If your inbox is anything like mine, you're on threads that go on for days. My favourite inbox management tip is that I auto-file anything I'm CCed on to a special folder and only check those a couple times a day. This reduces some of the pain.

But what's becoming more prevalent is that some of these epic threads contain full-on essays. We're talking over 1,000 words.

And it's not just email. The same thing is happening in chat. A question gets dropped into Slack or Teams, someone responds with a small novel, and suddenly the thread is full of people trying to respond to different parts of the same message.

Some of these messages are sent so quickly after the last one that you can only suspect AI was used to generate all that... content.

So while everyone's complaining about meetings being dreadful, I loathe the epic written thread, whether it's in email or chat. And it always makes me wonder what goes through the mind of the sender before they hit send:

Because for every super-long response, you know two things are going to happen:

I remember business communication advice that was all the rage a decade ago: after three emails, you should call someone to resolve the issue. Doesn't that seem quaint?

This isn't me arguing that every long email, or chat message, should've been a meeting. Written communication can be useful. It gives people time to think, creates a record, and supports asynchronous work.

But when six, eight, or twelve people are sending essays back and forth, the problem isn't necessarily that they're working asynchronously. The problem is that the group hasn't chosen a communication format that fits the work.

A long written thread is a poor substitute for a conversation when the real work is interpretation, disagreement, prioritization, or decision-making.

The issue isn't that people write. The issue is that the communication method has become disconnected from what people need to do together.

Naturally, if you've been with me for a while, you know that I'm going to suggest that collaboration design is key here.

Chances are, there are all kinds of reasons people cite for writing these epic messages:

And, frankly, some of those reasons may be completely valid.

If people are reticent to meet and have conversations, I'd offer that maybe the ones they experience are unstructured, unorganized, and lack clear outcomes. Which is why they'd rather word vomit and deal with other people's word vomit back than put another meeting on their calendars.

Which is where collaboration design comes in.

If you're dreading opening your messages, maybe it's time to talk with your lead about ways to redesign the communication culture on your team.

Sometimes the right answer is a short written update. Sometimes it's a request for input with a clear deadline. Sometimes it's 20 minutes with the three people who can make the decision, followed by a short note documenting what changed and who's doing what.

Not every session needs to be a workshop. Not every meeting needs to be a 60- or 30-minute time block. Not every conversation needs to include the entire community or project team.

Collaboration design is about being intentional: with your energy, with others' time, and with finding efficient, productive ways to generate decisions and move projects forward.

You don't have to live with poor meeting and communication hygiene. Start with one recurring thread, one standing meeting, or one decision that always takes too long. Ask what people actually need to do together, then choose a format that helps them do it.

That's collaboration design in practice: less word vomit, fewer performative meetings, and clearer ways to move work forward.

Getting a group in a room is the most expensive way to make a decision. Rather than build on hope, build with intention. Join me for half a day to learn how on September 29, online, 12-4pm Eastern.