Inbox Zero and Complexity

Here’s a story that caught my eye on Apple’s app store https://apps.apple.com/au/story/id1440219982 It describes two must-have apps that will finally make you more efficient, and help you to clear that backlog of emails in your inbox until you have no un-replied-to emails left — aka Inbox Zero! Reflecting on what was being offered by these apps prompted two thoughts:

Man, I totally need these apps… badly! I won’t even tell you what my inbox looks like…

But then, also, another thought…

Hold on, but by increasing my and other people’s ability to get to the Promised land of Inbox Zero by responding to and taking action on all the flood of emails that just keeps pouring in, wouldn’t these apps actually create yet more of a problem? Supposing they work as described, I and anybody else who uses them would now add yet more emails into the system. Emails that now others will need to reply to, and wouldn’t that in turn systemically worsen the overall problem for all of us? Maybe push them into having to get these great apps too just to cope with the increased flood of email, and yet inadvertently making the situation worse for all?

I’ve been reading up a lot on complex systems theory, devoured all I can on the topic, because the more I look, the more I think that we all need to get a better grasp of complexity, emergence, and a range of concepts that if not understood will lead us into serious trouble. I’ve even done over a dozen online courses, just to see how others teach the topic.

One thing you learn quickly – or at least one thing which struck me rather quickly – is just how much the problem-solving paradigm is so wrong when applied to complexity. Problem-solving does not actually solve problems in complex systems… not for very long, anyway, because the system adjusts itself because of all the interconnections and dependencies in response to the solution.

To see how this happens, and why there’s nothing spooky about complexity and emergence and all those other concepts, think about those two awesome email programs/apps, and ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. is this the right way to handle the situation of drowning in email, or
2. is this precisely the wrong (the worse, in fact) way to go about it?

To me, this example is very helpful in highlighting the key characteristics of non-complexity-thinking, and what makes such thinking (when applied to complex situations) deeply problematic. Notice how there’s not not even an attempt to abstract away from the apparent problem before us – no attempt to reframe it first and see what the bigger picture might look like – with the result that both the original situation description and the description and instantiation of the proposed solution find the tool – email – embedded within their formulation.

And won’t this approach just make things even worse by contributing yet more emails into the pool of emails circulating in the system that others will in turn have to reply to?

It’s sort of like saying “Here, take some stimulants – but let’s use the euphemism “smart drugs” – and they’ll help us get through our work piles faster, and then we’ll be free of all that email work.”

Alas, things don’t work that way. What will eventually happen if we employ this approach, is that it will just make room for yet more work to come our way. People like efficient people – they flock to them – so you’ll attract extra work. Also, in a competitive workplace and society, if you sit idly after getting all your email work done, someone else won’t, and they’ll keep working, which will make you fall behind them. You’ll become relatively less competitive than them. That will have economic upshots for you. The pressure from falling behind others, and that people notice how efficient you are – and maybe even the fact that just sitting idly doing nothing is kind of boring, especially when you’re used to getting things done – will probably push you to keep working, not to take time off simply because you’ve done your work more quickly.

If I were to put this in terms of Dave Snoden’s Cynefin framework, I’d say that the developers of these apps have misdiagnosed a complex situation, and have treated it as if it were a complicated situation.

Though I’m losing a bit ofmy love for Cynefin these days. Partly because it woefully underdiagnoses complexity, by failing to give due recognition to the fact that complexity is actually everywhere if you look properly.

But even if we omit that complaint, sticking within the Cynefin framework, if you take seriously Dave Snowden’s intention for Cynefin to be used as a collective sense-making framework, not as a taxonomy or a categorisation framework (all packaged up neatly with pre-fabricated good managerial responses), then there ain’t no such thing as a miscategorisation in the first place!

This seems to me like a nice example because everyone knows and can relate to email, and probably many of us have felt the urge to seek the holy grail of Inbox Zero – i.e. clearing out your inbox completely, no more un-responded-to messages – but Inbox Zero, I suspect, is a mirage, an unattainable and unsustainable goal? The flood of emails will just keep growing the more resources we throw at it!

So, should you aim for Inbox Zero this year? Or should you stay away from that ideal?

Personally, I think I’ll stick to my slow replies strategy. Not because I don’t agonise about making people wait for replies. Rather, because I can’t see how adding yet more emails into the system can make things any better for anyone.