Could AI end the reign of the desk with monitors?

Posted on by
Reply

There is a lot of talk right now about how AI is dramatically going to reshape the workforce – from less jobs altogether, to no graduate roles, to the death of coding and everything in between.  There is a lot less written about how AI will impact the workplace itself – beyond the possibility of smaller workplaces for smaller workforces.  To me, the potential for AI to reshape workplaces are much more interesting than just size.

First and foremost, workplaces should be places that respond to the process of the work being done within them (sadly not always true today). So how will AI change the process of work?  Does it change the nature of our organisations or teams?  Does it change how and what we use our computer for?  Will it mean more meetings or less? Will we be meeting with humans or with AI agents?  These are all questions to which we don’t really have solid answers yet.

Its likely that the technology changes will come faster than the human changes keep pace.  For quite some time – the possibilities of what technology can deliver has been ahead of how humans want to live and work (think self driving cars or even how limited video calls were before covid). The more radical futures of AI – such as total organisational structural overhaul with everyone working as contractors assigned projects by AI systems –  to me therefore seem an unlikely near term reality.  In fact this contract / gig economy has been predicated for 20 odd years but has never really come to pass (this one from 2013 is worth a look).  It’s not because the tech doesn’t exist to support it, but because for many individuals and organisatons alike – the security and predictability of the current corporate stable salaried models and ongoing teams has continued to be the preferred way of working.

Whilst the nature of work itself might change, it would therefore seem unlikely that the structural organsiation of the corporate world would change significantly anytime soon.  This is not surprising.  COVID proved that we don’t need workplaces to work but the majority of companies still have them, and in many cases, still have something very similar to what they had before COVID  – it is often just used less and slightly differently.  To me this suggests that the idea of what we call ‘workplace’ will continue to exist in an AI world – even if its purpose and the way it is used continues to evolve.

Different headcount growth and AI uptake scenarios are linked to differing potential outcomes for the size and quality of the workplace.  Anthony Slumbers has written a great post envisioning different scenarios based upon high level impacts of AI here. Anthony talks at high level about more desks or more client space – but how does that really translate to workplace stragegy and design?

I’d like to think that AI adoption might free us from the very strong ties to the ergonomic desk and monitor, which the laptop has still not broken. One issue with the desk + monitor is that this is the most single use / inflexible unit of space our workplaces contain today.  1 person equals 1 desk + monitor (or more monitors).  Whilst occupancy fluctuates day to day, the desks sit empty.  But we have to have enough just in case.  Heaven forbid someone comes in and can’t find a desk with a monitor – they might never return.  These desks with monitors then end up taking up more space than they deserve based upon their use patterns.  According to XY Sense data “Up to 31% of desks are never used on a given day, while 21% are used for less than one hour [a day]”  This fits with what I see in our own observation studies.

It’s hard to use a desk with a monitor for much else than single use work (and often not focus work either). Real collaboration between more than 2 people is blocked by monitors, and often even paired collaboration is distracting to neighbours.  However, small rooms or desks without monitors get used even less often that the desks with monitors.

What if AI means we no longer need a monitor?  What if it means we spend less time looking at screens?  Alternatively what if it means we need more and even bigger screens?

Technologies for projecting onto surface have existing for a long time.  The limitations have been about what they can project onto and how we can interact with them.  What if you could project onto any surface and it could become a touch based interface?  Laser based projection keyboards have been around for awhile and are already available for under $100 on Amazon.  I think the reason they don’t have a high takeup is for many the tactile nature of keyboards helps to touch type, otherwise you might as well just use your phone keyboard.  There is even a paint that promises to be a surface suited to an interactive projection screen! The solution to more larger displays might not be the size of a desk but the size of a room.

With AI we might not even need to ever touch these projections.  Voice assistants are taking over. This adds another dimension to how we consider the future workplace.  If we are all talking to our AI agents all day, how will the open plan office work?  Will we all be working in the atmosphere of a call centre?  This leads to the question – will AI replace focus work as we know it today?  Or will it replace what we term ‘interruptible work’, the tasks like some email and scheduling meetings where it doesn’t matter if you colleagues are chatting around you.  Likely it will be replacing some of both types of work, with supervising our AI agents becoming a more significant task.

If we spend less time focusing and less time on interruptible work – will we therefore spend more time collaborating?  With humans or with AI systems?  Or both?  Already today, both seems to be emerging as the answer.  AI supports us in our meetings and is likely to become a more active collaborator in future. But will this mean more meeting rooms?

Already we find in many organisations that 90% of meetings are for 3 people or less (published from XY Sense is 94% are 6 or less people), with many knoweledge workers already in back to back meetings all day.  Perhaps we won’t need more rooms (although most workplaces today still don’t have enough). We will need rooms designed to suit these new ‘hybrid’ human AI collaborations where voice activated systems and large displays allow human participants to interact with the AI – either in person or virtually.  Perhaps our virtual colleagues will arrive as holograms (again already possible, this Microsoft demo is six years old).  In all likelihood this means flexible ‘loose tech’ spaces where technology and furniture can change to suit different types of interactions.

We probably won’t really want to go for lunch or a drink with our holographic friends though. So perhaps the most important things will remain spaces that humans want to inhabit – natural light, plants, variety and control of the environment is what people tend to actually want -and use.

A number of conversations I’ve had on this topic have lead me to MIT,s famous building 20 (which I have mentioned here before). A space that is flexible and hackable, with private spaces to focus or meet, and opportunities for incidental connection. What stands out most to me always in the stories of this building, is not just the physical, but the sense of community and the purpose. All of these are things which the places we work today and in the future should aspire to – regardless of if they are offices, co-working spaces or cafes.

Meantime, what if all those open plan desks were no longer required?  What would you repurpose the space to?  I don’t think just filling it with a variety of ‘collaborative’ lounges will be the answer.  Don’t despair of the open plan office just yet though – co-pilot tells me we might need ever larger desks with more and more monitors…

Ceilidh Higgins

Image via ChatGPT

Could that meeting be an email?

Posted on by
Reply

Maybe your new year’s resolution is to have less meetings – or even just better ones? Whilst the world continues to argue over working from home or office, it seems the one thing many people can agree on is that they have too many meetings and “That meeting could have been an email”.

Across the research I read and the people I meet with, days spent in back to back, and often fruitless or unnecessary meetings is a common complaint. The internet abounds with articles on how to make your meetings shorter, better or just less. For a while it made me think twice about writing this post – however I’d like to think I have a unique and useful take on how you can contribute to less more effective meetings regardless of your level or role.

