7 ms·

The After-Work Email Quandry

51 points by jodyribton 11y ago

gloves 11y ago
I know it's not healthy (in terms of switching off from work) - but I do generally enjoy getting emails - receiving one more often than not will be a reply I've been waiting for, or even better, sometimes new opportunities/or customers I like catching up. The association with work makes it seem bad, but I think a nice email, regardless of time received is still a nice thing
- jacquesm 11y ago
  But how to set up your inbox in such a way that it only allows reception of nice emails after work time?
awjr 11y ago
I can remember one day rate contract I was arranging, where all the replies from the manager appeared to be happening after 6-7pm at night and became slightly concerned that their idea of a day was not the normal 9-5ish. Turns out he answered most emails late evening.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  I had a new director starting a few years ago when my kids were 1 & 3. Literally the first email I sent to him was at 11 PM the evening before his first day, so I started with, "Don't pay any attention to the time of this email. I'm sending it now because the kids are asleep and I'm still awake; I have no expectations that you'll be online answering emails all hours of the day."
  - zafka 11y ago
    That was a rather nice touch. I will bet your new director appreciated it.
  - crpatino 11y ago
    Was it really needed to send that email at that time, or it was something that could have been sent first time in the morning?* And, where you already committed to work on something else next morning so the only/most-convenient time slot available was late the night before? I don't know you, so I cannot in good faith accuse you of anything. But maybe if you reflected on your ambivalence towards work-life balance, you'd find the kernels for personal growth in there. Let me explain myself. Speaking in general terms, there is a psychological phenomenon called the double-bind. It happens when a parent or authority figure states some expectation verbally but then subtly undermine it with his/her actions. i.e. I can chastise my kids for spending "too much time in front of screens", but then never have time to take them to play outdoors, or come back home and either keep working or root myself in front of TV, or buy them a video-game to reward some special achievement. The root cause of the problem in this case would be my own unresolved feelings towards electronic entertainment, which I enjoy a little too much and I am aware to be not quite healthy. But from the point of view of my children's psyche, the situation is much more destructive: each of them can either embrace the label of "coach potato", absorb all the guilt from my chastising, but keep enjoying screens as a hidden pleasure; or they can try to live up to the impossible ideals I've set up for them and embrace the label of "troublemaker", because enjoying some healthy outdoors activity inside the house will invariably end up causing a bunch of disruption, nuisance and the occasional accident. What they cannot ever dare is to say: "Hey Dad, you always say we should play more outdoors. Turn that gadget off and take us to the park", because if they do I will burst in anger. We all face some of this while growing up, and most of us learn to turn a blind eye to some intractable problems. In the most pathological cases, though, the children can grow up with a shattered sense of reality and develop serious psychiatric problems when they face the correct triggers in their adult lives (I have read, though I have not the reference now, that the double bind was fist discovered by the military while investigating the clinic histories of veterans who had gone into full-fledged schizophrenia instead of the more common PTSD). What I am trying to say while I have read about this phenomenon from the point of view of development psychology, I have observed the same patterns of interaction in the workplace a few times. In those cases, we are all adults, so there is probably no risk of anyone's mental health; but lot's of needless stress comes from the unspeakable hot buttons, the packs of elephants that dwell in corporate rooms all over the world.
JohnDoe365 11y ago
> Why do we find ourselves reading emails during vacation or sick days, even when we don't have to? Because we fear to get sacked?
- imglorp 11y ago
  I think it's way more than that. There's a number of ways to motivate people, such as involving them in the team mission and empowering them, compensation, and recognition. Motivated people will do what it takes, including thinking about work off hours.
  - mfringel 11y ago
    I'm having trouble parsing that series of statements. How does your second sentence relate to your third sentence?
    - imglorp 11y ago
      I was saying there's more than fear of getting sacked to motivate someone to work off hours. If you set up the right environment, they'll be doing it without anyone asking.
- odonnellryan 11y ago
  Whenever I've done this in the past it was because of a desire to do a good job. Whenever I find myself working for someone where the majority of what I do is because I fear retribution I've also found that I've generally grown unhappy with the situation and should move on. Work isn't 100% fun, and it probably shouldn't be. There are going to be tedious things that you HAVE to do because it is your job. However, if you're doing everything because you HAVE to, not because you want to do a good job, there is a problem somewhere and you should examine it.
- maccard 11y ago
  I'm on holiday visiting family, and travelling back home at the moment. I need something to do for the 9 hours or so in travelling for, and work emails are one of the things I use to kill the time.
sokoloff 11y ago
> there's at least some anecdotal evidence that workers are not always working at work This made me go look up whether hypobole (dramatic understatement) is a word yet. I email after hours and on weekends/PTO voluntarily and I do rather enjoy it. I certainly enjoy it more than coming back to 1000 emails to deal with on my first day back.
- J_Darnley 11y ago
