[DiggyJohnson]

Okay, this may sound nuts but I think the only issue with your proposal is that it doesn’t address the reason that this doesn’t happen. Our colleagues do not or do not want to read business communications for the purpose of comprehension for the content of their own work or communication with their colleagues.

I genuinely propose a three strike policy where professional employees are to be fired after three occasions where they demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read and comprehend important business communications less than two pages or 6 paraphrases in length. This includes emails and internal publications, but not async communication on platforms like Slack, Teams, or non-recorded verbal meetings (digital or otherwise), nor does it include verbal conversations with colleagues in person or otherwise.

I freely admit to wanting a business environment where email communication and content is considered sacred in commercial contexts. Where it’s unacceptable to not only be familiar with but understand well the contents of an email that is now the subject of a meeting or otherwise directly important the content of one’s work.

I’ve tried to right this “meeting should be an email” battle but the reality is shocking: nobody reads anything, for the most part, and when they do, they act like they didn’t.

Reading compression is a faux pa, better to get the accreditation that comes from an in person discussion.

This is the sort of rant that I’m sure I’ve run afoul of as well. But I stand by it regardless. The reason that we have meetings instead of emails is incredible simple: people do not read and comprehend emails.

[arp242]

People not reading emails hasn't really been a problem pretty much anywhere I worked for the last 10 years or more. People not writing them has been a problem though. Maybe this was caused by people not reading them, but I've always suspected that a lot of people just don't like writing, and/or aren't very good at it. So it's easier for them to do an in-person meeting.

And when no or very few emails get sent, no on really pays attention to them. I haven't even opened the company email in a week because there is never anything interesting there.

I really wish writing would be emphasized more in job interviews. I have seen some that emphasise written communication, but it's relatively rare.

[RHSeeger]

> Maybe this was caused by people not reading them, but I've always suspected that a lot of people just don't like writing, and/or aren't very good at it.

Writing an email tends is harder than having a meeting, because you (generally) need to understand the problem to talk about it. This is true of both providing information about the problem and for asking questions about it. Part of writing about something is taking the time to understand it.

It can easily take me 20-30 minutes to write an email about something. But, especially in the case of asking for more information about something, it _also_ results in me having a clearer understanding of the topic; because I needed to identify what questions to ask. However, me spending 30 minutes on writing that email means

- I understand the problem better (as noted), AND

- Multiple _other_ people don't spend 15 minutes in a meeting while I solidify my understanding enough to ask the right questions. And that saves a lot more time overall.

That being said, sometimes meetings are the right answer, because there's a gap somewhere and people just don't know what questions to ask; they need to get together and just talk about it.

[s1artibartfast]

I think it depends on corporate culture. I have >8,000 unread emails in my corporate gmail, and it only has a 2 year retention policy.

Some companies overcommunicate, and email can essentially be unusable due to noise. it can be a huge issue if there are multiple modes of communication.

I get communication through email, chats, groups, google doc comments, smart sheets, 3 quality systems, and workday.

As a result, it can take a while for me to circle back to my email inbox and give the messages thoughtful consideration.

[DiggyJohnson]

Appreciate this comment because I completely agree. I should have touched on this as well in my rant. Most of my normal colleagues are very intimidated by the idea of writing an email longer than a few sentences. To sound even more like an a-hole: most are not comfortable writing in prose.

[forgetfreeman]

I feel like unrelated issues are being conflated here? The issue of one on one interpersonal communication should be a solved problem given email, text, phone, video call (one on one video calls don't suffer the same flavor of hideousness inflicted when the headcount starts to grow).

By comparison large headcount meetings are gross sadistic and pointless in person regardless of communications format selected. Either they're intended to let a small number of individuals convey information to a larger group (send a goddamn email already, if you're really fancy video your canned remarks and send a link to the video in the email), or they're intended to elicit some kind of exchange among a large group, at which point you end up with an hour and a half of nothing of substance being accomplished while some/most/all of the meeting participants are sitting there fighting their soul's urge to simply vacate their body on the spot. Then there's the ever-popular multi-departmental standup meeting, in which a bunch of people convey pointless detail at length about shit that is wildly irrelevant to the jobs of most of the other attendees to no obvious purpose.

Full Disclosure: I intentionally ignore my email under the assumption that if it's really important someone will pick up a phone and call.

[ryandrake]

> I’ve tried to right this “meeting should be an email” battle but the reality is shocking: nobody reads anything, for the most part, and when they do, they act like they didn’t.

Exactly. "This meeting could have been an E-mail" is only true if people read and respond to their E-mail. I usually will try E-mail first, but if I don't get a response or if the expected action is not taken--I sigh and break out the meeting invite.

[shrimp_emoji]

Too much email spam from the company, including fake phishing attempts, to take my inbox seriously. It's a noisy channel.

Email is also slow. Instant messaging is where it's at, but most people's reading comprehension and writing are not at the level where that's the only viable medium.

[RHSeeger]

Depends entirely on the context. There are plenty of cases where email, _especially_ when it comes to taking the time to sort out your thoughts and then format them nicely, is better than instance messaging.

[crngefest]

I ran into the same issue but I’m curious

>people do not read and comprehend emails.

Why do you think that is the case? It seems like a simple thing to do

[jaggederest]

> nobody reads anything, for the most part, and when they do, they act like they didn’t.

It's actually even more insidious than a lack of reading comprehension.

It's a lack of retention in memory. People read an email, it blends in with all the other email they read, it lacks salience, it's the metaphorical "in one ear, out the other". Text lacks immediacy so it doesn't get attention, retention, or action.

This is, needless to say, not a solvable problem within any given team, company, or industry.

Edit: The irony of writing this in a HN comment does not elude me.

[chrisweekly]

> "This includes emails... but not async communication."

Your failure to communicate clearly here is one of the most ironic and (presumably unintentionally) hilarious things I've read in some time.