Filing, piling, and everything in between: The dynamics of E‐mail inbox management

Abstract

Managing the constant flow of incoming messages is a daily challenge faced by knowledge workers who use technologies such as e-mail and other digital communication tools. This study focuses on the most ubiquitous of these technologies, e-mail, and unobtrusively explores the ongoing inbox-management activities of thousands of users worldwide over a period of 8 months. The study describes the dynamics of these inboxes throughout the day and the week as users strive to handle incoming messages, read them, classify them, respond to them in a timely manner, and archive them for future reference, all while carrying out the daily tasks of knowledge workers. It then tests several hypotheses about the influence of specific inbox-management behaviors in mitigating the causes of e-mail overload, and proposes a continuous index that quantifies one of these inbox-management behaviors. This inbox clearing index (ICI) expands on the widely cited trichotomous classification of users into frequent filers, spring cleaners, and no filers, as suggested by Whittaker and Sidner (1996). We propose that the ICI allows shifting the focus, from classifying users to characterizing a diversity of user behaviors and measuring the relationships between these behaviors and desired outcomes.

Feeling interrupted—Being responsive: How online messages relate to affect at work

“…In addition, although interruptions are experienced as disruptive and aversive (Mark et al, 2008), they may trigger responsiveness towards further incoming online messages. This rationale is supported by prior research that demonstrates a negative correlation between the number of received e-mails and response latency (Kalman & Ravid, 2015). This finding suggests that on days when employees are frequently interrupted by online messages they tend to shift their attention to these online messages.…”

“…Usually, receivers of online messages appreciate short response latencies, that is a high responsiveness of their communication partners (Kalman & Rafaeli, 2011). Although average response time to incoming e-mail is typically low, responsiveness varies considerably between individuals (Kalman & Ravid, 2015;Kalman, Ravid, Raban, & Rafaeli, 2006) and may also fluctuate within individuals. Responsiveness to e-mail is predicted both by stable traits such as extraversion (Kalman et al, 2013) as well as by situational factors such as the number of received messages and attention paid to the inbox (Kalman & Ravid, 2015), characteristics of the sender (e.g., work-relationship between sender and recipient) and the perceived importance of the message (Dabbish, Kraut, Fussell, & Kiesler, 2005) as well as the recipient's engagement in other tasks when the message arrives (Avrahami & Hudson, 2006).…”

Characterizing and Predicting Email Deferral Behavior

“…Previous studies have demonstrated the different strategies employed by email users to manage messages. Whittaker and Sidner [31] classified users into frequent filers, spring cleaners, and no-filers, which was later extended by other classifications ( [14,17]). Similarly in our study we identified a connection between the choice of deferral strategy and the user's general inbox management attitude.…”

“…Large-scale log analysis has been extensively used in the literature to study different aspects of email interactions. Kalman and Ravid [17] conducted a study of email management strategies on thousands of users over a period of 8 months using a popular email web client add-in. They showed that people use a wide variety of strategies to manage their emails, many more than had been identified in earlier studies.…”

Perspectives of nurse managers on information communication technology and e‐Leadership

“…However, the goals of improving patient outcomes and decreasing costs promised from implementing technology in health organisation have not been met due in part to the lack of standardized systems that are easy to use and designed with input from nurses, the end user (Hirsch, ; Kellerman & Jones, ). In fact, this increased use of ICT has led to frustration among managers due to lack of education on the technology and the overwhelming amount of technological communication, such as email, that they receive (Kalman & Ravid, ; Misner, ). Nurse managers are also responsible for guiding staff nurses as they use and adopt new technologies, as staff nurses have reported dissatisfaction with ICT, including the lack of functionality, increased workload and lack of training (Strudwick, McGillis Hall, Nagle, & Trbovich, ; Topaz et al, ).…”