I’ve worked in offices now for over 30 years (yikes!) and seen how technology has changed the way we work, meet and collaborate. As a workplace designer and now strategist, I’ve had the opportunity to learn about other people’s work and workplaces. I’ve always found it fascinating to get a view into how different industries work – from lawyers, engineers and banks, to unique government services, university academics and some of Australia’s largest companies. Along the way, I’ve learned about many different and specific operations but also a lot about how people work together within offices doing ordinary ubiquitous things things like emailing or spreadsheets – and of course meeting and collaborating.

(Side note : One lesson I’ve learnt is that no one else seems to work quite like architects did, however gradually computers have been changing this)

At the beginning of my career, email was only just becoming something everyone had on their own computer and the multitude of tools we have today for collaboration did not exist. Video conferencing, group messaging, chat,  video messaging, collaborative cloud whiteboards, documents and models were all yet to exist (or were very primitive ideas). Even mobile phones were considered a secondary form of communication saved for when on site or something urgent. How is it that today with all these tools at our disposal we now have more meetings than ever before!?!

Whilst it’s also true that hybrid work is contributing to scheduled meetings, the rate of meetings was already increasing pre COVID. Dispersed work with teams spread across locations also results in the need for more scheduled meetings. However it’s not just scheduled meetings that people complain about – even worse is the meeting scheduled fifteen minutes before the start time. In theory, scheduled meetings could sometimes be more beneficial than unscheduled or last minute interruptions.

So if it’s not just hybrid and dispersed work contributing to more meetings what else? Work has often become more complex – and more risk averse. The number of specialists involved in anything seems to be always increasing, as is the necessity for cross-functional inputs. This is certainly driving some of the need for meetings – some days it seems like the only way to get everyone’s attention is to have a meeting.  Emails, teams messages and even phone messages go ignored and so to get the answers we need, we decide to have a meeting.

Some people even think just by scheduling a meeting they have already solved the problem (when really they have just pushed it to another day or off to someone else). Then we all complain we can’t get any work done because we are in meetings all day!

In recent years people have started send their AI to meetings to take notes and recordings. But this is a potentially dystopian future. We would then just spend our days reviewing the AI summaries and packing even more meetings in. What would be the point if everyone just sent their AI? The point of an effective meeting is that  for real life  real time discussions!

So how can we all start to contribute to solving this broken meeting culture?

If you want to have less meetings, you need to start by being more prepared. Even if you don’t run the meetings you attend, you can contribute to making meetings more effective and over time hopefully taking up less of your day. You might want to start with the people you work most often and most closely with, or the people you work with who also want to have less meetings.

Rather than showing up to the meeting and sharing a document for feedback – share it 2 days prior. Or if you are running a meeting, you can build 10 mins reading time into the start. Share a video message too if you feel like that could work for you and the people you work with. Know and accept that especially at first not everyone will look at what you share. If your team has a culture of experimentation- frame this as experimenting with your ways of meeting and try different options. And maybe one experiment is even sending an email instead!

At first it will seem like you are spending extra time to be prepared for meetings, with extra slides, video or a document, but frequently much of this work can feed into whatever final deliverable you are creating – you have just brought forward some of the work to before the meeting rather than after.  Pretty quickly you should find that some of your meetings start to go for less time or that you have more time to talk about the important stuff.

Over time, you will get to work out what sort of advance sharing works best for different team members of groups and how they will respond. With my own managers and teammates we will tend to collaborate directly in PowerPoint. I know some will use comments and some will use sticky shapes on pages – while I prefer comments as they record the history, either works fine!

Over the years I realised I’ve wasted a lot of time in meetings (and I will admit that many of them were run by me).  It takes more work to clearly and logically present your ideas in writing / images than just talking or presenting. But now we have easily accessible video tools that is no longer such a barrier as it used to be. Particularly for the people running the meetings taking the time to put your thoughts in writing and images can also help you clarify your own thinking and to determine what the meeting is actually about. What is the format and purpose of the meeting? Could the meeting be an email or a collaborative document instead? Is it for information sharing, discussion or a decision? How much background detail or knowledge do the participants need to contribute effectively? Before you schedule a meeting – having at minimum a specific agenda can help answer this question and mean that participants come prepared to contribute!

With busy executive level clients, I always try and understand first what their company culture around prereads for meetings or workshops are. If they are not a company that does a lot of pre-read, a short 1 or 2 slide executive summary style document will be more likely to be read and can help remove status updates or heavy text slides from a meeting. ( I love this free e-book by Nancy Duarte for Slidedocs design inspo!)

Be careful of just making meetings shorter. A shorter meetings doesn’t always means a more effective meeting. Sometimes shorter means cutting out the important conversations that are better in real time – relationship building, co-creating or robust discussions. These are still important. It might be better to have one 1.5 hour meeting every 4 weeks with a lot more thought and preparation than to have a meeting ever week that skims the surface and provides updates but no decisions are made and nothing moves forward.

Remember though, not everyone hates meetings!?! Likely you will find there are some people in your life who still want to have meetings that could have been an email, but at least you will have less of these kinds of meetings and maybe you can make these meetings shorter by being prepared.

What are your steps towards having less but more effective meetings? Will you spend another year saying that meeting could have been an email?

Ceilidh Higgins

Image credits: via Unsplash

Collaboration, Innovation and Connection: Unpacking the Buzzwords of Work

Posted on by
Reply

What does collaboration really mean? Should we think move about connection before collaboration? Don’t worry serendipity hasn’t died yet either. Does your organisation actually want innovation anyway?

These were some of the questions discussing “Driving Collaboration, innovation and connection in the workplace” last week , as I joined Angela Sampson (HASSELL) and Clarissa Lundy (Gensler) on a panel at Sydney Build Expo.

Angela did a fantastic job moderating deftly bringing her own experiences to the discussion all while asking the challenging questions. Clarissa (who was making her panel debut) brought her own perspectives as an amazing workplace designer along with some research from Gensler.

Collaboration is such an overused term in workplace today, it’s almost become a fetish. All over the internet and in every workplace I hear about how we need to collaborate more. But very infrequently do we discuss what this actually means. I have found the term is used very differently in different contexts, organisations and job types. Here I like to draw on the work of Dr Agustin Chevez. Dr Gus talks about collaboration as being one of the many ways we work together – and that we also need to think about cooperation, coordination, delegation, negotiation and socialisation (I like to call them the ‘tions’ of work). To this list I would add connection. Often when people talk about improving collaboration across an organisation connection, is actually what they are referring too. We can’t collaborate, or cooperate, coordinate, delegate,  negotiate or socialise, until we are connected.

