PDF Summary:A World Without Email, by Cal Newport

It’s impossible to imagine a modern workplace without email, right? Computer science professor and productivity expert Cal Newport imagines—and advocates—for it. In A World Without Email, Newport argues that email, and the relentless requests and distractions it introduces, makes knowledge workers less productive and more unhappy. Rather than dedicating focused time to the work they were hired to do, knowledge workers spend most of their days responding to and checking for unexpected requests which, because they’re part of a team, they feel pressured to fulfill immediately.

Newport contends email doesn’t have to be the default way we work, and he proposes three solutions to get the most out of knowledge workers’ expertise while also making them happier employees: improving the workflows that govern how people work, improving the channels through which people communicate, and improving the quality of peoples’ working time. Alongside these recommendations, we’ll present the thoughts and approaches of other productivity thinkers and raise possible objections to some of Newport’s radical proposals.

(continued)...

The Attention Capital Principle: Brainpower Must Be Optimally Harnessed

Newport’s attention capital principle is based on the idea that the most value-generating resource knowledge workers have is their brainpower, or what he calls their attention capital. Companies must extract the value of that brainpower to produce high-quality work. But not all value-extraction systems are equally effective. Therefore, to derive the greatest value from knowledge workers’ brainpower, companies must put in place optimal workflows and systems—this is the attention capital principle.

(Shortform note: In a blog post, Newport acknowledges that he borrowed the term “attention capital” from an article by Dan Nixon, formerly an analyst for the Bank of England. In this article, Nixon discusses the inability to focus on a single task (Newport’s HHMW) in the context of economic productivity, not workplace productivity. He claims productivity growth in advanced economies has slowed since about 2017—the same time that the number of global smartphone shipments started rising significantly. Nixon proposes conducting further research to pinpoint the connection between attention and national productivity, which ideally would reveal how to better extract economic value from knowledge workers’ attention.)

Let’s illustrate the attention capital principle through an example: You’re an architect who possesses knowledge and skill—in other words, attention capital. If you spend most of your day answering emails rather than designing buildings, your company isn’t extracting much value from your expertise in architecture: All it’s getting from you is a bunch of emails. However, if your company sets up a workflow wherein you can work on blueprints for several uninterrupted hours, it extracts far more value from your attention capital.

In this principle, Newport makes an important distinction between attention capital and the systems and workflows that extract value from it. Managers shouldn’t push knowledge workers to produce more or better attention capital—because knowledge workers are experts and know best how to produce attention capital—but managers should develop workflows and systems to derive the most value from the attention capital.

In our architect example, the manager shouldn’t ask the architect to arrive early to work or to work faster to generate more ideas: The architect knows best how to do their job. Instead, the manager could set up a regular meeting with the architect to check on progress and tell colleagues the architect can’t be bothered during set times of the day that the architect identified. These are workflows that let the company get the most value from the architect’s expertise.

(Shortform note: Many HR departments operate under a principle related to the attention capital principle: the belief that you should build upon an employee’s strengths, not compensate for their weaknesses. In other words, you should create systems that derive the most value from workers’ strengths—their attention capital—and not force them to overcome their weaknesses—produce better attention capital. In practice, this means recruiters should look at candidates’ strengths and find positions that use those strengths.)

Now that we’ve covered the attention capital principle, let’s describe Newport’s three solutions for improving the systems companies use to extract the greatest value from their knowledge workers’ brainpower.

Solution #1: The Process Principle

The process principle is the idea that companies should institute processes—systems and workflows—that enhance the performance of knowledge workers and make their work more enjoyable.

(Shortform note: Newport’s choice of the word “process” may seem arbitrary because “process” is a loose term that doesn’t in itself communicate much about this idea. However, a formal definition of a “work process” is a system that generates value for a company. This additional context clarifies the principle somewhat—perhaps an alternative, more specific name for it could be the “value-generation principle.”)

Newport feels that many companies fear instituting structured processes for their knowledge workers because these reduce the autonomy and flexibility considered integral to effective knowledge work. In reality, while structures may marginally reduce autonomy and flexibility, they more importantly keep the workplace equitable and efficient: Without formal processes, humans tend to try to do as little work as possible, and influential employees pawn work off on hard-working colleagues.

(Shortform note: The freelancer might be more familiar than anyone with the need to balance autonomy and flexibility with discipline and processes to be optimally productive. Freelancers understand that while autonomy is nice, if you don’t institute certain processes and rules for yourself, you’ll never get anything done. More likely, you’ll abuse your “future self” by procrastinating or forcing yourself to work on weekends to meet deadlines.)

