[endersshadow]

I think what many people fail to realize, in a corporate setting, is that email is asynchronous communication. Email is not chat, and we need to approach it differently. When I send an email, I expect an answer when you get time--if it's something I need within 24-48 hours, I will call, visit, or IM you if you're online.

[JoeAltmaier]

I'd go further. If its urgent, I'll chat or text. If its complex, I'll call.

I'd scatterplot all these forms of communication against latency and fidelity. Phone is lowest-latency and highest-fidelity (except for in-person of course). Email is high latency and high-fidelity. All the chat/text/twitter stuff is lower latency and spread across the fidelity spectrum.

They all have their place. I hate it when someone mis-uses them, for instance calling me and leaving a message. Phone is low-latency and high-fidelity; a voice message is the opposite corner (no ability to go back-and-forth; I won't see it for hours/days if at all). Voice mail is the worst possible fallback for a phone call.

[freejack]

Totally! this is exactly right. I work with one small group of people that outside of our weekly status meeting, shares a ton of chatty one-liners via email several times a day. It drives me crazy that I can't get them to adopt Slack for these types of interactions but sometimes it is impossible to teach a dog new tricks ;-)

[scott_s]

In my experience, people understand that. What they are not good at, however, is having the perspective to know when asynchronous communication is more appropriate. (You have a question which requires a lot of explanation, and I'm doing you a favor by answering it? Email.)