These different ways of working together require different types of space. Clarissa and I both talked about how important it is to match the types of spaces to the organisation and the type of work. Small details like the type of furniture and its height can really start to matter.  Large round “collaboration” lounges next to workstations won’t work for most of these ty[pes of collaborating.  Details like the height or shape of a table, the positioning of a touchdown desk will impact how, why and what it gets used for.

The spaces between are important too. The main circulation routes are often where serendipitous interactions which support cross organisation connections occur.  One of the great stories I shared is our own CBRE Sydney workplace which was refurbished just last year. We made a bold decision to relocate the existing stair – out of reception to the back of the building behind the scenes. If was a choice that was debated – it certainly had time and cost implications, and also means there is no showpiece stair in the client space. The reason to move it – was to create better connection between the teams themselves and the employee social hub (as well as stop the stair taking up the best views!). There are also spaces around the stair one can pull away for a chat when you run into a colleague. Two months after we have moved in, the amount of people I see using the stairs suggests it is working!

All the stairs in the world won’t build true connection tho. We need to know each other before we stop to chat on the stairs. Connection and creating a genuine sense of community are essential for true collaboration. If we are burnt out, stressed out and disconnected we won’t bring our best collaborative selves to work. Workplaces and precincts can support this through genuine community building  –  this won’t only come through spaces to, socialise and collaborate but needs to be supported by culture and operations. People need to feel they have the time and permission to participate in events and socialise – to use those alternative types of space.

One important point to remember in all of this is that all of our work in not collaboration. A lack of space to focus and noise are the biggest sources of employee dissatisfaction today Perhaps it is productivity and incremental improvement that is more important than innovation. A quick question of the audience “whose organisation wants them to be innovative?” showed very few hands up – even among what was a largely design oriented crowd! Few organisations today really define productivity or innovation well – so it is hard to measure how well our workplaces might be supporting this. It’s clear however they are not supporting focus work well. It still is true that our workspace can help us to connect, collaborate and innovate – I really should have mentioned the famous building 20 at MIT – which you can read more about here. However in the case of building 20 – it was about user centred design more than anything deliberate!

We also talked about what collaboration might mean in the future, AI is already becoming a team mate and collaborator, robots will start to become more common in workplaces too (and in fact we saw a drinks delivery robot at the bar afterwards).  The future of AI as a collaborator could have a big impact on how we work and the spaces and technologies we need to support more voice activated work or holograms.

Finally I loved that Angela brought up the humble desk. Do we still need them and in fact do we need diversity at all if we sit at our screens more than ever? Whilst there were some disagreements amongst the panel over how necessary desks might be today and into the future – one thing we all agreed upon was that diversity of different qualities of spaces – different light, sound qualities, different types of furnishings – are beneficial particularly to those who are neuro-diverse and more sensitive to noise and sound, but in fact to us all. Universal design means better space for everyone, and natural light or plants can help stimulate our brains and make us feel better – even if we are on a teams call.

Thanks to Sydney Build, Angela and Clarissa as well as everyone who joined us on the day. It was a great conversation to spark a lot more thinking about Connection, Collaboration and Innovation for us all.

Ceilidh Higgins

The Future of Work Needs a Redesign

Posted on by
Reply

What if instead of starting with the design of the workplace of the future – we need to start with the design of work? For many work is broken, out of date and just doesn’t work anymore. In any ways, maybe it always was but most of us kept going because “that’s the way it’s always been”. But in fact it hasn’t.

What if instead of starting with the design of the workplace of the future – we need to start with the design of work? For many work is broken, out of date and just doesn’t work anymore. In any ways, maybe it always was but most of us kept going because “that’s the way it’s always been”. But in fact it hasn’t.

The world of 9-5 work, the office, the corporation- are all constructs of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Just like the landline, gramophone and steam train – should we snap back to those too? The traditional world of work was conceived in a world were mothers didn’t work, fathers didn’t spend time with their children and most of the work was designed like a factory production line.

More and more talking to both leaders and their teams I am realising there is something missing in the way we approach work.  It’s not so much about workplace as it is about how we do the work itself, how we connect, the processes, what tools we use.  For a while I didn’t even know what to call this aspect of work. It’s not strategy, or experience or organisational design or workforce planning, although it is a piece of all these things. Then I heard the term “work design” not “workplace design” but work itself! How simple, how obvious – this should be easy.  But it’s not,  not many teams or organisations are really thinking about it.

Long before the pandemic, Fully remote organisations like GitHub and Basecamp started thinking about the design of remote work. Atlassian have now built a big part of their brand message on it. Often these companies are just viewed to be doing this so they can sell software, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t learn something from what they do. You don’t have to be remote first to benefit from work designed and optimised for the twenty first century.

One of the reasons hybrid work seems so hard is that often it hasn’t been deliberately designed. To really work, it requires a rethinking, a redesign of the processes of work and not just replacing meetings with virtual links. As I’ve written about before – part time or dispersed working also requires more thought about the process. For years organisation’s have been tinkering at the edges of process, layering on agile methodology or  new software to communicate and coordinate. But if we don’t bring intentional design to this process we keep layering these new ways and tools over the top of the old and creating the mongrel beast that work was become today – where people’s job is all about replying to emails and going to meetings. These are things that do need to happen as part of doing with in the twenty first century but they shouldn’t be the main thing whole teams are doing.

Often the problems are seen as software problems, email is the problem, zoom is the problem (or insert any industry specific software – in building design revit is the problem). However often the software isn’t the problem – the process itself is the problem.  However with many of the companies trying to address the problem (such as Atlassian) – the problem is still seen as software or something simplistic like too many meetings.

Even within the word of work, I (and others I’ve talked to) we’re struggling to work out – who can help fix this? There is no commonly used terminology to describe this problem or the type of consultant you might hire to work with you to solve this challenge. Recently I came across the work of Sharon Parker,  and The Future of Work Institute using the term “work design”.  Light bulb moment!  This is so simple conceptually but exactly what we need. Work needs to be redesigned! (Thanks also to Melissa Marsden for introducing me to Sharon’s work thru her podcast.)

The SMART work design model is based upon crafting work that is more meaningful and motivating, allowing people to build better working relationships and achieve better work outcomes. Similarly, the Four day workweek (or reduced hours workweek), where people work less hours for the same productivity and pay is a redesign of work.  In order to work less achieve the same outputs you have to reconsider, rethink and redesign how you do it.

What does work designed for the twenty first century actually look like? In my view, it does have to mean digital first, optimising whatever you do for best in class technology. Integrating AI will be part of redesigning work.  Likely so will new means of interacting with technology – the keyboard is surely reaching the end of its lifespan. Voice will become bigger but what else?