  >> there's at least some anecdotal evidence that workers are not always working at work >This made me go look up whether hypobole (dramatic understatement) is a word yet. Well... Is it? No - http://dictionary.reference.com/misspelling?term=hypobole&s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/misspelling?term=hypobole&s=... Yes - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hypobole http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hypobole No - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=hypobole http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=hypo...
  - tomblomfield 11y ago
    You're looking for "litotes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes
codingdave 11y ago
I know it isn't the core of the article, but complaining about an out of office message is missing the point of out of office messages. They do not really mean that I won't see your email for a week. But they do mean that if you just sent me an urgent problem, which normally would invoke an immediate response, you won't get that response. It lets people know that the normal communication patterns will differ, and leaves it up to them to decide whether they need to contact someone other than me.
- hawleyal 11y ago
  That's what email is for already. An out-of-office message just reiterates the fact that email is not reliable and not time-sensitive anyway. There's no point. Every single email could have an out-of-office message, saying if you need urgent help to call/text/send something else.
  - zachsnow 11y ago
    Why does texting or calling have a different "urgency" level? Historical? (Email not historically being pushed to you wherever you might be). Cultural? In the microcosm of my work life they are on similar planes (especially given Google Voice), perhaps because they do the same thing: make my phone vibrate. Maybe every text or call should autorespond saying if you need urgent help to come find me in person!
    - abakker 11y ago
      I'm not sure about texting, but calling is both synchronous and verbose. These are incredibly relevant criteria for determining whether something is immediate. While email can be verbose, it seldom is, and if anything critical is going on when multiple people are involved, a phone call is still the best way to communicate real-time. If you disagree, see whether you do or do not adjust what you are saying on the phone vs what you would type. I know that I favor fast-to-type sentence structure when emailing, which isn't always the most illuminating/explanatory. Right now, I think the pendulum has swung away from phone calls and too far toward emails. Maybe this is because minutes on phones used to cost money, maybe it is because conference call spam devalued the speed of communication too far. But I think a one on one call is hard to beat and can often accomplish what a whole thread of email can in a fraction of the time. Phone calls are good for communicating fast and figuring out what to do. Emails are good for having a written record and working asynchronously.
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
I check (and sometimes respond to) business email during off hours, out of curiosity. Also, some of our customers and partners are in very different time zones, and it speeds things up to answer a question or open a ticket to solve a problem immediately rather than waiting 12 hours. My manager and I are both a little fanatical that way. It's not a requirement of the job but it does distinguish our lean, efficient little intrapreneurial unit from the stodgy, slow responsiveness of the rest of the company.
draw_down 11y ago
In my opinion people do this because they don't know what else to fill their lives with, so they fill it with work.
- Xcelerate 11y ago
  This is my opinion as well.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  There are a few sides to this. One is, yes, a lack of imagination. But too: it's exceedingly difficult to find something that you can devote yourself to given the demands of work. A 9-5, 40-hour week is bad enough, but the norm for many, particularly in the tech world, is 50-60 hours or more. Commute, sleep, and other activities tie up yet more time. If you're following guidelines to stay fit, that's other hour, or several hours per week (though time I consider well spent). Obligations to a partner, children, or elder parents can be extensive. If you're in a high cost-of-living city such as San Francisco, New York, or London, you've got very little space to call your own. The time and space it takes to cultivate a meaningful alternative activity is difficult to come by. We're awash with messages from advertising and media which further pollute our heads and distract. And the work many of us do is itself largely mental -- it requires prolonged exposure and deep understanding, and tends to follow you around. Inspiration is as likely to strike in the shower as at your desk. Given all of this, you're far more likely to be primed to be in "work mode", to understand a quick query or email, and even quite possibly appreciate its distraction from whatever it is that surrounds you. I'm not saying this is a good thing at all. I don't believe that for a second. Unless your work is exceptionally gratifying and you're the very rare soul who's doing something actually useful for the world, you're far better off with downtime and the ability to get away from it. But it does explain much of the psychology behind why the behavior is so appealing, and why creating more compelling alternatives so difficult.
  - noir_lord 11y ago
    My away from computer hobby is cycling, I get to combine staying fit with something I love doing and occasionally ride with a local club which fits the social side as well (coffee,cake and a chat after 60 miles is awesome). It is hard to find time to do stuff sometimes though.
jwmoz 11y ago
Come 17:30 work ceases to exist to me and my normal life takes over. I work to live, not vice versa. It saddens me this isn't the way for most.
- thecatspaw 11y ago
  I dont know why people feel the need to check their emails after work. I feel the same way you do. It makes no sense to me to do something for work without getting paid for it
  - stronglikedan 11y ago
    Unfortunately, most companies think that they own you 24/7 as soon as they put you on salary. To them, you are getting paid for it. A guy at my job got written up for not responding to emails on vacation, even though he had an autoresponder directing people to his boss, and told everyone ahead of time that he'd be dark for a few days. Management's excuse is that you are 24/7 unless it's otherwise defined in your employment contract, and they won't ever put set hours into an employment contract.
    - thecatspaw 11y ago
      what? If that was my job, I'd be looking for a new job faster than you can say "check your mail". In my holidays (2 weeks in summer usually) I dont respond for the whole time. No once-a-day mail checking, nothing. Never had problems so far luckily
      - stronglikedan 11y ago
        I would look for a new job, and as a matter of fact, I did. When they found out I was looking (saw my resume on a job board), they compensated me to the point where I don't mind checking my email at odd hours. I was ready to leave, and I wasn't going to tell them or hold them hostage for an increase, so it worked out well for me, and I didn't feel like a salary blackmailer. It's a cushy job, and I've been here for over a decade, so I was relieved in a way (I don't like change).
enobrev 11y ago
I've been working remotely for the past fifteen years, five of the most recent being a full-time employee for a large company. Because of this I've grown very accustomed to sending emails that start with "Don't read this until morning". Eventually my coworkers learn that they're going to get late-night emails from me, and that I don't expect an immediate reply - nor should they. After all, email is meant to be asynchronous. I personally recommend not checking work emails when not working. I certainly don't. It allows for a clear head when I sit at my desk ready to work. It also allows me to work at whatever hour I'm most productive without worrying whether my colleagues are going to jump out of bed to answer one of my off-hour work emails.
- Afton 11y ago
  Outlook 'delay delivery' option (or whatever your email client supports) is an even better way. If you don't intend someone to read and act on it until morning, you can enforce that trivially!
  - supercanuck 11y ago
    I work from home sometimes, and its a baseline assumption that my emails are being read by my employer. Therefore, his email serves two purposes, 1. it communicates to any line manager that he is in fact working, and 2. Letting his Coworkers know that he's expecting them to work odd hours like himself.
    - fps 11y ago
      1) I've worked IT or IT/operations at a handful of small to large companies over the past 15 years where I've been directly in control of email and any "snooping" requests needed to go through me. I can count on one hand the number of times a manager has asked to read their employee's email. It's either been due to some HR related issue (harassment, misuse of resources, etc.) or because the employee was unreachable and some critical info had been sitting in their inbox. Employers snooping on email in a business environment is super rare. 2) My experience managing and being managed has led me to believe that most managers want their employees to work less, and most people believe that their manager wants them to work crazy hours. Frequently these people are the same people. eg. a middle manager wants his employees to go home and not work after hours, but they assume that their manager expects them to work from home between 7 and 11 PM every night. the GP of your comment even said this - he tells his employees to not work odd hours, but he does so anyway.
cryoshon 11y ago
Just another symptom of dehumanizing work-life balance as promoted in the US companies. People feel like they need to get a leg up on each other in order to retain jobs and be promoted within jobs, so they make themselves available for work purposes when they are not being paid. Effectively, people compensate for the wriggling anxiety of an "unfulfilled" work obligation (an unanswered email received after hours) by giving away their labor for free (answering the email despite not being paid during that time period to do so). I think this is also why people may claim that they enjoy or don't mind answering work emails after work; the reduction of anxiety after tying up an email provides a tangible upward delta for emotion. I am of the opinion that 99% of after-work emails would be eliminated if employers had to pay for the hour-block during which employees are answering emails. "But when asked what aspects have the most negative impact on work-life balance, work emails ranked rather low at 18 percent—topping the list were bad bosses, working after hours, and employers being inflexible about vacation." Ah, the article is pretending that answering emails after hours isn't working after hours. They're the same thing, because thought and communication about details of work equals work. Bad bosses will tend to email after hours as well. Employers not respecting the majority of their employee's time (which is spent outside of work) is also closely related to being "inflexible" (not respecting the contract) about vacation. I think the article could have easily said that working conditions and labor rights in the US are extremely poor rather than pretend there is something magical about answering emails after hours.
basseq 11y ago
I see the connected nature of work and after-hours email as a "symptom" of the blurring nature of work vs. life. Gone are the days where one clocks in and clocks out. I fully expect to check work emails and do other work "after hours" (read: on my own schedule). I also fully expect to check personal emails, read HN, and do other non-work activities during "work hours". I get my work done, and I do it well. If you want to impose artificial constraints on when and how I do that work, you're stuck in the dark ages. My managers and teams understand that. Sometimes I have email conversations at 11pm at night because we all happen to be up. Sometimes I send emails that people don't even read until the next day: no problem. Sometimes I don't read emails until the next day: similar story. If it's truly urgent, people know to call or text. I think it's a personal choice, though. I read (and respond to) emails after hours to a) plan and organize my coming day and b) do an ongoing triage of the things on my plate. I could do all this at 9am the next day, but I'd be more stressed as a result.

