Pretty much everybody I know complains about how much e-mail they get. Some of our client companies even create informal "email protocols" to try to stem the tide (e.g., don't hit 'reply all' unless everyone really needs to see it; deal with high-emotional content or complex topics by phone or in-person, etc.) And especially for senior executives, the volume can be overwhelming. I was coaching an EVP recently, and when she checked her iPhone during a break - it had been less than 2 hours - she had 53 e-mails piled up.
A French tech company called Atos wants to stop the madness. Thierry Breton, their CEO, thinks that a combination of instant messaging/texting, wiki-docs editable by a group, phone calls and (gasp) in-person meetings can completely replace his employees' e-mails within the next two years.
I'm not sure this is as dramatic as it sounds at first; it seems to me that texting and editable wiki-docs are simply a newer, more efficient (generally) version of e-mail. Which is not to say that it's not a good thing. The change he proposes sounds like a needed and timely transition - like the shift from party lines to private lines in telephones in the early 20th century: a better way to use an evolving technology, made possible by newly emerging capabilities.
And one positive change that might result: less completely unnecessary communication. E-mail is definitely clunky in that way. The executive I was coaching, after having read through her pile of 53 e-mails, told me that all but a dozen were redundant or immaterial. (How many e-mails have you gotten lately, sent to a 'reply all' list of ten people, that say, 'OK - thanks.')
It made me think about the e-mails I send every day, and wonder which I could eliminate. If hearing about Atos' move toward getting rid of e-mail makes us question the content and volume of the e-mails we send...that in itself is a positive change.