It also has to be designed for people, for individuals – the face of capitalism has changed. Many behaviours or work practices of the early twentieth century are no longer acceptable. So let’s also accept that work can be designed for both individuals and companies alike – it needs to be flexible in both place and time so we can draw upon the most talented and divese teams. It needs to be intentional.  We need to stop being busy for the sake of it,for the fact it’s always been done a certain way and think about what is really important to the outcomes, for our clients, our teams and the work we deliver.

Intention takes work.  Redesign takes work.  Structural change is disruptive. Some people see booking a desk or  coordinating a time to meet as hard. What they may not realise is that for others, coming to the office 5 days a week is harder. None of this is easy. People don’t like to change, especially if the can’t immediately see the benefits to themselves. The redesign of work should benefit everyone. But there are people who have been privileged in the past who might find this harder to see.  It’s been well documented (McKinsey etc) that more diverse companies outperform less diverse companies. The potential benefits are huge. It think it’s worth the effort – don’t you? Four day workweek anyone?

Ceilidh Higgins

Image via Unsplash https://unsplash.com/photos/water-ripple-Q5QspluNZmM

Balancing Act: Unlocking the Value of Hybrid Work for the 21st Century Workplace

Posted on by
Reply

Let’s stop talking about how many days a week we work in the office – and start talking about how your organisation works in the twenty-first century.

Recently I had the opportunity to write this article for CBRE In-Sites Magazine – check it out on page 16. It’s fantastic to have the opportunity to transform my hobby (writing this blog) into a part of my job!

Ceilidh Higgins

Image via Unsplash

Hot desks or No desks?

Posted on by
Reply

Post pandemic hot desking has become something of a hot topic – and not always a popular one. As soon as we mention unassigned desking, someone in the room (or on the call) will mention the words.  It is a term that has become widespread but is also frequently misused and misunderstood. So what is hot-desking anyway? Is it, or any form of unassigned desking, the future of work? Or are new and more radical workplace solutions with no desks (or even a lot less desks) going to be the answer?

Maybe you think your organisation  is planning to implement hot-desking  – but don’t get upset too quickly and assume that terms you might hear such as team neighbourhood working, unassigned desks or agile working are actually the same thing.  To most workplace professionals hot-desking represents only one type of desk sharing scenario.

Internet sources vary but the term hot desk it appears to have been invented in the late eighties. The term may have come from a Navy term ‘hot-bunking’ where different shifts use the same beds, and the bed is literally warm when you get into it (eww!)  Obviously your desk isn’t going to actually be warm in any scenario!  Early experiments in hot-desking reported in the media where in 1989 at EY office in Chicago and later a well publicised and largely unsuccessful workplace experiment by the advertising agency Chiat/Day in 1994.  (The best summary on the topic I found online is here)

The Chiat/Day “virtual office” was a farcical failure – for many reasons.  There was no change management, there were not enough laptops and phones, there was insufficient private and team space and the technology just didn’t exist to create the new work processes to support a paperless and virtual office.   Frequently the technology is blamed and sometimes it has been said that it was a failure because it was too far ahead of its time.  Yes, technology (and lack of expenditure) played a part.  So too did a lack of change management.  A final factor in why the Chiat/Day experiment failed was that it was what we would now call hot-desking.  Hot-desking means a free for all on where people sit throughout the office.  All the stories of hot-desking environments where people are arriving to the office and being unable to find a seat, of having to arrive at 7am to sit with your team – in an unamanged unbookable hot-desking scenario this will probably happen.  This is the reality of hot-desking.  Hot-desking is not a suitable workplace strategy for most organsations.  In fact today (in Australia anyway ) it is also actually relatively rare to see organisations implement this very kind of basic and brutal hot-desking.  So why the term has become the most popular way of referring to desk sharing is a mystery.

Hot-desking or other forms of unassigned desking in the pre internet days was difficult as office technology really wasn’t ready for it.   Over the last 20 years or so as mobile technologies have improved and become more readily available, the term has become more and more common but its less and less likely that the workplace you are going to work in is actually a hot-desking workplace.  Post pandemic as more and more organisations move to some form of unassigned desking it is a well known vernacular term – for some reason much more so than other terms such as hotelling, agile or activity based work.

There is evidence to suggest that other forms of early experiments with unassigned desking models were more successful.  IBM may have in fact the first company to experiment with an unassigned desk model – back in the 1970’s!   The “non-territorial office” was a space “that would accommodate motion between different kinds of work setups, based  on the particular tasks at hand”.  Not just hot-desking but potentially Activity Based Working which did not reappear again for 30 years (see below), which is surprising given that employees were enthusiastic about the model (after experiencing it) and internal communication increased. (Cubed by Nikil Saval, 2014)

So if hot-desking is guaranteed to fail – what are other forms of unassigned desking and how do they work?

Hotelling

At the same time as the term hot-desking was gaining popularity, the term hotelling was also in use.  Hotelling is in fact one of the most common forms of unassigned desk environments today – and means that a desk booking system is in place.  Generally booking systems are based upon individuals booking single desks or meeting rooms.  Often this concept is combined with touchdown desks which are unbookable desks and typically expected to be used for shorter periods of time.  Touchdown desks are more likely not to be workstations, may not have computer accessories such as docking stations/screens/keyboards etc and different forms of seating (eg not typical office chairs) or even standing height.

Activity Based Working

Around the same time as the Chiat/Day virtual hot-desking office, a new concept in work was emerging in the Netherlands.   Activity Based Working (ABW) was a term invented by Dutch workplace strategists, Veldhoen and the first ABW office in the world was Interpolis in 1995.  Very similar in concept to the original IBM “non-territorial office”, a range of different spaces are provided for different types of work and employees are expected to move throughout different kinds of space throughout the day.  Working from home 1-2 days per week was also a key component of the concept.  One of the biggest differences  between ABW and hot-desking is that teams are assigned to neighbourhoods – areas of workstations which can vary in size from 10-12 to up to 80 people depending on the company and model.  However, there is not a provision of 1 workstation per person but a “desk sharing ratio” where workstations might only be provided for the 70-80% of the population expected to need a desk at any one time.  These neighbourhoods are intended to help teams sit together and for people to find one another.  In practice though, again you might start to see the early arrivers sitting at the same desk everyday and if a clean desk policy is not enforced starting to leave belonging – in a sense marking their territory – known as ‘nesting’ a term which actually appears to have been invented at Chiat/Day.  

Typically an ABW office has more collaborative spaces than a traditional open plan office of assigned workstations, but it is still dominated by workstations.  The other kinds of spaces are usually for collaborative activities mostly focused usually on in person meetings in a mix of open or enclosed spaces.  An ABW office might also have a booking system, overlapping with hotelling.