Newport recommends two processes in particular: task board-based and automated. Let’s look at both.

The Task Board

Task boards are digital or physical boards displaying columns that represent stages of a project, with cards that represent tasks in those stages. Newport points to Scrum and Kanban as commonly used processes tracked with task boards. Scrum is a system software developers often use that involves focusing exclusively on one task or project during a two-week “sprint.” Kanban, on the other hand, is a system more appropriate for regular tasks and projects that must move through a series of stages to completion.

(Shortform note: A new type of task board-process has emerged for those for whom neither Scrum nor Kanban works perfectly: Scrumban, which, as the name suggests, is an amalgamation of the Scrum and Kanban approaches. Scrumban uses sprints—periods of time dedicated exclusively to one project—to organize work (like in Scrum) but also uses the boards more common to Kanban to visualize the work and tasks.)

For instance, you might have an “In Progress” column, a “Testing” column, and a “Backlog” column. Adjust these columns to suit your needs and if in doubt, start with standard “To Do,” “Doing,” and “Done” columns and expand from there. Newport also recommends creating a “To Discuss” column in which you can collect items you need to discuss with others and then hold a meeting with them to cover them all at once.

(Shortform note: The philosophy behind the Scrum and Kanban workflows hinges on adaptability: Both flows let you identify the best stages for your project and agilely move tasks between stages. Indeed, Scrum as a process is constantly being updated by its creators, Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland. You can see these updates in their Scrum Guide. Newport would likely approve of such periodic improvements to existing processes—his recommendation to add a “To Discuss” column, for instance, bespeaks his eagerness to optimize over time.)

In these stage columns, you’ll place and move task cards. Describe tasks clearly on the cards, note who’s responsible, and attach any additional documents needed. If you’re using a digital task board, hold written conversations about the task in the chat or discussion area of the task card rather than via email. This eliminates the need to review a general inbox (and the potential to become distracted by a myriad of other requests). It further keeps expectations of communication low because, unlike messenger apps and inboxes, which people check almost constantly, no one checks project boards constantly.

(Shortform note: Newport advocates capturing all details of a task—such as a description and additional documents—on cards. But what if you don’t have all the details about the task when you create the card for it? A solution to this might be to follow David Allen’s approach in Getting Things Done: Do a physical and mental sweep for all your outstanding tasks and any information you have about them. Write that information on your task board—perhaps in a column titled “To Act On.” Once you have all task information in one place, you can create each task card and be sure it includes all relevant details.)

Hold short, regular in-person meetings with your team to update a board together. Such meetings allow for everyone to provide updates on the status of their tasks, for new tasks to emerge, and for people to be assigned to them. Such meetings promote accountability to the team, involve everyone in decision-making, and eliminate the ambiguity of written communication.

(Shortform note: Some experts think the brief, in-person meetings that Newport recommends are an idealistic solution, and they don’t work in reality. This is because such meetings tend to become longer and longer over time, and participants become disengaged. However, a counterintuitive alternative to the regular update meeting might work: Holding daily hour-long “meandering” meetings that prioritize social connection over efficiency. According to a company that uses this approach, this makes everyone more efficient during the day and reduces later interruptions.)

Automated Processes

If there’s a task you or someone else on your team does frequently (30 or more times a year), automate that task by setting up a flow in which all parties know exactly how to handle each step without further communication, writes Newport. This takes time to optimize but always saves time in the long run. You can automate a process in the following steps:

1. Break the task into multiple sequential phases, specifying who should do what work.
2. Find a way to indicate when a task is done in a phase and is ready to move to the next.
3. Have a clear place where files can be passed from one phase to the next.

(Shortform note: While automation can save time, Newport doesn’t say what to do when an automation step fails. What if something goes wrong, but you’re also trying to reduce hyperactive hive mind communication and don’t want to shoot off an email? Elsewhere in the book, Newport proposes devising an emergency communication strategy for clients. Similarly, in breakdowns, employees might be able to call supervisors directly on their cell phones. Importantly, you must clearly state what constitutes an emergency. Otherwise, employees might end up using the strategy too often, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of automation.)

