fewer. To give you an idea, I have a coworker who sits a few cubicles away from me, and to him it's a pain to drop by my cube when he has questions. Gives you an idea how low the barrier is to using IM whenever something pops in your head. |
In places where they interrupt you constantly there is often a pattern of announcing insufficient snacks or food to feed the whole company are in the break room.
This conditions people to check their email immediately every time a new message arrives so they don’t miss out.