Over the last 15 years or so, ABW has become a popular way of working in many industries and locations, no more so than Australia where Veldhoen opened its second branch, with many major financial, professional services and even government departments had adopted ABW prior to the pandemic.  In other regions, in particular the USA, the uptake of ABW has been slower, perhaps because so many companies were still working in cubicles and even open plan was seen as revolutionary until fairly recently.

Agile Working

ABW and agile working often overlap and are frequently used to describe the same kinds of work environments.  Theoretically, agile does not describe a work environment but a way of working.  Agile work refers to flexibility in how and where work gets done.  In theory, one can work in an agile methodology but have an assigned desk (just not be expected to be at it all the time).  In practice, agile work methodologies are going to make more sense in environments with a range of flexible work spaces.  Typically agile environments would have less desks than ABW environment’s and more team based spaces.

Why unassigned desks anyway?

Real estate is expensive, and fitting out offices is expensive too.  Prior to the pandemic, the majority of desks in a traditional office environment were already only in use 70-80% of the time.  The rest of the time  people were in meetings, visiting clients, on leave or sick.  Of course this does vary by role and by industry.  Post pandemic this can drop to 30-50% in organisations that have adopted 2-3 days per week hybrid.  That adds up to a lot of unused space and a lot of wasted dollars.  Do you really want your organisation spending that much money on space that is not even being used?  Or could that money better be spent on a nicer and different kinds of spaces, a hospitality style level of services, more training, technology or that extra team member you could really use?

Today there are many different models of unassigned desking and the ones I have discussed above are the more commonly talked about. Note that one thing that does not exist is a Hybrid Office – hybrid is a way of working not a type of workplace.  Post pandemic many organisations are experimenting with different ways of working and we may see many other models develop in the next few years.

So what is the best model of workplace today?

There is no one right answer.  It depends on a whole lot of organisational and cultural factors.

While unassigned desking is frequently viewed as a cost cutting exercise, it should be undertaken as contributing to autonomy, a component of offering employees choice about where, when and how to work and the best mix of spaces to do different types of work.  For some teams who spend large amounts of time working in the office as a team then perhaps unassigned desking isn’t necessarily the right solution.  But this should be looked at in the overall context of work processes and not because ‘we have always done it this way’.  Moving to, or even adjusting to a new type of unassigned desking model requires planning and change management.

But I like having my own desk…but will you always need one?

Some people are not bothered at all by not having their own desk and don’t want to sit in the same place with the same people everyday.  For others, this creates a new source of workplace anxiety.  Can we solve this through workplace design?  We might need to sooner than we think – what happens if the day comes when we won’t need a desk at all anymore?

The workplace as we have known it for the last 100 plus years is a 20th century solution to a 20th century way of working.  Work no longer needs to be a one size fits all solution.  All of these workplace models are still based upon modifications to 20th century ways of working – usually with ‘the desk’ at their core.  Post pandemic we still seem to be tied to the desk with very little change in actual workplace models.  Given the rest of our lives are now driven by mobile technologies, why do we feel so attached to our desks?  I know, I know, its all about the dual / big monitors these days but… what happens when we no longer need the monitors and can create a screen anywhere? What happens when we all wear VR glasses? What happens when we talk to our devices instead of typing?  What happens when technology changes in ways we haven’t even though of yet? Will we still need a desk then?

I’d like to suggest that we need to move past counting desks or worrying if they are assigned or unassigned and discover what 21st century working might actually look like.  What other ways will we create vibrant and functional workplace without desks? If you go visit any public library there are no desks with monitors but a wide range of seating types and in a well designed and appreciated library – often full. The people are choosing to go there. So why not start now with a similar approach to the workplace? 

Ceilidh Higgins

Image generated using Microsoft Bing AI

Beyond Home versus Office – Dispersed, Decentralised and Async Work

Posted on by
Reply

We talk a lot these days about remote work and hybrid work, but one concept that gets less attention is what I’d term dispersed work – the notion that team members are working together across different locations. In fact this kind of work has been common a lot longer than the concept of hybrid. While getting dispersed work right has a lot in common with both remote and hybrid it’s not quite the same set of challenges – and for many companies has the potential to yield huge benefits.

I’ve spent a significant proportion of my career working in dispersed teams – and not only in large companies either. Smaller companies can use dispersed work to team up for delivering projects in different locations, to retain employees moving for personal reasons, to diversify business across 2 or 3 smaller (potentially lower cost or busier markets) office locations or even to hire remote employees. Larger companies more naturally have multiple offices but dispersed teams can allow for better balance of resources to meet demand, reduce hiring or overhead costs or to tap into specialists which are not feasible to employ at every location. It’s also very similar to the way, DBEI have worked to deliver the BILT event series.

Different reasons and structures behind dispersed work will result in different models. Maybe you only need consult a remote specialist now and again for a particular project – or maybe your team is spread across different locations around the world.  Maybe you get together in person once or twice a year, or maybe your face to face time is project related.  Regardless of face to face time. when you work in a dispersed team some of your colleagues and maybe your boss are remote pretty much every day – and it doesn’t matter who is in the office or at home. At an extreme this could mean you have an office, perhaps full of colleagues (fellow employees) but there are no team members (people you actually work with) to see when you go there. Every day is a remote day in some sense. You have to have virtual team meetings, training, social catch-ups or one on ones – your only choice when you have a geographically dispersed team is to have these events virtually or to not have them at all.  In any ways work needs to be managed as if everyone is remote, working from home.  At the same time though the office offers opportunities for cross team connections, training and socialising but with a lot less daily benefits to going there. 

Dispersed work frequently used to involve a lot of travel. Sometimes it meant people literally would wait a week to ask a simple question (I’ll talk to you when you are in) These last 3 years have all of a sudden made dispersed teams a lot more manageable. Now its much easier than it was 15 years ago and people are way more accepting of the concept. In the past most people were unused to any virtual or remote working, these days most knowledge workers have at least a regular acquaintance with teams or zoom. But like remote and hybrid work, dispersed work takes more than the ability to use a video call to be a genuine and ongoing replacement for all sitting in the same place.

Dispersed work naturally sits alongside the concept of async work – once you introduce teams in different locations the likelihood is you will start to work across timezones. I had been working in dispersed for many years before I came across the concept of async and it was one that totally resonated with me. (this is a great resource on async work)

What do we need to do to support dispersed work and build genuine and deep cross locational teams and relationships? I think it’s a mix of the same things that support other forms of work that are not in person such as remote, hybrid and async work.

