Do chance meetings at the office boost innovation? There’s no evidence of it

That is a very USA view of the work place. The part that I most appreciate from casual chats in the office is the non-productive part. To hear people laugh, to chat about vacations, to humanize your colleagues has a lot of value. That creates an environment were I want to work with them, and not only because I am paid to do so.

I have seen the devastating power of fights between departments and teams when the human side is broken. When we are not all humans trying our best, but we are employees with local loyalties it is easy to see others as an enemy instead of an ally.

Humans are great collaborators, but we need to have human contact. Screens, microphones, cameras and delays in the hundreds of milliseconds for each gesture are an impediment and require extra mental effort.

But, I guess that an important difference between USA and Europe is the stress of commuting. European cities are more compact and with way better public transport, so, maybe in the USA is justified the extra effort just to not have to spend hours in a car to get to the office. That also has its toll in health and all that stress hampers collaboration.

I just hope that remote work is not just a hack to not fix the real problem, that it takes too long to get to the office, that more investment is needed in public transportation.

I am also curious on how this works in other places. China has great public transport, and was not affected by the pandemic in the same way that the West. Are they going to stay in the office? Or remote work advantages that I cannot foresee and China would also follow that path? South America? Africa? Is this a new divide between the North and South hemispheres? These are interesting times.

In my experience, having previously been employed in a role where one of my objectives was to encourage and enable this sort of 'incidental innovation', this article seems to take the view that some magic happens in those passing moments - a bolt of innovative lightning striking some unwitting participants.

My view is more mundane - nothing particularly exciting happens in those moments, and they are most valuable for spreading information that you wouldn't otherwise know or think to spread.

In our case, we had several different organisations in the same building, and those passing moments were a valuable way to get an insight into what other groups were working on, and who they were working with. They were valuable in the way that the 'Art of Serendipity'[0] is valuable - awareness of the things around you helps identify connections between them that tend only to make sense with a degree of hindsight. In my experience, most of the actual connections were drawn much later than the passing moments in the hallway - a "hey, weren't you working with something similar to what we're doing with Fred from BigBank last month? Reckon they'd be interested in working with us on this too?".

It may just be me, but I find it is harder to achieve this in a remote setting where one typically has to actively seek out conversations.

Also, the article seems to set a false dichotomy - that either in-person is essential for innovation, or that it's terrible and harmful to innovation. Again in my experience, the reality is that in-person is better in some ways, and remote is better in others. As different tools, they are best used for different jobs, depending on the problem you're trying to solve.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/how-to-cultivate-...

Can't see the article...but I think you can still have random conversations and spontaneous ideas it just requires adjustment. Slack and Google meets make it easy to hop onto a call. I tell people sometimes I'm tired of typing let's just do a quick call. Or try to work out in the open, dump things in our teams chat or bigger org chat rooms. I think once we start to have more people who grew up on the internet posting in forums and wasting time in chat rooms in leadership positions we'll see less of an emphasis on watercolor chats or what ever. I think it's even easier to be outgoing on a text based environment. I don't want to talk in front of 30people or even really just small talk in passing with aquantiences, I don't mind putting a message in a chat room with 300 people. I guess others feel simmiliar?

Disappointing. It doesn't even link to a source for the claim. It also confuses the issue.

RAND had chance meetings specifically designed into their building in the 50's, I was always interested to see if it actually worked - https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/cp537rc.14?seq=1#metada...

We do know Silicon Valley is real, Hollywood is real. We also know the higher the population density innovation increases. At a macro level it seems very real.

If your business is relying on random encounters in the office for anything, then you are running your business incorrectly.

Paywalled.

This is a very common justification provided when employers say "no" to embracing fully remote work. I am not convinced that it is true either, but everyone assumes that hallway discussions somehow are leading to breakthroughs. I can see how chance meetings can be productive, and I can also see how they can help build good relationships. But I don't think there is a greater amount of innovation per minute from chance meetings versus other work activities. Are people simply mistaking a nonzero amount of innovation from chance meetings as innovation that wouldn't occur any other way?