3 ms·
I think your missing the point. If people wanted to talk to each other, they would do that on their own time. I think maybe ask yourself, why do you need to fo
by abcdjdjd 6y ago
I think your missing the point. If people wanted to talk to each other, they would do that on their own time.
I think maybe ask yourself, why do you need to force this to happen if people really wanted to do this?
- brundolf 6y agoStructure is useful; there's a social burden to going out of your way to arrange a one-on-one hangout. I wouldn't bother to do that with someone I'm not already close to, but I'm loving this structured arrangement where I don't have to feel awkward about reaching out myself. Different stuff works for different people
- abcdjdjd 6y agoOk, but again, there is nothing stopping people from doing this as a group. There is no "magical" structure that comes from a work meeting. A group of people at work can decide to organize something on there own. You are talking about one-on-one stuff, which is different.
- mrexroad 6y agoI've had plenty of extremely productive outcomes that started as a serendipitous a conversation in the break room with someone who is not in my day-to-day (or weekly) orbit.
- mrexroad 6y agothis is about creating serendipity--the break-room or elevator chats--which is otherwise impossible after an abrupt shifting of the office work culture to WFH without any other changes. there's an actual need here even if this isn't the ideal solution. heavy handed and awkward: sure. would I do it, as an introvert... 4/5 times: nope! would I appreciate the intent it if my org (optionally) did it: hell yeah.