Our belief in watercooler conversations and the associated innovation is more nuanced than meets the eye

It’s tough to justify the merits of water cooler conversations rationally. I was listening to Adam Grant on his new book, Think Again, and he said something very apt for what we are discussing — If you’re told something enough times, you for sure start believing it. And watercooler conversations aren’t any different. Few common misconceptions that we believe in but are not true — fortune cookies are Chinese, caffeine is dehydrating, giving children sugar makes them hyper, bats are blind…… and the list goes on.

There are merits to the watercooler conversation but, it depends on a multitude of factors, the three that strike to me the most are

Organization size and culture: Big companies — F1000/G2000 — have the resources to buy a successful start-up while the smaller ones don’t have money to spare, and that’s what they do 😊 Let’s assume that we get past that point then, some companies foster innovation, and others believe in a more structured approach. While the process first mindset is out to start with, it’s not easy to take an idea to completion, even in companies that spend time and money on being entrepreneurial. If you don’t believe me, try to come up with ten examples without googling

An individual’s personality: It takes time for an introvert to open up, and usually, such an induvial would discuss ideas only within a close group, someone she is comfortable with. As for an extrovert, the personality is more attuned to working on his own. Now, if one has constraints and can’t start something, then this extrovert will start something within the confines of a company, but otherwise, it’s a tough sell.

Team dynamic: This is the most crucial factor when it comes to innovation/ delivering beyond the sum total of individuals in a team. If the team leader rewards one for coming up with ideas, acknowledges them, and tries to take the ideas to the logical next level, the team would undoubtedly deliver beyond the individuals in the group. But the question is — is this leader more attuned to be working in an office or believes in more open communication, and that along with points mentioned above what will decide if being together helps or a good to have.

Based on the points mentioned above its tough to rationalize if informal office chat really helps. But, its like the placebo effect, when we believe in something strongly we do everything in its favor and only time will tell if people think rationally or emotionally

I believe in explaining by examples, but that makes the discussion too long for most people, so for those, who want to delve deeper, let’s try to analyze the points mentioned above with some real-world examples.

Organization size and culture: For a fortune 1000 setup, it’s tough to move the needle with a new idea within a couple of years and, in a world where the market rewards one for achieving quarterly targets, that is tough to put it mildly. Moreover, what’s the probability of an idea getting the requisite mindshare and resources even if it has merits? Leave innovation, even things such as digitization — which is a pillar of an organization’s existence — if not tied to ROI, have failed — This article from Thomas H. Davenport and George Westerman is one of the better reads on the topic. That’s one big reason companies nowadays create a totally different setup focused on forward-looking ideas — BP has launchpad, Google has Moonshots, and the list goes on.

An individual’s personality: what might work for an extrovert might not work for an introvert, and vice-versa, so we need a bit of segmentation to understand the mix that would be ideal for the organization.

Let me start with one of my experiences. I started in sales post business school, which was potentially the best decision and experience one could have asked for. I used to operate out of the office when not meeting customers, and that paid handsomely when it came to be involved in large pursuits and winning. I met quite a few of my peers in the office. When they needed something from my business unit, they started talking to me directly, which offered me the opportunity to meet with CIOs of some of the F100 companies and, in due course, marshaling the wins with some of those customers. So did office coffee help. YES. But was that the norm? NO. Not a single individual from my BU whom I knew — I knew all — was looped directly. They were part of pursuits, but then it came from the top. The point being, I was the newest, most inexperienced amongst the lot, but still, I was able to forge relationships which would have been impossible had I stayed at home. But then what about the others. And that is something that we need to understand that even in a profession such as sales, it depends on the personality of the one involved.

‘Let’s go a bit further, it was around 2005/6, and I was working with IP-Unity. One of the discussions I still remember vividly was with my friend and colleague Sumanta Bhowmik. He said we should start a company that would pool data from telecom providers to help understand what an individual does and when. It was one of the best ideas I have come across personally that had a viable business, but neither Sumanta nor I did anything about it. It would have benefitted us and not the company we were working for if we had done anything as it was not in our ‘employer’s domain. Did this happen because we were going to the office? Maybe. But then it would have anyways happened even if we were not going to the office. So, till now, there is no conclusive evidence if things would have gone either way.

Team dynamic: There is a professional team dynamic and personal, and while professional team dynamic builds camaraderie and delivers excellent results, personal dynamics spur innovation. Usually, when one respects his peers, a professional relationship becomes intimate, which is a crucial ingredient for an idea to bear results.

Let’s start with a Professional relationship that became personal for the mutual respect of individuals involved — This is the story of one of my seniors from engineering days — Gaurav Manglik. He was working as an engineer, and he, along with a couple of his colleagues, found a market need that wasn’t addressed by available solutions. At that point, cloud was picking up, and customers were trying different clouds, but there ‘weren’t any platforms that could manage multiple clouds. CliQr was born. So, while the product would have had merits for the company, I doubt it would have gained traction within the company. In essence, there were a lot of watercooler chats, but to whose avail? Will a company want to bring employees to the office if they listen to such a story? I doubt. I am personally aware of a couple of other stories, but I have made my point.

Professional only — I firmly believe that good professional working relationships are essential for a team to function well. Humans are a social species, and it helps knowing one’s peer, but for that, should one work with that person in close proximity, yes, but all the time — depends. Usually, one would gravitate towards a peer that aligns with their aspirations and ideals, and that can work at times and at times might go against the team dynamics. If one meets the team in person on and off but primarily works remotely, the relationships would be a bit more professional.

To sum up, it’s complicated. While informal office conversations do help, it depends on things beyond an individual’s control. I believe the option to work from your preferred location with some office time would be the best option. Such decisions would be team-specific, and giving the team the option to decide might be best.

These are my personal thoughts and point of views. I am not representing my current or previous employers through these posts.