The importance of well structured email system (1 of 3)

It never ceases to amaze me as to the level at which people try to complicate something as simple as email.

Let's not underscore the way in which email can be used to a high level and as an integral part of a smart system - however it's not meant to be complicated. Email is meant to be easy and the peripheral applications of email, such as calendars and integration with other systems are meant to make life easier, not more difficult.

First I want to clarify what I mean by "complicating email".

In an average business function a person is assigned an email address (or a number of emails) that represent their name: ie: mark.ehlers@evolveit.com.au or mark@evolveit.com.au. Sometimes you may have work groups with an email like sales@evolveit.com.au which goes to more than one person like a sales team or service desk.

This is the norm because people who use email are generally communicating with others in or out of the business. Humans associate names and not titles or departments.

Complicating email is what I define as "a process that doesn't follow basic business best practices for email whereby the business thinks that they need to do it differently from other conforming entities because of one or more reasons".

Examples of this may be having everyone use the same email inbox and address like evolveit@evolveit.com.au, having department named emails instead of personal addresses or function addresses like businessdevelopmentmanager@evolveit.com.au or secretary@evolveit.com.au.

Not to be misconstrued here, however, there is a function for these addresses. These can be grouped or assigned addresses, but in the grand scheme of things not the best idea as the standard because the rest of the world doesn't know that this is the way that your business operates.

So... why do business managers make email difficult?

There are a variety of reasons, however the largest one has to be distrust.

Business owners that make email difficult inherently do not trust their workers to have a personalised email address; they don't trust the systems in place to do the job that they are meant to; they don't trust their workers to receive sensitive information without being watched, and; they don't trust that the job is going to get done unless someone else can see what is being sent and received through any particular mailbox at any one time.

So let's have a look at these issues and how they really affect a business. I want discuss this phenomenon because the whole issue of distrust is very sensitive and is difficult to bring up with business owners and managers. This is because, often, these people have done the job themselves previously and are hesitant to let go of tasks and responsibilities.

What are the main costs associated with distrust in the workplace?

1. Time

Imagine having to have someone not only managing a team of individuals, but second guessing every move that they make. Imagine having a team twice the size of what you really need to get the job done. Why do we employ people to watch over others, when these people just end up doing the job themselves anyway?

2. Real Estate and Infrastructure

The business owner now has a bigger team than they need because of all the extra people that they insist on having on board as a "check and balance". More people means more desks, additional floor space, consumption of more resources and more infrastructure.

3. Performance

You hire someone because they are exceptional at their profession, or because they can be trained up to work the way that you want them to. In most instances you are not employing a drafter (someone that merely writes drafts all day only to have them edited constantly); you are employing someone to work, to interact and to perform.

Morale can have a huge affect on performance and in a situation where every email is censored or even constantly checked, morale can be adversely affected. If morale is adversely affected the performance of your staff is in serious jeopardy. Autonomy breeds performance. Management is not looking over someones shoulder; management is strategic, performance driven and morale boosting.

I would also say Business Personality as well, however this is not necessarily important for all businesses.

Why would you employ someone fantastic and call them a "Manager" just so that they can re-do the work that their team has already attempted
to do? Why not just employ the Manager and not burden them with a team?

In saying this, however, I want to look at ways that we can improve the way that the office works so that the staff are more autonomous, the management can improve the business as a whole and the performance of their team, and so that the team itself can accomplish more with the same resources...Click here to go to the next page