  • All meetings are virtual. Ideally each person has their own screen even if in one room.
  • Regular team meetings are essential. It’s a key way team members connect. But they should have a specific purpose and reason to attend . There might be different meetings for sharing knowledge and training, for socialising or for specific tasks (marketing, specific software or project teams etc). Maybe the whole team doesn’t need to be part of all the meetings either.
  • One on ones – and not just with your manager. You need to allocate some time to get to know your allow team members more informally so spend some time with each person who you work closely with.
  • Use your meetings to build relationships and rapport.  I think this is the explanation behind why  I am  against a “no recurring meetings” culture!

But it’s not all about meetings and virtual  “face to face” time, if meetings are focused on relationship building how do we get the work done? While sometimes a virtual meeting, workshop or video call is the answer, if this is our default, we struggle to find time to get work done. Chat is one answer but again can become stream of interruptions.  Some of my suggestions are

  • Replace daily scrum or update meetings with virtual updates via chat (or you could also  try voice message?) – this allows for different start times and time zones whilst still building into your daily routine a check in and hello to your team members
  • Review documents and provide comments using cloud collaboration tools (as basic as Microsoft’s commenting tools through to specialised collaboration software for your industry like Revizto and BIM Track) as a starting point  – follow up with a meeting only if required.
  • Use written / recorded briefs / instructions as a starting point – again follow up with a meeting if required.
  • Use tools like Trello or Monday to plan and share work across the team.

One of the biggest challenges to dispersed work in larger companies  can be in relating to other teams who are less widely distributed and maybe still have very office first cultures. I would describe these as hyper local. Often there might be a basis of functional reasons for why these teams are less dispersed (eg roles that require physical presence) or maybe they have just never had any reason to get used to remote or hybrid ways of working – and often see no benefits to themselves or their teams in changing the ways they work. In these situations it can be difficult to agree on a set of etiquettes that apply as the two team’s etiquettes are likely very different. Should the dispersed team members have to revert to the etiquette of face to face? The skills and etiquettes of working face to face and working in a dispersed team are very different and meshing the two cultures can be hard.

The likelihood is though that in the future dispersed work will become ever more common. This article from Workforce Futurist talks about the concept of decentralised work – this concept is linked to dispersed work but is one step further, essentially the potential for work to be based more and more around individuals coming together on a project basis (more like a movie structure than a typical company structure). This idea has been discussed in future of work writing for some time but as this article discusses, technologies make this possibility easier and a more likely future.

I believe the concepts of dispersed and decentralised work take us beyond the polarising debate of home versus office and into the future of work. Work is not the same today as it was in the twentieth century when the office as a concept came into being – its not even the same as it was in 2000 (which is around when I started working) despite the fact we had email and computers by then. Even before the pandemic technology was changing the way we worked and allowing different modes of work to exist. Workplace Futurist (and others) liken this change to the industrial revolution. People will continue to work from offices, they will just use them differently. People will also work from other places (as many already did). The biggest challenge is how we develop our workplaces, processes and cultures to support these new ways of working. Most importantly not only at a company or team scale but how we can support individuals to work together in ways that allow autonomy, flexibility and each of us to produce our best work.

What do you think? Can we move beyond the home versus office, remote versus in person debate? How do we help both teams and individuals transition to new ways of working?

Ceilidh Higgins

Image credit: Compact Fibre via Unsplash

Has the pandemic rewired our brain and its relationship to work?

Posted on by
1

Neuroscience has proven that significant experiences such as parenthood, chronic pain or stress can change the way our brain fires, even our everyday behaviors change our brain.  “Of course, nearly everything changes the brain. Musical training reshapes parts of the brain. Learning the convoluted streets of London swells a mapmaking structure in the brains of cabbies. Even getting a good night’s sleep changes the brain. Every aspect of our environment can influence brain and behaviors.” Has the great remote work experiment achieved the same?

This recent piece in Workplace Insight got me thinking about how this applies now, post pandemic to the world of work and workplace.  In 2022, it is now the case for many office workers that too much has changed to just go back.  It seems very likely that a big part of what has changed is our brains.  It is not just working from home.  It is the homeschooling, the isolation, the anxiety and the difference of our lives before Covid and during Covid, its how all these things and more added up together.  I’m not a neuroscientist but I’m pretty sure it’s not just a changing of priorities or a reassessment, a great rethink or a great resignation.  A more fundamental shift has occurred – inside our heads – perhaps without us even being aware of it. 

Many of us were already changing even before the pandemic.  One of the things having the greatest impact today on our neuro wiring today is the smart phone.  Smart phones and our access to  endless information is changing the brains of adults in ways we don’t really yet understand yet –  from how we use our memory, to our attention span and even to how we perceive direction and understand maps.  Neuroscientists are finding many ways our brain changes as it interacts with technology, from smart phones and social media to virtual reality. 

If the brains of adults are changing, what about kids or even young adults in their twenties who have grown up with all this technology?   Even without having experienced a pandemic, their brains were likely to be very different to those of baby boomers when they started working in an office for the first time.  We can no longer relate office life in 2022 to ‘how things used to be’.  Even before the era of remote working, humans had already started to change.  And the speed of change is faster than ever before in our history.

Potentially the bigger challenge to how we think and relate to work is not about where we work but our relationship to our colleagues and the organisations we work for.  Over recent decades the idea of company loyalty and the value of a permanent role had already disappeared. Over the course of the pandemic the connection to organisations and the social bonds of work further disintegrated.

“Part of the problem is that the collegial, purpose-driven office that senior leaders idealize feels like a myth to many young workers. Since long before Covid-19, most offices weren’t delivering the mentoring, collaboration and social fabric that makes in-person work feel worthwhile. Indeed, many of the offices I visited in recent years were desolate, open plan landscapes dotted with individuals staring at screens, headphones on.” I’m sure many of us can relate to this statement, although in this article quoted, the author is trying to convince young people to go back to the office. 

If neuroscience is changing our relationship to work could a better understanding of neuroscience help us to better understand the way we work together and help solve these new challenges?  This 2017 article says we can.  Based on a decade of research, Paul J Zak (who is a neuroscientist), suggests that building trust is a key aspect of leadership and building teams and there is evidence that this then leads to  business success.   The essence of workplace culture is based upon social norms and the strength of our relationships. (Bruce Daisley has some great blogs, podcasts and videos on workplace culture for lots more depth)

Remote relationships change and challenge the way we build trust.  Some people would question is it even possible to build trust remotely? It’s not impossible but often it is likely to be a lot harder than in person.  Although again, this might be starting to change for those brought up with connecting technologies.

Recent research from Lendlease and Leesman  “found younger generations really pushed back against the notion you can’t make meaningful connections online, or those connections could only happen in person.  For this generation, that’s simply not true,” she said. “That’s not their lived experience. And in fact, they called out the awkward experience of making connections in real life.”

