Katey Klippel makes a point of keeping her smartphone in her bag when she returns home from a hard day at the management consulting firm where she works in Washington.
That way, she can better practice what her employer preaches and stop checking her e-mails after hours.
“Before, I would take my computer home,” Klippel, 26, said. “I would pull up my e-mails to check things, or knock off a few extra e-mails while watching TV or cooking dinner. I don’t do that anymore.”
With technological progress shaking up the work-life balance like never before, some employers are taking action.
In September, Klippel’s employer, The Advisory Board Company, imposed an “e-mail moratorium” over the three-day Labor Day weekend on its 1,850 employees from the top brass down.
“I found myself looking at my iPhone and ready to respond, but I told myself, ‘No, let it go,’” said chief executive Robert Musslewhite, who has since issued guidelines to curb after-hours e-mailing.
E-mail has no doubt helped to speed up communication, but Musslewhite sees a “growing sentiment” that its growth has crossed a stage where it is now cutting into productivity.
“That’s the part we really want to tackle,” he said. “There’s some part of e-mail that has gone too far and that is now impeding productivity.”
The Advisory Board’s guidelines seem sensible enough, such as limiting the number of addresses of any given e-mail, summing up the message in the subject line, and opting for instant messaging.
Juggling e-mails or taking phone calls after hours adds up to an extra month-and-a-half of work every year, according to a study by software developer Good Technology.
Outside the US, some major corporations such as French IT services group Atos have virtually banned e-mailing once employees have clocked out for the day.
“There is a growing sentiment that e-mail is not very productive, and actually decreases productivity,” said Gwanhoo Lee, an associate professor of information technology at American University in Washington.
“A typical manager receives hundreds of e-mails a day, and that consumes a substantial amount of work hours,” he says.
Some organizations are trying to move away from e-mail in favor of instant messaging or social media, added Lee, who has worked with several major corporations.
Nevertheless, “many organizations are still expecting their employees to check their e-mails even over the weekend or when out of town,” he said.
According to a study by the Society for Human Resource Management, hardly one company in five has an e-mail policy — and out of those, only one in four aims to strike a balance between professional and private lives.
Judith Glaser, founder of consulting firm Benchmark Communications, said many employees are consumed by e-mails because they are driven by a need to feel part of an organization.
Workers not copied on an e-mail, she said, may suspect an indirect signal from their bosses that “you are not important anymore in the decision process,” she said.
The secret is to discuss the expectations of each employee and enable them to plan to take time off, free of e-mail, “without being stressed,” she said.
For Klippel, the ability to draw a firm line between her working and personal life has been a very positive change. Now she can go out with friends or cook dinner without interruption.
“If you’re sending e-mails in the middle of the night, people start to worry about you,” she said. “It’s encouragement for you to shut down.”
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS