A very active discussion is the one regarding the format of attendance at work: in person, teleworking or hybrid. If the confinement has shown anything, in its different phases, it is something that we have been looking for for some time and that did not seem possible. Companies can continue to operate with part of their employees working remotely.
But what format will prevail? I think that a 100% online format is not possible. It can work when necessary, but people need human interaction to function. We are social beings, it's uk telegram number that simple. And a video conference is not enough for us. This directly affects our performance, and therefore the company's results.
What seems to be gaining ground is the hybrid format and flexible offices. People who come to the office when necessary and spaces that allow them to have greater group interactions (open spaces, more meeting rooms, multipurpose rooms, areas for informal meetings, etc.), because they come to the office to talk in person with their colleagues, not to use the computer.
In my opinion, coworking spaces have anticipated this trend, as they have exactly this format and add, among many other things, the advantage of location (one that I have tried on more than one occasion, and I recommend, is First Workplaces ).
Acute digital reunionitis
Beyond the format of attendance at work, something that has changed with confinement is the number of meetings and their efficiency.
I recently shared on Linkedin one of Tom Fishburne 's (Marketoonist) wonderful comic strips, which reflects one of the biggest ills of companies (the bigger the company, the bigger the problem usually is):
Using common sense, we could say that remote meetings should contribute to making them more efficient (and in some cases they have been), but since they are all online, what has happened is that we have more meetings and these, logically, are less efficient.
The tendency in this case is to try to reduce them as much as possible, but to what extent? If we do not meet, we may be harming the progress of our work. How can we find the middle ground? As is often the case in these cases, there is more than one correct answer and a lot depends.
Here are my suggestions based on common sense and thousands of meetings behind me (I don't claim to be an HR expert).
How to make your work meetings more efficient
Necessity of the meeting: The organizer of the meeting is responsible for determining whether the meeting is necessary, or as the comic says, it could be resolved by email. There is no set rule, it is pure common sense. The dynamics of your work will dictate this. It is a matter of getting to the right point.
Have a prior agreed agenda.
All attendees must bring their homework done: with so many meetings, and even more so during lockdown, we have seen how a significant percentage of meeting attendees are just that, attendees. They don't contribute much, and sometimes they are working on other issues at the same time, because with so many meetings they don't have time to work (crazy, right?).
It should not last more than 30-45 minutes: anything longer than this should be moved to a working session between the people involved, but not with all the participants present.
Although it is already very widespread, we must have the necessary organizational and communication tools to facilitate both this process and parallel conversations (which avoid unnecessary meetings): calendars, Slack, WhatsApp, etc. etc. These should also be used wisely, but this would give me another article.