51 points by jodyribton 11y ago

I know it's not healthy (in terms of switching off from work) - but I do generally enjoy getting emails - receiving one more often than not will be a reply I've been waiting for, or even better, sometimes new opportunities/or customers I like catching up. The association with work makes it seem bad, but I think a nice email, regardless of time received is still a nice thing

jacquesm 11y ago
But how to set up your inbox in such a way that it only allows reception of nice emails after work time?

awjr 11y ago

I can remember one day rate contract I was arranging, where all the replies from the manager appeared to be happening after 6-7pm at night and became slightly concerned that their idea of a day was not the normal 9-5ish. Turns out he answered most emails late evening.

sokoloff 11y ago
I had a new director starting a few years ago when my kids were 1 & 3. Literally the first email I sent to him was at 11 PM the evening before his first day, so I started with, "Don't pay any attention to the time of this email. I'm sending it now because the kids are asleep and I'm still awake; I have no expectations that you'll be online answering emails all hours of the day."
- zafka 11y ago
  That was a rather nice touch. I will bet your new director appreciated it.
- crpatino 11y ago
  Was it really needed to send that email at that time, or it was something that could have been sent first time in the morning?* And, where you already committed to work on something else next morning so the only/most-convenient time slot available was late the night before? I don't know you, so I cannot in good faith accuse you of anything. But maybe if you reflected on your ambivalence towards work-life balance, you'd find the kernels for personal growth in there. Let me explain myself. Speaking in general terms, there is a psychological phenomenon called the double-bind. It happens when a parent or authority figure states some expectation verbally but then subtly undermine it with his/her actions. i.e. I can chastise my kids for spending "too much time in front of screens", but then never have time to take them to play outdoors, or come back home and either keep working or root myself in front of TV, or buy them a video-game to reward some special achievement. The root cause of the problem in this case would be my own unresolved feelings towards electronic entertainment, which I enjoy a little too much and I am aware to be not quite healthy. But from the point of view of my children's psyche, the situation is much more destructive: each of them can either embrace the label of "coach potato", absorb all the guilt from my chastising, but keep enjoying screens as a hidden pleasure; or they can try to live up to the impossible ideals I've set up for them and embrace the label of "troublemaker", because enjoying some healthy outdoors activity inside the house will invariably end up causing a bunch of disruption, nuisance and the occasional accident. What they cannot ever dare is to say: "Hey Dad, you always say we should play more outdoors. Turn that gadget off and take us to the park", because if they do I will burst in anger. We all face some of this while growing up, and most of us learn to turn a blind eye to some intractable problems. In the most pathological cases, though, the children can grow up with a shattered sense of reality and develop serious psychiatric problems when they face the correct triggers in their adult lives (I have read, though I have not the reference now, that the double bind was fist discovered by the military while investigating the clinic histories of veterans who had gone into full-fledged schizophrenia instead of the more common PTSD). What I am trying to say while I have read about this phenomenon from the point of view of development psychology, I have observed the same patterns of interaction in the workplace a few times. In those cases, we are all adults, so there is probably no risk of anyone's mental health; but lot's of needless stress comes from the unspeakable hot buttons, the packs of elephants that dwell in corporate rooms all over the world.

