The Fragility of Informal Interactions with Hybrid Work
Add bookmark
Over the past year there have been many spirited debates about the benefits and challenges of working remotely. Many employees argue that working remotely has enabled them to be more productive, while also having greater personal flexibility. At least one Stanford study evaluated 1,000 workers across nine months (albeit pre-COVID) and found that remote work can actually increase productivity by 13%.
REPORT: How to Make Hybrid Work Effective, Engaging, and Empowering
However, even the researchers of this study suggest that the experiment did not consider such variables as child care, working space, and personal choice. A more recent study from Prodoscore, found a 5% increase in productivity with employees working from home, after evaluating more than 105 million data points from 30,000 users.
Empowering the HR community
Join HR Exchange Network today and interact with a vibrant network of professionals, keeping up to date with the industry by accessing our wealth of articles, videos, live conferences and more.
Join NowYet, the counter argument from many high-profile leaders has been that remote work is not the right long-term solution. Perhaps most notable is JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon who has routinely blasted remote work with outlandish comments such as Zoom is just “management by Hollywood Squares.” None of these leaders’ perspectives are more contentious than Elon Musk’s.
Earlier this year, he told his staff at Tesla that employees “can either come back to the office or quit.” When he was questioned on Twitter about those who have proven to be more productive, he quickly responded, “They should pretend to work somewhere else.” However, it didn’t end there, after taking over as Twitter’s CEO, Musk’s first companywide email to employees ended the companies “work from home forever” policy. Today, Twitter employees, those who remain, are required to be in the office at least 40 hours per week.
The problem is, these high-profile debates rely on limited data and seem to miss the core question. Why are we more or less productive either working remotely or working from the office?
The answer to this question might be hidden inside one of the more comprehensive studies conducted so far. Microsoft evaluated data from more than 60,000 employees and found that individuals who worked from home were more productive for shorter-term projects. However, productivity on longer-term projects is at risk, especially those that require some degree of innovation. The primary reason is a deterioration in employee connectivity.
READ: A Definitive Guide to Ensure a Successful 'Great-Return'
While dramatic statements from CEOs, like Jamie Dimon and Elon Musk, have garnered much of the media’s attention, the reality is that most companies have only recently begun to engage in true hybrid work. That is, a good portion of employees returning to the office for some portion of time, while others remain primarily remote. As a result, we truly have the data to engage in an evidence-based debate.
Throughout this year, Connected Commons has collected data on the differences between those who are primarily in the office and those who primarily remain remote. The findings could shape the way we think about hybrid work. To illustrate this, we need to distinguish between two different types of connections - our formal interactions and our informal interactions.
Formal Versus Informal Interactions
Formal interactions represent the routine connections in our networks that drive execution and support. These are the routine meetings and practices that help facilitate problem solving, resource alignment, implementation, progress reviews, and formal support. While informal interactions represent the non-routine encounters that help to facilitate future progress and change.
These are the ad-hoc interactions that include discussions about new possibilities, early-stage idea development, and the socializing of new solutions with influencers. We have found that formal interactions are highly correlated to performance, while informal interactions tend to facilitate innovation.
Understanding the nuances of these two types of interactions matters for optimizing hybrid work. We have been evaluating the patterns of both formal and informal interactions through a number of targeted questions using active organizational network analysis (ONA) surveys with large companies. What we have found is noteworthy in shaping the future of hybrid work, suggesting that organizations need to be more intentional about ensuring productive, informal interactions are occurring, especially for those who work primarily remotely.
In a typical organization, between 75% to 85% of our interactions are formal in nature. Since COVID, these numbers have trended upward. Formal interactions generally occur within a given team or group (what social scientists call bonding connections), but they at times can include broader interactions across the organization.
Especially when synchronizing work activities or securing formal support from leaders. While informal interactions tend to occur beyond a given team or group (what social scientists call bridging connections), but sometimes may happen within team discussions that are “off the formal agenda” in the form of random brainstorms or sidebar exchanges about new possibilities.
