IF 4.9 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Andre Lanctot, Linda Duxbury
{"title":"You’ve got mail – whether you want it or not: An emic investigation into how email use can be managed","authors":"Andre Lanctot,&nbsp;Linda Duxbury","doi":"10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite the best attempts of researchers and the tomes of advice in the consulting and grey literature, many continue to experience email overload and the volume of email employees manage is staggering. A troubling problem given that email overload and volume have been linked to negative wellbeing outcomes for employees. This paper reports on a qualitative study undertaken to help researchers and practitioners better understand email management from the point of view of email users. A sample of 30 knowledge workers were interviewed and asked to identify personal and workplace changes that could help them better manage their use of email. Fifteen informants worked in the public sector (education) while the other 15 worked in a private sector firm (insurance industry). The study took an interpretivist approach with content coding of the semi-structured interviews to develop sensitizing constructs. Analysis of the data uncovered a strong link between what users were telling us and some of the major tenants of attribution theory: locus of causality and stability. Most importantly, we found that most of the knowledge workers we spoke to felt that they could do little personally to manage their use of email. Rather, they felt email management was the responsibility of others (e.g., policies, training, technology). Responses were consistent with a self-serving attribution bias and consistent with the norms in place in organizations supporting an ideal worker culture. This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it shows most employees do not take responsibility for their email management problems. Implying that email management needs to be tackled at the organizational level. Second, it provides organizations and employees with practical advice on how they can start to address issues with email management. Third, our findings contribute to theoretical development in this area by exploring email management issues through an attribution theory lens.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72681,"journal":{"name":"Computers in human behavior reports","volume":"18 ","pages":"Article 100618"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in human behavior reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958825000338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管研究人员尽了最大努力,咨询和灰色文献也提供了大量建议,但许多人仍然面临着电子邮件超载的问题,员工管理的电子邮件数量惊人。鉴于电子邮件超载和数量与员工的负面健康结果有关,这是一个令人不安的问题。本文报告了一项定性研究,旨在帮助研究人员和从业人员从电子邮件用户的角度更好地了解电子邮件管理。我们对 30 名知识工作者进行了抽样访谈,要求他们确定个人和工作场所的变化,以帮助他们更好地管理电子邮件的使用。其中 15 名受访者在公共部门(教育部门)工作,另外 15 名受访者在私营企业(保险行业)工作。这项研究采用了解释主义方法,对半结构化访谈进行内容编码,以形成敏感性建构。通过对数据的分析,我们发现用户告诉我们的内容与归因理论的一些主要原则(因果关系和稳定性)之间存在密切联系。最重要的是,我们发现与我们交谈过的大多数知识工作者都认为,他们个人在管理电子邮件的使用方面几乎无能为力。相反,他们认为电子邮件管理是他人的责任(如政策、培训、技术)。他们的回答与自我服务归因偏差相一致,也与支持理想员工文化的组织规范相一致。本研究在几个方面对文献做出了贡献。首先,它表明大多数员工并不为自己的电子邮件管理问题负责。这说明电子邮件管理需要在组织层面上解决。第二,它为组织和员工提供了如何着手解决电子邮件管理问题的实用建议。第三,我们的研究结果通过归因理论的视角探讨了电子邮件管理问题,为这一领域的理论发展做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
You’ve got mail – whether you want it or not: An emic investigation into how email use can be managed
Despite the best attempts of researchers and the tomes of advice in the consulting and grey literature, many continue to experience email overload and the volume of email employees manage is staggering. A troubling problem given that email overload and volume have been linked to negative wellbeing outcomes for employees. This paper reports on a qualitative study undertaken to help researchers and practitioners better understand email management from the point of view of email users. A sample of 30 knowledge workers were interviewed and asked to identify personal and workplace changes that could help them better manage their use of email. Fifteen informants worked in the public sector (education) while the other 15 worked in a private sector firm (insurance industry). The study took an interpretivist approach with content coding of the semi-structured interviews to develop sensitizing constructs. Analysis of the data uncovered a strong link between what users were telling us and some of the major tenants of attribution theory: locus of causality and stability. Most importantly, we found that most of the knowledge workers we spoke to felt that they could do little personally to manage their use of email. Rather, they felt email management was the responsibility of others (e.g., policies, training, technology). Responses were consistent with a self-serving attribution bias and consistent with the norms in place in organizations supporting an ideal worker culture. This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it shows most employees do not take responsibility for their email management problems. Implying that email management needs to be tackled at the organizational level. Second, it provides organizations and employees with practical advice on how they can start to address issues with email management. Third, our findings contribute to theoretical development in this area by exploring email management issues through an attribution theory lens.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信