It’s possible that many of those sitting with their headphones on, might still have been interacting with people – they might have been emailing, chatting or using social media, communicating with colleagues inside the organisation or networks and friends outside.  They might not have been feeling any lack of in person interaction while sitting at the desk.  They might not have even needed or wanted that.  But in 2022 they know that this form of interaction can be done from home, a cafe or the beach – there is no social expectation to turn up, to be present anymore (or not everywhere anyway).

The reality is though that most of us don’t want all our work connections to be online and that some time spent together helps build relationships and trust. Neuroscience also posits that the brain reacts differently to someone we have met in real life to someone who we have only seen in a video screen (I first heard of this concept in a presentation from Fiona Kerr, Neurotech Institute). And I’m sure many people agree it’s harder to recognise someone in person that you only met online on zoom that in a real life meeting. If this is the case, then it doesn’t mean remote work isn’t possible some of the time but it adds another layer of information as to why we need to come together sometimes.  While our brains may have changed at one level, there remains much more ancient wiring that connects us together as a social species.

When we don’t all work in the same physical place every day, we need to start to be more intentional about the times when we do interact in person. We need both our processes and our physical workplaces to support this intentional coming together and no longer just be a sea of cubicles or benches for production. Work has changed – and so have we.

Ceilidh Higgins

Image Credits: Thanks to David Matos @davidmatos for making this photo available freely on Unsplash

Part time, hybrid or asynchronous – Building a culture of “Sometimes There”

Image

Reply

Over the last 2 years of this new world of work, I’ve noticed that part time work is becoming much more easily accepted – its no longer so strange to ‘not be in the office that day’ or even ‘not working at that time’.  As we have changed our ways of working due to COVID, more and more people are in the position of working this way – its now becoming more of a cultural norm.


In Australia, it has long been the law that if you have school age children or younger an employer must allow you to work part time ‘unless there are reasonable business grounds’ (this is in fact our legal definition of flexible working). The reality of this meant many companies technically permitted part time but individual managers, might not make it easy or comfortable. It was also common for this to be accompanied by little opportunities for pay rises and career progression . So it’s wasn’t surprising many part time workers ended up feeling like second class citizens.   Finding an employer and team that genuinely supported and believed in part time was a difficult proposition.  Promises made at a corporate level or at interviews didn’t always translate to reality.


Particularly when employers are finding it hard to get great employees, employers and managers might sell their company culture as being genuinely friendly and positive to part time employees when it’s only surface deep. The same is now happening with remote and hybrid work. Whilst some employers feel the power is with the employees they will “allow” hybrid (or part time or remote). For anyone looking for a company or team that genuinely believes in different ways of working – the fact they use the word ‘allow’ demonstrates straight away their true beliefs on the subject! 


While part time work is now better accepted and easier to fit within the framework of a hybrid work culture, these challenges still remain, the difference is that now a larger group of employees are potentially being exposed to this attitude – will remote, hybrid or asynchronous work hurt peoples careers? Many organisations and teams are still struggling to build cultures and processes that support all these ways of working, and at the same time support employees who want to work part time too.  A culture that supports these kinds of working should also easily translate to a culture that supports dispersed working over multiple geographic locations (something almost every larger or multi office company has longed to achieve) as well as asynchronous work (allowing working at different times – creating more flexibility and the ability for team members in multiple time zones to work together) Perhaps even more boldly in the future – could these cultures also support the idea of everyone working 4 days a week with the same pay for reduced hours?


What all of these kinds of working have in common is that not everyone is there is one place all the time (or at the same time). There are a couple of different challenges with all of these kinds of working.


One is the most obvious difficulties that everyone talks about is the challenge of mixed presence or hybrid video meetings.  Just 10 years ago the idea that we could all communicate and meet via video this easily was possible but still incredible, using expensive meeting room based VC was still considered somewhat wow.  But now people complain that hybrid meetings are not good enough.  Technically this is still some way off from being solved.  For now though the best solution is quite simple.  All participants to have their own laptop/device cameras, and reduce reverberation by using a single microphone and choosing your room carefully.  Otherwise – you are better to choose an all remote meeting.  Its surprising to me to see how many people don’t seem to get this basic right and still try to cram 6 people into a room with one camera, a crappy laptop mic and poor acoustics.  Then wonder why the people on the hybrid end are getting frustrated by not being able to hear and everyone is having a poor meeting experience.  Get this right and for many kinds of meetings, hybrid works. 


That is not to say that we should be spending our day on teams or zoom.  There are many kinds of meeting that benefit from being in person.  From meeting new people, to performance discussions to networking – meetings or events that require an emotional connection and are not just about facts are better conducted in person.  But if possible, they are better conducted with everyone in person – not some people in one place and other people as faces on a screen.  If essential these things can be done online (as we provided during lockdowns) but these are the kinds of interactions people want to come to a workplace for – regardless of if its 3 days per week, 1 or 4 times per year.  People don’t want to come to the office to spend all the time sending emails or on Zoom/Teams.  I think most of us accept that some of our office time on these things is inevitable but not whole days.


Regardless of if meetings are online or in person, the biggest challenge to the part time, hybrid or asynchronous worker is a lack of planning.  Not just planning for meetings and on site physical presence but planning around who does what and when.  If there is an assumption that everyone is always available and you can grab them anytime for input, meetings or even team social events then those that work part time have historically often been left out – both from gaining relevant information and building connections.  Ad hoc is the enemy of sometimes there. Ad hoc can be good for friendships, for networking, for social media. Ad hoc and the serendipitous can be great for business relationships too. But as hoc shouldn’t be the cornerstone of how you deliver in your business. It’s not how to get a project done.  Relying on ad hoc literally means you are relying on chance to get work done well.  Everyone benefits when there is some level of planning and expectations are clearly set.


Planning is not just about booking meetings and all these ways of working shouldn’t mean more meetings but can in fact mean less.  By planning work in different ways, you should need less meetings.  Often a meeting isn’t the best way to allocate or check someones work.  Meetings are best used for questions and interactions not listing tasks and deadlines or reading documents in front of someone else.  Working collaboratively in documents using comments and tracking, using tools like Trello or Monday, or specialised collaborative software like Revizto or BIMtrack allow for people to allocate, comment and work together as a team regardless of if they are in the same place or working at the same time.  Not all of this has to be about typing or writing either, tools like Loom allow for creating screen recordings and videos to share with colleagues.  Yes, sometimes there will be some things won’t get solved as quickly as they would in a phone call or a meeting, but then a short meeting can resolve the important or misunderstood issues.  Overall the time saved for everyone and people can spend more of their time focussed on getting work done.