Network Patterns
These two types of interactions show up differently in the context of hybrid work. For example, we recently ran an ONA (see figure 1) for a group of about 300 employees of a large consumer goods company that has focused on encouraging employees return to the office, yet has provided flexibility for those who cannot. Of these individuals evaluated, 54% (dark blue nodes in figure 1) spent the majority of their time in the physical office. While the other 46% (light blue nodes in figure 1) spent less than half of their time in the office. Just over half of those individuals rarely came into the office at all over the past six months.
At first glance, it would look as if there was little difference between those in the office and those working remotely in the network. For example, the individuals who are primarily remote are just as likely to be central to the network, a position of influence, as those who are in the office routinely. In general, the remote workers seem to have no major disadvantage from those in the office, at least from a network position perspective.
Figure 1. Large Consumer Company
Formal Interactions
This is also true when you evaluate the formal interactions of employees. Only the formal connections are highlighted in Figure 2, and while some connections are lost, there is very little difference in the network deterioration between office-based employees and remote employees. If anything, we see a modest increase of about 7% in the formal interactions for people predominately working remotely verses those in the office.
Figure 2. Formal Interactions Network
In other words, these formal interactions are quite durable, even in a remote context. We see very similar patterns across other organizations. When you think about this in practice, it makes intuitive sense. Both remote and office-based employees should be invited to the formal practices within an organization. We also know that these formal interactions tend to be critical to short-term success and productivity as highlighted in the Microsoft study. In short, when it comes to our formal interactions, we see little shift in the network patterns regardless of working location.
Informal Interactions
These patterns shift significantly however, when we look exclusively at the informal interactions. For example, the connections dedicated to thinking more broadly about new possibilities, engaging in early-stage idea development and socializing solutions with key influencers drops off significantly for those who work primarily remotely. In fact, we see a 28% decrease in informal interactions for people working remotely versus those working in the office. If you look closely look at figure 3., most of the informal interactions are occurring among office employees (dark blue nodes).
Informal interactions are far more fragile for remote workers. Much like the Microsoft study suggested, this puts longer-term activities, such as facilitating innovation, at risk, especially for those who spend the majority of their time working remotely. As expected, physical proximity seems to favor office-based employees with informal interactions.
Figure 3. Informal Interactions Network
Intentionality Trumps Proximity
The implications of these patterns could be quite dramatic in the long term. For example, in the case above, this organization is likely to lose 50% of its innovation capacity if it doesn’t rethink how to engage remote employees in informal interactions. As many have highlighted, when left to chance, physical proximity can facilitate informal interactions. Yet, all is not lost. There are plenty of ways to increase informal interactions, even for predominately remote employees. It just can’t be left to chance.
Perhaps, we can best learn from the degree of intentionality we have placed on our formal interactions. In this case, we have already overcome the proximity bias. Or as Kevin Osborne from i4cp suggests, “intentionality trumps proximity.” Of course, this leads to the core question for HR professionals, “How can we employ the same level of intentionality with our informal interactions?”
Some example practices might include:
Make the informal, formal. Groups can become too focused on optimizing short-term performance. One way to better engage remote employees in informal activities is to schedule them. For example, periodically invite key stakeholders into team discussions to review future needs. Or invite key customers into an open discussion about their challenges. Such intentionality will level the playing field for everyone.
Encourage informal learning shares. One way to inspire innovation is to challenge employees to engage in exploratory interactions with others beyond the team, or to challenge them to reach out for best practices from other teams. Then, find space in formal routines to openly share these learnings with each other. This will challenge remote employees to become more intentional about discovery.
Create a high energy environment. Positive energy matters in influencing others. An environment of psychological safety improves the flow of new ideas and solutions. Research suggests that innovative organizations have a 3 to 1 ratio of energizing connections to de-energizing interactions. One of the best ways to facilitate informal interactions is to encourage high energy exchanges.
Engage informal opinion leaders in meetings. To ensure greater influence from key influencers, invite these informal option leaders into team discussions. Set up meetings with these people and ask for their early thoughts on a solution. These informal influencers generally have greater network reach than formal leaders. For example, in one case the top 50 informal influencers had connections with 60% of the employees, whereas the top 50 senior leaders only had connections with 31%. Find ways to engage these informal influencers early.
