This is one of those ideas that sounds good at first but I think they may rethink that.
Their points on the disadvantages of email are true and good but they may be overlooking its good points and the downsides to using IM.
Spam can be quickly deleted. While its an annoyance there are Ways to curb the amount received.
Lots of not useful email is sent but there are lots that are useful.
The cool thing about email is that you can choose to ignore it easily and come back later. When you substitute IM for email you're opening a can of worms that can be worse. An IM is harder to ignore, people expect an instant response and people will still use it for communicating less than useful info still.
When you have an IM client open all the time you're going to have to context switch more often than with email. With email you may get a little alert via something like the Mail.app sound for new mail or a Growl type notification but you know it can wait. With IM you're going to be switching over immediately. Context switching kills productivity and this policy will make matters worse.
The better solution would to implement a policy that stops people from sending ridiculously not useful emails. They aren't solving the problem but just putting it into a new context.
But then I'm reminded of a story here on HN from a day ago from the Atlantic that talks about how folks like us can easily criticize but if we're so smart why aren't we running that company. It may not apply here but it just popped into my head.
What immediately struck me is having two forms of communication rather than one. I don't like that. The article mentions the company reduced it's email by some percentage in the last six months as if that means something. I know I'm more likely to send a stupid link to a coworker if I'm on chat vs company email.
Yep, you're exactly right. It's like replacing long form time wasters with short form time wasters. A context switch is a context switch whether it's from productive work to email or from productive work to IM.
Their points on the disadvantages of email are true and good but they may be overlooking its good points and the downsides to using IM.
Spam can be quickly deleted. While its an annoyance there are Ways to curb the amount received.
Lots of not useful email is sent but there are lots that are useful.
The cool thing about email is that you can choose to ignore it easily and come back later. When you substitute IM for email you're opening a can of worms that can be worse. An IM is harder to ignore, people expect an instant response and people will still use it for communicating less than useful info still.
When you have an IM client open all the time you're going to have to context switch more often than with email. With email you may get a little alert via something like the Mail.app sound for new mail or a Growl type notification but you know it can wait. With IM you're going to be switching over immediately. Context switching kills productivity and this policy will make matters worse.
The better solution would to implement a policy that stops people from sending ridiculously not useful emails. They aren't solving the problem but just putting it into a new context.
But then I'm reminded of a story here on HN from a day ago from the Atlantic that talks about how folks like us can easily criticize but if we're so smart why aren't we running that company. It may not apply here but it just popped into my head.