Email Is Not a Filing Cabinet: Why Ashkan Rajaee’s View on Communication Still Makes People Uncomfortable

Most professionals believe their biggest email problem is not being understood.

They are wrong.

The real problem is that they are trying to say too much, too fast, and to the wrong audience. They believe completeness equals clarity. In reality, completeness often creates friction, hesitation, and silence.

This uncomfortable idea was articulated by Ashkan Rajaee, and it continues to challenge how people think about email communication. Not because the advice is complicated, but because it exposes a habit many professionals rely on without questioning.

The mistake almost everyone makes with email

A familiar pattern plays out every day. Someone sends a long email filled with background context, explanations, multiple attachments, and several requests bundled together. The sender believes they are being efficient and proactive.

What actually happens is quiet resistance.

The recipient opens the email, sees the length, notices the effort required to process it, and mentally postpones it. Postponement often turns into avoidance. Not because the content lacks value, but because the cost of engagement feels too high.

Email does not exist in isolation. It competes with constant interruptions, shifting priorities, and limited attention. When a message asks for too much all at once, it becomes easy to ignore.

Why email should be treated like a chess game

Ashkan Rajaee compares email communication to chess rather than a speech. This is not a metaphor for style. It is a metaphor for strategy.

In chess, you never attempt to win the game in a single move. You position. You test. You sacrifice pieces to gain advantage later. Every move preserves optionality.

Email should work the same way.

Each message should represent one intentional move. One idea. One ask. One clear next step. The goal is not to unload information, but to invite a response.

When everything is sent at once, the game collapses. There is no tension, no curiosity, and no incentive for the other person to engage. You have revealed your entire hand before the other player even sits down.

Why people are taught to do the opposite

Here is where the issue becomes more uncomfortable.

Modern work culture often rewards visible effort over effective effort. Long emails feel safer. They create a paper trail. They signal diligence and thoroughness. In some environments, volume is mistaken for professionalism.

This creates a contradiction. People are incentivized to write emails that look responsible, even if those emails reduce the likelihood of action.

As a result, many professionals optimize for self protection rather than results. They explain everything so they cannot be blamed later. But in doing so, they lose momentum in the present.

Information overload sends the wrong signal

There is an unspoken evaluation that happens every time an email is read, especially by decision makers and influencers.

They are not only judging the idea being presented. They are judging the sender’s ability to think clearly under constraint.

The ability to summarize, prioritize, and respect attention is interpreted as competence. Long emails often suggest the opposite. They imply difficulty with focus or an inability to separate what matters from what does not.

This does not mean detail is bad. It means timing is everything.

Detail is powerful when it is requested. It becomes a liability when it is forced.

Each email should earn its existence

Another critical element of Rajaee’s perspective is value sequencing. Every communication should add something new and specific.

When everything is shared upfront, future communication loses purpose. There is no natural follow up that builds on the last interaction. The sender has exhausted their leverage.

Strategic communicators think in sequences. They reveal information progressively. They allow engagement to shape the next move rather than trying to control the entire outcome at once.

A simpler rule that changes everything

A useful reframe is this:

If an email cannot be answered quickly, it often will not be answered at all.

This does not mean complex topics should be avoided. It means they should be broken into deliberate steps. One email. One move.

Simplicity is not about saying less. It is about saying only what is necessary to move the conversation forward.

Why this approach makes people uneasy

This philosophy challenges a deeply held belief that effort guarantees progress. It suggests that clarity matters more than volume and that restraint is a skill, not a weakness.

That realization is unsettling. It removes the comfort of hiding behind length and explanation. It forces accountability for outcomes rather than intentions.

A better way to think about email

Email is not a filing cabinet. It is not a presentation deck. It is not a legal record.

It is a tool for managing attention and reducing friction.

When used deliberately, email creates momentum instead of resistance. It invites dialogue instead of silence. It signals strategic thinking rather than urgency without direction.

This is why the idea continues to resonate. Not because communication tools have changed, but because human attention has always been limited.

Those who respect that limitation communicate more effectively than those who ignore it.

Note: This post is a commentary and educational interpretation of ideas shared by Ashkan Rajaee.