JohnDoe365 11y ago

> Why do we find ourselves reading emails during vacation or sick days, even when we don't have to? Because we fear to get sacked?

imglorp 11y ago
I think it's way more than that. There's a number of ways to motivate people, such as involving them in the team mission and empowering them, compensation, and recognition. Motivated people will do what it takes, including thinking about work off hours.
- mfringel 11y ago
  I'm having trouble parsing that series of statements. How does your second sentence relate to your third sentence?
  - imglorp 11y ago
    I was saying there's more than fear of getting sacked to motivate someone to work off hours. If you set up the right environment, they'll be doing it without anyone asking.
odonnellryan 11y ago
Whenever I've done this in the past it was because of a desire to do a good job. Whenever I find myself working for someone where the majority of what I do is because I fear retribution I've also found that I've generally grown unhappy with the situation and should move on. Work isn't 100% fun, and it probably shouldn't be. There are going to be tedious things that you HAVE to do because it is your job. However, if you're doing everything because you HAVE to, not because you want to do a good job, there is a problem somewhere and you should examine it.
maccard 11y ago
I'm on holiday visiting family, and travelling back home at the moment. I need something to do for the 9 hours or so in travelling for, and work emails are one of the things I use to kill the time.

sokoloff 11y ago

> there's at least some anecdotal evidence that workers are not always working at work This made me go look up whether hypobole (dramatic understatement) is a word yet. I email after hours and on weekends/PTO voluntarily and I do rather enjoy it. I certainly enjoy it more than coming back to 1000 emails to deal with on my first day back.

J_Darnley 11y ago
>> there's at least some anecdotal evidence that workers are not always working at work >This made me go look up whether hypobole (dramatic understatement) is a word yet. Well... Is it? No - http://dictionary.reference.com/misspelling?term=hypobole&s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/misspelling?term=hypobole&s=... Yes - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hypobole http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hypobole No - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=hypobole http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/english/?q=hypo...
- tomblomfield 11y ago
  You're looking for "litotes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes

codingdave 11y ago

I know it isn't the core of the article, but complaining about an out of office message is missing the point of out of office messages. They do not really mean that I won't see your email for a week. But they do mean that if you just sent me an urgent problem, which normally would invoke an immediate response, you won't get that response. It lets people know that the normal communication patterns will differ, and leaves it up to them to decide whether they need to contact someone other than me.

