• Home
  • Start Here
  • Podcast
  • Thinking Bigly
  • Investing
  • Arts
    • Contact/Donate
    • Sign Up
    • Search
    • Privacy
    • Disclaimer
    • Arts
    • Investing
    • Newsletter
    • Theatre
    • Poetics
    • India (1997)
    • Indonesia (1998)
    • Popular
    • Blogs
    • Food
    • Photography
    • Personal
    • Mingle
    • Writer Bio
    • Investor Bio
    • Me
    • Yellow Gentlemen
    • Investment Aphorisms
    • Places in Between
    • Grants
    • Angel Investing
    • Shop
    • Unconference
Menu

Then Do Better

Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number

Your Custom Text Here

Then Do Better

  • Home
  • Start Here
  • Podcast
  • Thinking Bigly
  • Investing
  • Arts
  • Support
    • Contact/Donate
    • Sign Up
    • Search
    • Privacy
    • Disclaimer
  • Archive
    • Arts
    • Investing
    • Newsletter
    • Theatre
    • Poetics
    • India (1997)
    • Indonesia (1998)
  • Blogs
    • Popular
    • Blogs
    • Food
    • Photography
    • Personal
  • About
    • Mingle
    • Writer Bio
    • Investor Bio
    • Me
    • Yellow Gentlemen
    • Investment Aphorisms
    • Places in Between
    • Grants
    • Angel Investing
    • Shop
    • Unconference

Dealing with email

October 11, 2019 Ben Yeoh
public.jpeg

Prof Alex Edmans (currently of LBS) writes this on dealing with email.

Excerpt from his recent Gresham Lecture series on modern day business skills, Links end .

Dealing with Email 

A McKinsey study found that the average interaction worker spends 28% of his day reading and responding to email.

This is likely a significant underestimate of the true cost of email for several reasons. First, interrupting a task to check email and then resuming the task leads to major inefficiencies, because it takes a while to get back into the swing of things. A study found that it takes 23 minutes and 15 seconds to resume a task after interrupting it (and that workers stay on a task for only 3 minutes and 5 seconds). Rather than checking email each time a new one is received, it’s much more efficient to “batch-process” email. Close Outlook, and potentially put on an internet blocker for a finite set of time. Once the time is up, you can then check email and deal with several all in one go.

Note that it’s better to put the internet blocker on for a finite amount of time (say half an hour), rather than keeping it on as long as it takes for you to complete your current task. Tasks often take much longer than you think, and the mind focuses better when there’s a clear end point. If you’re 25 minutes in and craving distraction, but know that the internet blocker will expire in 5 minutes, most people can hold out for those extra 5 minutes. If you’re taking a 30-minute spinning class and there’s 5 minutes left, you’ll push yourself until the end. But if your personal trainer asked you to ride an exercise bike until she says stop, you’ll put in far less effort.

Second, constant checking of email causes addiction and makes it difficult to focus even during “work” time. Checking email is similar to gambling. At slot machines, you usually lose money. But people get addicted to slot machines since there’s the rare possibility of a jackpot. Similarly, most emails are undesirable – a boss or client asking you to do a task. But we’re addicted to email because, once in a while we hit the jackpot – an email conveying good news, or from a friend we’d lost contact with. Thus, incessantly checking email makes us more addicted to “gambling” and requires us to keep feeding our habit, rather than being able to concentrate. I know of people who can’t even go to the toilet without using their phone at the same time, or have a drink or dinner with friends without constantly checking email. They think they’re saving the odd few seconds by dealing with email when the conversation gets boring, but this is far outweighed by the effect on their brains. Studies have shown that a constant craving for distraction changes the neuroplasticity of the brain – certain neural pathways form and others get closed down, which means that the same people find it difficult to focus when they get down to actually doing work. When you do a plank, you build up your core muscles which allow you to hold the plank for longer. Similarly, when you concentrate, you build up your mental “muscle” which allows you to concentrate for longer.

One solution is to take email completely off your phone. This might seem an unrealistic solution, because email is so essential to 21st century life. Yet I did this several years ago and have had no adverse consequences. But doesn’t this mean that emails pile up – don’t I end up wasting time on a subway ride when I could use it to deal with several emails? No. Because I still have email on my iPad, and so can deal with email when commuting or between meetings. The crux is that I can’t suddenly whip out my iPad if I’m having a drink and the conversation turns to a topic I’m not interested in, whereas I could with my iPhone. Having email only on my iPad and not my iPhone prevents me from “mindless” email checking while still allowing me to check email during downtime. If you can’t go without email on your phone, at least remove the buzz when you get a new email, and the notification “badge” which tells you how many emails are unread. If you go on your phone to use Google Maps, but see that there’s 5 unread emails, this begs you to check email – to see if you’ve won the lottery.”

