4 ms·

Nick Bloom gave a couple interviews on this. This website collects research summaries on WFH: https://wfhresearch.com/research-and-policy/ https://wfhresearch.

by nequo 4y ago

Nick Bloom gave a couple interviews on this. This website collects research summaries on WFH: https://wfhresearch.com/research-and-policy/ https://wfhresearch.com/research-and-policy/ Many benefits. But one downside he mentioned was that he doesn’t generate research ideas through planned 30-minute one-on-one interactions but through more unstructured conversations. Those are eliminated with virtual seminars and virtual conferences. Early-career folks might struggle too but I am not sure if that was articulated by his research.

dmitrygr 4y ago
> he doesn’t generate research ideas N=1, my favourite kind of proof. Luckily, I am not Nick Bloom - I generate plenty of better ideas from home
- nequo 4y ago
  You responded to your mental image of my comment about his work rather than to his actual work. His work is not N=1. If you just open the link, you see. Keep an open mind.
  - dmitrygr 4y ago
    " he doesn’t generate research ideas through planned 30-minute one-on-one interactions but through more unstructured conversations" - your comment
    - nequo 4y ago
      My comment included a link. And I did not say that what you quoted was all of his work. It was paraphrasing one thing he said in a one-hour interview.
BearfootCoder 4y ago
I've been working in IT for 30 odd years, 24 entirely office based, 6 some combination of hybrid and home, and in my view the argument that innovation and creativity are uniquely fostered by interactions in the office is seriously over-stated. This is obviously just annecdata, but in my working life I can think of literally zero ideas which emerged from just happening to run into someone in the canteen or one of the corridors. Most work conversations are vacuous, time-wasting bullshit. Fun if you've nothing better to do, and nice for greasing the social wheels, but rarely a source of brilliant transformation. In a depressingly large number of work spaces, creativity and innovation are rarely relevant to your job description anyway. You're not there to transform the business. You're there to churn through whatever piece of nonsense has been handed down from on high, and since in quite a significant number of cases the work you've been given will make zero practical difference to the overall well-being of the company it doesn't really matter if you do it well or badly. Even if that weren't the case, what is it that is supposed to make serendipitous encounters inherently better than structured idea development? Are we really supposed to believe that just happening to encounter the person who holds the missing puzzle piece of what you're working on are exactly the moment you need it is the best way of generating transformative ideas? I'm not saying that such random encounters don't happen and can't be significant. But one reason these things turn into corporate legends is because they are rare and outlandish. "I said something in a taxi or a bar and someone else said something that turned into $$$" is a story, whereas, "I was stuck so I laid out the problem in a Slack channel or took it to on online brainstorming session and a couple of my co-workers helped me fix it" isn't. But that's because the first case is a weird freaky miracle, and the second is just an ordinary, effective way of running a business.
pontifier 4y ago
I seem to recall Xerox Parc was designed to foster serendipitous meetings between departments. Some individuals probably feel much more productive because they're able to work without interruption. My guess is that because serendipity is reduced, variation between employees is growing, and useful techniques aren't being shared.
- swordsmith 4y ago
  > I seem to recall Xerox Parc was designed to foster serendipitous meetings between departments. This has been a common argument about returning to office, especially for R&D jobs. But in my experience in corp R&D, people are so busy in meetings/running between conference rooms, there isn't even enough time to get their actual work done, let alone do free-form discussion. ICs end up using the after-work hours to do most of their work. WFH actually solves that -- people can stay longer for meetings near the end of the day because they are already home, and don't need to beat the traffic.

by nequo 4y ago

dmitrygr 4y ago

> he doesn’t generate research ideas N=1, my favourite kind of proof. Luckily, I am not Nick Bloom - I generate plenty of better ideas from home

nequo 4y ago
You responded to your mental image of my comment about his work rather than to his actual work. His work is not N=1. If you just open the link, you see. Keep an open mind.
- dmitrygr 4y ago
  " he doesn’t generate research ideas through planned 30-minute one-on-one interactions but through more unstructured conversations" - your comment
  - nequo 4y ago
    My comment included a link. And I did not say that what you quoted was all of his work. It was paraphrasing one thing he said in a one-hour interview.

BearfootCoder 4y ago

I've been working in IT for 30 odd years, 24 entirely office based, 6 some combination of hybrid and home, and in my view the argument that innovation and creativity are uniquely fostered by interactions in the office is seriously over-stated. This is obviously just annecdata, but in my working life I can think of literally zero ideas which emerged from just happening to run into someone in the canteen or one of the corridors. Most work conversations are vacuous, time-wasting bullshit. Fun if you've nothing better to do, and nice for greasing the social wheels, but rarely a source of brilliant transformation. In a depressingly large number of work spaces, creativity and innovation are rarely relevant to your job description anyway. You're not there to transform the business. You're there to churn through whatever piece of nonsense has been handed down from on high, and since in quite a significant number of cases the work you've been given will make zero practical difference to the overall well-being of the company it doesn't really matter if you do it well or badly. Even if that weren't the case, what is it that is supposed to make serendipitous encounters inherently better than structured idea development? Are we really supposed to believe that just happening to encounter the person who holds the missing puzzle piece of what you're working on are exactly the moment you need it is the best way of generating transformative ideas? I'm not saying that such random encounters don't happen and can't be significant. But one reason these things turn into corporate legends is because they are rare and outlandish. "I said something in a taxi or a bar and someone else said something that turned into $$$" is a story, whereas, "I was stuck so I laid out the problem in a Slack channel or took it to on online brainstorming session and a couple of my co-workers helped me fix it" isn't. But that's because the first case is a weird freaky miracle, and the second is just an ordinary, effective way of running a business.

pontifier 4y ago

I seem to recall Xerox Parc was designed to foster serendipitous meetings between departments. Some individuals probably feel much more productive because they're able to work without interruption. My guess is that because serendipity is reduced, variation between employees is growing, and useful techniques aren't being shared.

swordsmith 4y ago
> I seem to recall Xerox Parc was designed to foster serendipitous meetings between departments. This has been a common argument about returning to office, especially for R&D jobs. But in my experience in corp R&D, people are so busy in meetings/running between conference rooms, there isn't even enough time to get their actual work done, let alone do free-form discussion. ICs end up using the after-work hours to do most of their work. WFH actually solves that -- people can stay longer for meetings near the end of the day because they are already home, and don't need to beat the traffic.