hawleyal 11y ago
That's what email is for already. An out-of-office message just reiterates the fact that email is not reliable and not time-sensitive anyway. There's no point. Every single email could have an out-of-office message, saying if you need urgent help to call/text/send something else.
- zachsnow 11y ago
  Why does texting or calling have a different "urgency" level? Historical? (Email not historically being pushed to you wherever you might be). Cultural? In the microcosm of my work life they are on similar planes (especially given Google Voice), perhaps because they do the same thing: make my phone vibrate. Maybe every text or call should autorespond saying if you need urgent help to come find me in person!
  - abakker 11y ago
    I'm not sure about texting, but calling is both synchronous and verbose. These are incredibly relevant criteria for determining whether something is immediate. While email can be verbose, it seldom is, and if anything critical is going on when multiple people are involved, a phone call is still the best way to communicate real-time. If you disagree, see whether you do or do not adjust what you are saying on the phone vs what you would type. I know that I favor fast-to-type sentence structure when emailing, which isn't always the most illuminating/explanatory. Right now, I think the pendulum has swung away from phone calls and too far toward emails. Maybe this is because minutes on phones used to cost money, maybe it is because conference call spam devalued the speed of communication too far. But I think a one on one call is hard to beat and can often accomplish what a whole thread of email can in a fraction of the time. Phone calls are good for communicating fast and figuring out what to do. Emails are good for having a written record and working asynchronously.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

I check (and sometimes respond to) business email during off hours, out of curiosity. Also, some of our customers and partners are in very different time zones, and it speeds things up to answer a question or open a ticket to solve a problem immediately rather than waiting 12 hours. My manager and I are both a little fanatical that way. It's not a requirement of the job but it does distinguish our lean, efficient little intrapreneurial unit from the stodgy, slow responsiveness of the rest of the company.

draw_down 11y ago

In my opinion people do this because they don't know what else to fill their lives with, so they fill it with work.

Xcelerate 11y ago
This is my opinion as well.
dredmorbius 11y ago
There are a few sides to this. One is, yes, a lack of imagination. But too: it's exceedingly difficult to find something that you can devote yourself to given the demands of work. A 9-5, 40-hour week is bad enough, but the norm for many, particularly in the tech world, is 50-60 hours or more. Commute, sleep, and other activities tie up yet more time. If you're following guidelines to stay fit, that's other hour, or several hours per week (though time I consider well spent). Obligations to a partner, children, or elder parents can be extensive. If you're in a high cost-of-living city such as San Francisco, New York, or London, you've got very little space to call your own. The time and space it takes to cultivate a meaningful alternative activity is difficult to come by. We're awash with messages from advertising and media which further pollute our heads and distract. And the work many of us do is itself largely mental -- it requires prolonged exposure and deep understanding, and tends to follow you around. Inspiration is as likely to strike in the shower as at your desk. Given all of this, you're far more likely to be primed to be in "work mode", to understand a quick query or email, and even quite possibly appreciate its distraction from whatever it is that surrounds you. I'm not saying this is a good thing at all. I don't believe that for a second. Unless your work is exceptionally gratifying and you're the very rare soul who's doing something actually useful for the world, you're far better off with downtime and the ability to get away from it. But it does explain much of the psychology behind why the behavior is so appealing, and why creating more compelling alternatives so difficult.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  My away from computer hobby is cycling, I get to combine staying fit with something I love doing and occasionally ride with a local club which fits the social side as well (coffee,cake and a chat after 60 miles is awesome). It is hard to find time to do stuff sometimes though.

jwmoz 11y ago

Come 17:30 work ceases to exist to me and my normal life takes over. I work to live, not vice versa. It saddens me this isn't the way for most.

thecatspaw 11y ago
I dont know why people feel the need to check their emails after work. I feel the same way you do. It makes no sense to me to do something for work without getting paid for it
- stronglikedan 11y ago
  Unfortunately, most companies think that they own you 24/7 as soon as they put you on salary. To them, you are getting paid for it. A guy at my job got written up for not responding to emails on vacation, even though he had an autoresponder directing people to his boss, and told everyone ahead of time that he'd be dark for a few days. Management's excuse is that you are 24/7 unless it's otherwise defined in your employment contract, and they won't ever put set hours into an employment contract.
  - thecatspaw 11y ago
    what? If that was my job, I'd be looking for a new job faster than you can say "check your mail". In my holidays (2 weeks in summer usually) I dont respond for the whole time. No once-a-day mail checking, nothing. Never had problems so far luckily
    - stronglikedan 11y ago
      I would look for a new job, and as a matter of fact, I did. When they found out I was looking (saw my resume on a job board), they compensated me to the point where I don't mind checking my email at odd hours. I was ready to leave, and I wasn't going to tell them or hold them hostage for an increase, so it worked out well for me, and I didn't feel like a salary blackmailer. It's a cushy job, and I've been here for over a decade, so I was relieved in a way (I don't like change).