Planning isn’t just about being organised.  Its also about respecting the time of the people you work with and trusting that they will get it done.  If you work in this way – you don’t need to be constantly ‘checking in’.  Planning doesn’t mean that something can’t ever happen by chance, that you can’t have an ad hoc coffee with a colleague, it just means that its not the primary basis of how work gets done. Serendipitous, cross team encounters and overhead knowledge are one of the biggest challenges to overcome, and perhaps another subject for a blog post on their own sometime – although interestingly enough this old one from 2013 actually still covers most of it!


Often the complaint that “it’s easier” in person (sitting alongside this is always how we have done it) means it’s easier for the manager. It doesn’t mean it easier for the organisation or in fact that it’s either  the most  efficient or effective way to get things done.


Personally I think of all the emerging description for all of these different mixes of working which don’t involve 9-5 at the office, I’d choose ‘liberated work’ a terminology and concept from John Preece from Hub Australia originally in this article , with a further paper that can be downloaded here as well as frequently discussed in his Linkedin Posts.  The concept of liberated work is all about choice and true flexibility not just of place but also time.  At its heart success at liberated work relies on mutual trust, respect and consideration.  It doesn’t matter if you work part time, hybrid or asynchronous – these all require the same ingredients to succeed.  Some companies have always worked with these kind of ideals. Others will never get there. What will be interesting to see is how this plays out now that more flexible work options are the wish of many employees and not just a small minority. Will these new ways of working end up like activity based work did, with many companies claiming they offer a version of ‘hybrid’ but doing it poorly because they don’t truly believe in it?

Ceilidh Higgins

Image Jon Tyson via Unsplash

What if instead of ‘learning by osmosis’ we tried sharing with intention?

Posted on by
Reply

Before 2020 if you googled ‘learning by osmosis’ you would mostly find memes of cats and students asleep atop a pile of books, alongside articles telling you this was no way to study.

Then came lockdown, and all of a sudden the idea of ‘learning by osmosis’ was everywhere and all of a sudden I realised I now had a name to put to the problem I had been seeing with many many graduates of 2-5 years experience. No-one was actually teaching them anything and they were just expected to be learning because they sat there working in an office.  Similar to the people who believe that a positive workplace culture comes from just sitting in an office together, there seems to be a lot of people who believe that learning happens just by being together.


So is leaning by osmosis really the best way to expect professionals to learn? Do graduates actually get exposed to training and life lessons through overhead phone calls and incidental conversations? Do many people even have phone conversations anymore? Or is it just like culture, in that you might find you get better outcomes if there is some intentionality behind how you teach, coach and mentor.  Maybe more learning happens by inviting them to sit in on client meetings and spending time explaining the concepts behind what we are asking them to do?  Maybe even investing time in regular group training (which can also easily be recorded for future use).  All of these things can happen both in real life and virtually too.


It’s not just about learning for graduates but other ways we communicate and share information in the workplace too. The pandemic has highlighted the function of the office as a place where frequently all kinds of project and organisational knowledge is shared on an ad-hoc basis between whoever happens to be physically around at the time.  Long before Covid and remote work, larger companies have been aware of the need to create ways to record and share knowledge beyond smaller groups and individual teams who might speak to each other on a day to day to basis – to share across different disciplines and geographically dispersed locations. Anyone who has worked if a dispersed team has probably noticed this and perhaps thought about how to change it. I believe it’s one of the biggest reasons why dispersed and hybrid teams are often so difficult to setup and manage.


Do you want to rely on the right person happening to overhear the right phone call to learn or know something? Its a pretty chancy way of communicating even without the fact that people taking taking phone calls in the open office has been on the decline since before Covid (unfortunately though still to many people think its okay to do a Teams in an open office). More business is today conducted via email and scheduled meetings. Frequently one on one phone calls just create confusion when multiple parties are expected to be on top of the issues and part of the decision making. Copying everyone into an email or scheduling a meeting became the solution to ensuring no-one was inadvertently left out. While endless meetings are not ideal, sometimes it’s better than circles of calls (and messages) trying to keep everyone in the loop. Even when phone calls do occur, with mobile phones now the default number to call, frequently they are taken while on the go, or in a meeting / focus room so as to not force your colleagues to have to listen in.


An informal and ad-hoc approach to sharing information also can create disadvantages for many in the workplace. The people who are part time, work shifted hours, work on site some days or happen to have the day off. Even someone who was in a meeting or at lunch.  Whenever we communicate based upon whoever happens to be physically present at the time, we are potentially creating inequalities of information (which can even become a form of bullying).  A more intentional approach to sharing information, whatever level people are at helps avoid this bias.


Intentional teaching and sharing also helps address different modes of learning or language barriers.  By writing down or recording what we are communicating, we allow people to review and learn at their own pace and to check back in later.  Written forms of communication particularly where shared amongst the group – such as chat, planner platforms or shared documents are invaluable for dispersed and hybrid teams. As long as people use them! Make these methods the starting point for all your team interactions and very quickly most people will see the benefits. Not everyone finds writing the easiest way to communicate though – video and screen recording is now so accessible sometimes this can be an awesome way of communicating and learning. (Thanks to my recent grad who demonstrated that to me one day recording her software troubles on video to share with me).


For individuals and teams who work closely together and need to communicate frequently, scheduling time together regularly and in advance is an easy start. Both group time and one on one time are necessary depending on the structure of your teams. It doesn’t have to be weekly, maybe for some people it’s monthly.  Rather than focus valuable time together on who is doing what (which is easily written down and doesn’t always need discussion), consider discussing project issues and problems as a group so everyone can learn from one another.   


Sharing knowledge with intention means people are going to learn what they need to know and do it faster than if you rely upon  chance.  It has been a long time since I’ve spent a lot of face to face time with my team (long before covid), but I’ve always spent a lot of time teaching and coaching with intention.  One of the graduates I worked with told me she learned more from me on 3 months than she had in her previous 3 years of work.  I probably saw her 2 days a week. Throughout my career, I have experienced different models of distributed and remote work which have frequently meant I didn’t work in the same physical location as people who I could learn from, people I needed to share information with or teach – either inside or outside my organisation. Being open to learning, sharing and collaborating remotely opened up many more opportunities than it would have reduced or constrained my learning.


If the workplace is not for learning by osmosis, what is it for?  One of the things that is much harder (its not impossible) to either learn or do virtually is to network and build ties within an origination outside of your own team.  There is a lot of research starting to come out on the importance of weak ties and this is one of the challenges that remote and even hybrid work will need to overcome. Its not learning stuff that matters but connecting with people. In this way workplaces, real life conferences or networking events all serve the same function. You create connections that can help you later. You don’t need to learn everything yourself, but to know the right people to help you.

Ceilidh Higgins
Image via Marco Chilese on Unsplash