 

This chimes a lot with what I have had to say on email – blog post here and here.

And it’s from Alex’s talk on time management – complete talk available here – write up here.

His series on businesses serving society also available through Gresham worth watching.

In Leadership, Economics Tags Email, Productivity

Face-to-Face is better.

December 20, 2017 Ben Yeoh
IMG_1146.PNG

A look at a paper exploring face-to-face communication.

"Has   technology   made   face-to-face   communication   redundant?   We   investigate   using   a natural   experiment in an organisation where a worker must communicate complex electronic information to a colleague. Productivity is higher when the teammates are (exogenously) in the same room and, inside the room, when their desks are closer together. We establish face-to-face communication as the main mechanism, and rule out alternative channels such as higher effort by co-located workers. The effect is stronger for urgent and complex tasks, for homogeneous workers, and for high pressure conditions. We   highlight   the   opportunity   costs   of   face-to-face   communication   and   their   dependence   on   organisational slack."

 

Writes  Diego Battiston, Jordi Blanes i Vidal, Tom Kirchmaier in their paper:  Is Distance Dead? Face-to-Face Communication and Productivity in Teams  link to paper here

 

“We exploit a natural experiment to provide evidence on the relation between distance, communication and productivity in a large public sector organisation:  the branch in charge of answering 999 calls and allocating officers to incidents in the Greater Manchester  Police.   An  incoming  call  is  answered  by  a call handler,  who  describes  the  incident in the internal computer system.  When the handler officially creates the incident,  its details are available to the radio operator responsible for the neighbourhood where the incident occurred.  The radio operator then allocates a police officer on the basis of incident characteristics and officer availability.  The main measure of performance available to the organisation is the time that it takes for the operator to allocate an officer.  Unfortunately, delays often result from the radio operator’s need to gather additional information.  One way in which she can do this is by communicating with the call handler electronically or in person.”

 

“We  find  that  allocation  time  is  2%  faster  when  handler  and  operator  work  inthe same room.  An important consequence of this faster response is that it decreases the likelihood that the operator misses the country-wide target for a maximum allocation time- a metric by which police forces are evaluated by the UK Home Office.  We also show that proximity within the room is important - the effect of co-location is 4% when handler and operator are sitting very close together.”

 

“We  provide  two  additional  sets  of  results.   Firstly,  we  establish  that  being  able  to communicate face-to-face has a higher effect for:  (a) more urgent and information intensive incidents, (b) in conditions of higher operator workload, (c) when the teammates are more homogeneous (in terms of age and gender), and (d) when the teammates have worked together more often in the past.  Secondly, we highlight and compute the opportunity costs of face-to-face communication.”

 

“This paper provides, we believe, the first detailed causal evidence on the relation between proximity, communication and productivity inside organisations.  Of course,the study involves a particular setting and production technology.  As such, the implications are stronger for high pressure environments such as the healthcare professionals assessing and treating patients in emergency rooms, or the frontline staff and their supervisors in air traffic control, the military, and other time-critical settings. More generally, we also believe that the insights on the contingent value of face-to-face communication have broader applicability.”

 

This paper looks at this from the point of view of worker productivity. But, it makes me wonder how many other social type interactions benefit from face-to-face interactions over electronic or social media.


Perhaps there is more to Nassim Taleb’s love of parties (though not artsy fartsy ones) than only the benefits of focused randomness.


If you'd like to feel inspired by commencement addresses and life lessons try: Ursula K Le Guin on literature as an operating manual for life;  Neil Gaiman on making wonderful, fabulous, brilliant mistakes; or Nassim Taleb's commencement address; or JK Rowling on the benefits of failure.  Or Charlie Munger on always inverting.

There's a discussion on what makes a life well lived, by a fun theorist.

Cross fertilise.  On investing try a thought on stock valuations.  Or Ray Dalio on populism and risk.  You can also click on the Carbon tag below. 

A lesson from autism here.  And a post on the seductive story of Bitcoin

In Investing, Leadership Tags Productivity, Communication
Join the mailing list for a monthly blog digest. Email not to be used for anything else.

Thank you! 

Follow me on LinkedIN
Contact/Support