I loved this article, Valentina. It's been really hard for me to put into words why the whole "but we need the serendipity that happens around the watercooler!!!!111" argument against remote work rings so false with me, but you really nailed it here. Thank you.
Yay! Happy to help! "Watercooler" and "serendipity" does not stand up to any type of scrutinity. Just calculate how many "innovations" were conceived at a watercooler - then divide that by the number of times people congreate around a watercooler per day x the number of employees. If 1 out of 10,000 conversations ever led to something substantial - is that really worth the insistence?
In case you needed some more number - based arguments :)
I loved this article, Valentina. It's been really hard for me to put into words why the whole "but we need the serendipity that happens around the watercooler!!!!111" argument against remote work rings so false with me, but you really nailed it here. Thank you.
Yay! Happy to help! "Watercooler" and "serendipity" does not stand up to any type of scrutinity. Just calculate how many "innovations" were conceived at a watercooler - then divide that by the number of times people congreate around a watercooler per day x the number of employees. If 1 out of 10,000 conversations ever led to something substantial - is that really worth the insistence?
In case you needed some more number - based arguments :)