Email Overload at Work: What the Research Supports

Abstract

This article is about email overload at work and how much research can say about it. Three pieces of research bear on it. A two-week field study of adults (Kushlev and Dunn, 2015) compared checking email three times a day with checking it as often as people liked, and found lower daily stress in the limited week. A mixed-methods study (Barley, Meyerson and Grodal, 2011) suggested that email can stand for overload that comes from elsewhere. A laboratory study of interrupted work (Mark, Gudith and Klocke, 2008) found that interruptions made people faster, with the same quality, at a cost in stress. None of these was limited to finance staff. The three steps at the end are practical readings, not tested methods, and this article is not medical advice.

Four hundred unread emails on a Monday

After a week away you open the laptop and the inbox says 412. Most of it is copies, notifications and updates on things that were settled without you.

By ten you have answered thirty and the number has barely moved. You wonder whether the problem is email itself, or whether email is only the place where the problem shows.

Email overload at work: what is the evidence?

The research cited here does not settle how much email is too much. It covers one field experiment on how often people check, one study of what overload means to the people who report it, and one laboratory study of what interruptions cost. The studies used different samples and methods, and none was limited to finance. The next three sections cover what each one found. None of them tested the three steps at the end.

What a field study of checking email found

Kushlev and Dunn (2015) asked adults to change how often they checked email. Over two weeks, each person spent one week checking only three times a day, with alerts off, and one week checking as often as they liked. The order was counterbalanced, so half the group did the limited week first. Of 142 adults who started, 124 finished.

In the limited week people reported about 4.70 checks a day, against about 12.54 in the unlimited week. Daily stress was lower in the limited week (d = .37), and so were tension during an important activity (d = .45) and distraction (d = .51). Overall weekly stress did not differ between the two conditions. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read your own inbox through this. Fewer, planned checks went with lower daily stress and less distraction in this sample. This is an inference. Each condition lasted one week, the authors describe the study as exploratory, and what colleagues expected as a reply time was not controlled.

What a mixed-methods study found about overload

Barley, Meyerson and Grodal (2011) studied email as a source of overload, using both qualitative and quantitative evidence. People who spent more time on email reported more overload, and they also reported a greater ability to cope with it. Hours spent working in general did not explain the link between email and overload.

The authors suggest that email works as a cultural symbol of overload, and that it can distract attention from other sources of it. The abstract does not give the sample or the numbers. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the number on the inbox through this. A large inbox may be carrying weight that belongs to something else, such as a project, a person or a deadline. This is an inference. Without a stated sample, the finding cannot be assumed to travel to your team.

What a laboratory study of interruptions found

Mark, Gudith and Klocke (2008) looked at what happens when work is interrupted. Forty-eight participants did tasks with no interruption, with an interruption in the same context, or with one in a different context. The interruptions came by telephone for some participants and by instant message for others.

People who were interrupted finished the tasks in less time, and the quality of their work did not differ. They also reported more stress, more frustration, more time pressure and more effort. The authors describe the faster work as coming at a cost. This is summarised from the conference paper.

Read the pings and alerts through this. Interrupted work can look efficient from the outside while costing the person more. This is an inference. The interruptions were calls and instant messages in a laboratory, not email in an office.

Email overload at work: three steps

None of these is a tested method, and none was studied in finance teams. They combine what the research points to with ordinary practice. Where a step goes beyond the research, it says so.

1. Check at set times, with alerts off. The limited week in the field study combined both, and daily stress was lower. Choose times that fit your role, and tell people how to reach you for anything urgent. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "I read email at 9:30, 13:00 and 16:30. For anything urgent, call me."

2. Agree reply times with the people who write to you most. The field study did not control what colleagues expected, so a rule that works in an experiment can fail in a team. Ask what counts as urgent and how fast an answer is needed. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "Urgent: phone or message. Everything else: a reply within one working day."

3. When the inbox feels like too much, name what it stands for. If email can stand for overload from somewhere else, the count may hide the real item. Write down the one thing the inbox is reminding you of. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "Most of the 412 are about the audit file I have not started."

If the strain follows you home, Why You Can't Switch Off From Work: What the Research Says goes into that. For the afternoon slump, there is Decision Fatigue at Work: What's True and What Isn't. When decisions pile up with the messages, see How to Make Decisions Under Pressure: What Stress Changes. If constant change is behind the volume, Change Fatigue at Work: Why Constant Change Wears You Down looks at that. And How to Push Back on an Unrealistic Deadline in Finance is about the request behind the email.

Questions People Ask

Is email overload the same as being too busy?

The studies cited here suggest the two can come apart. In the mixed-methods study, hours of work in general did not explain the link between email and overload. Email may be where overload is felt, and not always where it starts.

Should I check email only three times a day?

Three checks a day is what one field study used, for one week at a time, and it went with lower daily stress. It does not show that three is the right number for your job. It also did not test what your colleagues expect.

Do notifications really matter?

The cited laboratory study looked at telephone and instant message interruptions, not email alerts. Interrupted work was faster and cost more stress. Alerts off was part of the limited week in the field study, so the two studies point the same way, but neither tested alerts on their own.

Can coaching help with email overload?

Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It can help you see what the inbox stands for and plan rules with the people who write to you. It is not treatment. No study cited here tested coaching.

When it is more than a full inbox

A full inbox is one thing. It is more when you dread opening the laptop for weeks, cannot stop checking messages at night, feel persistently low or anxious, cannot sleep, or notice physical symptoms. In those cases talk to your doctor, your occupational health service or a qualified mental health professional. This article is not medical advice. Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It is not treatment and not a substitute for it.

Sources

• Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2015). Checking email less frequently reduces stress. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 220–228. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.005 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E., & Grodal, S. (2011). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22(4), 887–906. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0573 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2008) (pp. 107–110). Open access: author's copy (Summarised from the conference paper.)