Solution #2: The Protocol Principle

Beyond setting up workflows that efficiently extract value from knowledge work, Newport recommends that companies set up rules for how people communicate to reduce inefficient cognitive switching and unnecessary work. This is the protocol principle. Rules can be challenging to implement in the short term but can result in greater productivity in the long term.

(Shortform note: Like “the process principle,” the “protocol principle” is a slightly vague term, as we use the word protocol loosely across many contexts. We might consider “communication conventions” as a substitute for “protocol,” as this perhaps more pointedly conveys the idea that a workplace must institute standards for communication. )

Newport recommends setting up protocols for several aspects of your work.

Protocols for Scheduling Meetings

Create protocols that dictate how meetings are scheduled, a process that can otherwise be cognitively draining and time-consuming. Newport recommends hiring a full-time or part-time human assistant if possible or otherwise using a digital scheduling service. This lets employees list their availability and allows others to book time slots with them.

(Shortform note: While a digital scheduling service may indeed be more efficient for the employee, do the people making appointments with such services like them? It seems users appreciate the flexibility of being able to schedule appointments at their convenience, but there’s also evidence that, in general, most people usually prefer a human interaction over an impersonal one. Perhaps you might schedule initial meetings via email to establish trust and then ask the other person to use your service thereafter.)

Protocols for Answering Questions

To better answer on-the-fly questions, have employees hold office hours: set times that they’re available during the day or week. Others can thus approach a knowledge worker with questions only when they’re available to answer them. Newport acknowledges this only works for questions that don’t require an immediate response.

(Shortform note: While from a productivity standpoint, reducing interruptions and cognitive switching is superior to a workday punctuated by unscheduled interruptions, from a mental health perspective, unscheduled interruptions can be beneficial. Some argue that interruptions offer the chance to have casual social interactions that create a sense of connection at work.)

Protocols for Clients

In setting up protocols for clients, make it easy for them to follow progress on a project without having to send many emails—a portal or project page can facilitate this, writes Newport. Be clear in the contract with clients about how you’ll communicate with them. Finally, when necessary, implement crisis protocols—ways for the client to reach you in an emergency.

(Shortform note: The prospect of setting the terms of your interactions with clients might seem uncomfortable: Most of us operate under the assumption that the business should adapt to the client’s needs. But others feel that not only should you set the terms of your client interactions, but you should also fire clients who are bad for your business because they take up too much time or don’t listen to your advice.)

Protocols for Email

Consider strictly limiting email length, advises Newport. This ensures that only the simple communication suited to the email format is handled that way and that any other communication happens in person.

(Shortform note: Writing short emails isn’t easy for many. To write more succinct emails, you may need to spend more time on them to pare down your message to its core meaning. One technique that can help is to make full use of the subject line to explain why you’re writing and what you need from the recipient.)

When it comes to communication with entities outside the company, like clients and vendors, you might ask these entities to email a general inbox rather than individual employees. This decreases the expectation on the part of clients and vendors that your employees will check their accounts frequently and feel a personal obligation to respond. For clients, you might even set up an email account with their name—clientname@yourcompany.com—and ask them to send queries to this address.

(Shortform note: For Newport’s proposed email protocol to work, it’s critical that someone at the company check the client’s email account and action emails. Customer relationship management systems (CRMs) can help with this communication flow and keep employees accountable. CRMs are softwares designed to capture information from the customer or client, transform it into an action item—a task, for instance—and then track the progress on that action item.)

Protocols for Status Meetings

As we discussed in the context of task boards, decide on a brief standing meeting slot one or multiple times a week, asserts Newport. Have everyone provide updates in this meeting. This gets the team on the same page, limits the amount of impromptu written communication that must happen, and frees up time for potential longer meetings that emerge from the status meeting.

(Shortform note: While Newport’s vision for status meetings likely improves efficiency and communication, it may not be optimally engaging. This is what Death by Meeting author Patrick Lencioni feels to be the problem with most meetings: They’re boring and often useless. To counter the monotony and lack of engagement during meetings, Lencioni advises that you find the drama in meetings: a reason for employees to be engaged (what Lencioni refers to as the hook) and sources of disagreement (the conflict).)

Solution #3: The Specialization Principle

Newport’s last solution to optimizing the systems that extract value from knowledge work is to have workers focus on fewer tasks and do them with higher quality and accountability—in other words, to specialize. This means you don’t lose productivity by multitasking, and you don’t waste time answering unimportant questions.