enobrev 11y ago

I've been working remotely for the past fifteen years, five of the most recent being a full-time employee for a large company. Because of this I've grown very accustomed to sending emails that start with "Don't read this until morning". Eventually my coworkers learn that they're going to get late-night emails from me, and that I don't expect an immediate reply - nor should they. After all, email is meant to be asynchronous. I personally recommend not checking work emails when not working. I certainly don't. It allows for a clear head when I sit at my desk ready to work. It also allows me to work at whatever hour I'm most productive without worrying whether my colleagues are going to jump out of bed to answer one of my off-hour work emails.

Afton 11y ago
Outlook 'delay delivery' option (or whatever your email client supports) is an even better way. If you don't intend someone to read and act on it until morning, you can enforce that trivially!
- supercanuck 11y ago
  I work from home sometimes, and its a baseline assumption that my emails are being read by my employer. Therefore, his email serves two purposes, 1. it communicates to any line manager that he is in fact working, and 2. Letting his Coworkers know that he's expecting them to work odd hours like himself.
  - fps 11y ago
    1) I've worked IT or IT/operations at a handful of small to large companies over the past 15 years where I've been directly in control of email and any "snooping" requests needed to go through me. I can count on one hand the number of times a manager has asked to read their employee's email. It's either been due to some HR related issue (harassment, misuse of resources, etc.) or because the employee was unreachable and some critical info had been sitting in their inbox. Employers snooping on email in a business environment is super rare. 2) My experience managing and being managed has led me to believe that most managers want their employees to work less, and most people believe that their manager wants them to work crazy hours. Frequently these people are the same people. eg. a middle manager wants his employees to go home and not work after hours, but they assume that their manager expects them to work from home between 7 and 11 PM every night. the GP of your comment even said this - he tells his employees to not work odd hours, but he does so anyway.

cryoshon 11y ago

Just another symptom of dehumanizing work-life balance as promoted in the US companies. People feel like they need to get a leg up on each other in order to retain jobs and be promoted within jobs, so they make themselves available for work purposes when they are not being paid. Effectively, people compensate for the wriggling anxiety of an "unfulfilled" work obligation (an unanswered email received after hours) by giving away their labor for free (answering the email despite not being paid during that time period to do so). I think this is also why people may claim that they enjoy or don't mind answering work emails after work; the reduction of anxiety after tying up an email provides a tangible upward delta for emotion. I am of the opinion that 99% of after-work emails would be eliminated if employers had to pay for the hour-block during which employees are answering emails. "But when asked what aspects have the most negative impact on work-life balance, work emails ranked rather low at 18 percent—topping the list were bad bosses, working after hours, and employers being inflexible about vacation." Ah, the article is pretending that answering emails after hours isn't working after hours. They're the same thing, because thought and communication about details of work equals work. Bad bosses will tend to email after hours as well. Employers not respecting the majority of their employee's time (which is spent outside of work) is also closely related to being "inflexible" (not respecting the contract) about vacation. I think the article could have easily said that working conditions and labor rights in the US are extremely poor rather than pretend there is something magical about answering emails after hours.

basseq 11y ago

I see the connected nature of work and after-hours email as a "symptom" of the blurring nature of work vs. life. Gone are the days where one clocks in and clocks out. I fully expect to check work emails and do other work "after hours" (read: on my own schedule). I also fully expect to check personal emails, read HN, and do other non-work activities during "work hours". I get my work done, and I do it well. If you want to impose artificial constraints on when and how I do that work, you're stuck in the dark ages. My managers and teams understand that. Sometimes I have email conversations at 11pm at night because we all happen to be up. Sometimes I send emails that people don't even read until the next day: no problem. Sometimes I don't read emails until the next day: similar story. If it's truly urgent, people know to call or text. I think it's a personal choice, though. I read (and respond to) emails after hours to a) plan and organize my coming day and b) do an ongoing triage of the things on my plate. I could do all this at 9am the next day, but I'd be more stressed as a result.