>> That damage however will increase withe the increase in the proportion of people working remotely
>> who have never met or spent personal time with their colleagues. That suggest to me
>> that a hybrid is optimal, in which teams get together once week/month or whatever.
I think hybrid is the way to go and is what my employer is doing. The office is open Tuesday-Thursday with numbers in initially limited by social distancing considerations; we had allocated days. Now allowing greater numbers in as distancing is eased. Colleague in same days as me and I are fairly relaxed about distancing if looking one another's screens etc. We're both double jabbed and not likely to be clubbing or in mosh pits.
New recruit joined the team last week with another to follow. Both will need to go through a couple of weeks of training modules but then 'go live' on phone and digital. I think they'll need to spend some time in the office doing observation. The last one in listened to recordings of calls but that's not the same as seeing the job done live.
>> I thought it was working fine, but now I think it probably has weakened the
>> process a bit. The basic bureaucracy of which there is a lot works OK but
>> that 10 or 15 minutes we used to have before the meeting started, where the
>> ice was broken, the lunch break, and the drink/meal afterwards where we would review the
>> discussions of the day, were actually quite useful as part of the process for investment
>> and policy decisions.
We found the same in the quango; a lot of important discussion happened in the margins.
When austerity bit and there were heavy restrictions on providing catering for meetings we made a business case for continuing to buy in a sandwich buffet at a cost of £60 or so.
|