(Shortform note: Other time management specialists agree with Newport that to produce the highest-quality work, you must specialize. In Eat That Frog, Brian Tracy even specifies that there are three tasks at work that let you add the most value, so you should figure out what those three tasks are, and move all other responsibilities off your plate.)

Newport advocates several ways for companies to let knowledge workers specialize.

Pass Off Ancillary Work Someone Else Can Do Better

Let workers hand off ancillary tasks—secondary tasks that support the primary operations of a company or worker—to someone who can do them more efficiently than you. For a business owner, these are things like marketing, customer service, travel booking, and so on, and for a knowledge worker, these are things like scheduling meetings, answering minor queries, and handling speaker requests. This may mean losing some revenue at first, but in the end, it will be more productive than knowledge workers doing everything themselves.

(Shortform note: But what if you can’t delegate work?First, approach the person who assigned the ancillary work in the first place and ask them how to prioritize this task among your existing tasks. This may prompt them to reassign it. If they don’t, still try to find parts of the task you can pass off, even if they’re small. Taking these steps might not even incur a loss of revenue—though they don’t necessarily solve the long-term problem of having too much on your plate.)

Adjust Your Role So Your Value Hinges on Your Knowledge Work

If possible, adjust your professional role so it depends more on your ability to perform knowledge work and less on your ability to be responsive and accomplish minor tasks, recommends Newport. This means there’s more pressure to perform that knowledge work well—because there’s no other way to add value to the organization—but it also frees you from the distracting HHMW. For instance, you might propose a new initiative to your boss and request that you be able to work on it to the exclusion of all else.

(Shortform note: Newport recommends adjusting your role within a company to be more knowledge work-specific, but going freelance might be a better way to attain a fully knowledge work-focused work life. As a freelancer, you get to choose the projects you work on and can therefore opt out of work you don’t enjoy. You’re also your own manager, meaning you can determine at what pace you respond to messages, thereby circumventing the hive mind workflow. And as Newport says, your job is contingent on your output: If you perform the work well, people will keep hiring you. If you don’t, you won’t get hired.)

Implement Sprints to Encourage Sole Focus on Knowledge Work

To promote specialization, implement a sprint workflow, advises Newport: Divide the work year into (usually two-week) periods during which a team works toward a single goal with no interruptions or other demands on their time. Communicate this workflow to people outside your team so they set proper expectations of when you can get back to them.

(Shortform note: Others even advocate using sprints in your personal life to execute important tasks. You can make your personal sprints much shorter—90 to 120 minutes—and schedule them at your most productive times of day. Focus exclusively on one task during them, and take a break after. To stay optimally productive, consider telling family and friends about your personal sprints so they know not to bother you.)

Dedicate a Set Number of Hours Each Week to Tasks

To ensure you maintain enough time during the week for knowledge work, Newport says you should set a fixed number of hours each week for various tasks. These can be tasks like helping others, performing administrative duties, attending meetings, and the actual knowledge work you were hired to do.

(Shortform note: While setting a fixed number of hours per task each week can help fend off the HHMW, be aware that the amount of time you must allocate to each task may change over the course of the year. For instance, accountants have a busy season at the beginning of the year, during which they must dedicate most of their time to doing taxes. Pay attention to how your role changes annually and adjust your hours per task accordingly.)

Improve Workplace Support Staff Systems

Finally, if your workplace has support staff, optimize their systems, as well, to allow knowledge workers to work with minimal interruption, Newport advises.

(Shortform note: Rather than optimizing support staff systems, more companies are doing away with support staff altogether and replacing them with automated systems and AI.)

To do this, first set up workflows that govern how support staff work—the same thing you did for knowledge workers by implementing task boards, says Newport. This lets them work on one task at a time, thereby enhancing their productivity and happiness and making them greater assets to the company and its knowledge workers. Second, structure their support work with the aim of impacting specialists’ work as minimally as possible. This might mean consolidating multiple emails into one or creating a system in which a specialist can submit a request and a support person physically comes by their office to ask follow-up questions.

(Shortform note: Newport acknowledges that these recommendations, which hinge on making life easier for knowledge workers, can lead to an ethos that holds up knowledge workers as geniuses and sees support staff merely as facilitators of that genius. Newport doesn’t deny that in today’s economy, knowledge work simply is the most valuable output and therefore must be prioritized. But it’s also possible that a positive company culture can mitigate support staff’s feelings of being less important. A strong company culture that makes everyone feel part of a team and mission increases employee engagement, no matter what their role is.)