“Why am I coming into the office if I’m going to be on zoom calls at my desk all day!”

This is a common complaint heard in many hybrid workplaces. As I type, I am in a downtown office space listening to multiple of my co-workers on zoom calls, many with each other, while our conference rooms sit empty. We are not alone. At a recent on-site observation day for a workplace client’s hybrid office planning project, they too had empty conference rooms or rooms filled with only in-person attendees. Similarly, at a recent office meeting, our team posed the question of hybrid office etiquette- should we stop taking zoom meetings at our desks?

At our office, we average around 44% of staff in office on a given day. But like many other hybrid offices, we do not have an assigned day in the office, therefore our project teams are rarely all in-office for every meeting. Our office (and from my on-site observation, as well as noticing my fellow meeting attendees' “zoom location”), hybrid workers New England-wide are defaulting to the easiest way to engage- sitting at your desk, headset on, staring into a camera, speaking to others. Is in-person collaboration dead?

The hybrid model has many benefits including flexibility for employees, equity for employees with disabilities, and reduced office space needs. However, it also means the way we used to meet and collaborate is now a rare occurrence. A team member observed, “we’ve been trained to stare at a screen and camera for the past 2+ years,” but now that we are in office and can meet with team members in-person, why are we still defaulting to Jerry Maguire headsets at our desks?

Hybrid meetings and collaboration are inherently tied to equity. Most equity conversations begin with the thoughts of privilege. During hybrid meeting those who are remote are often the least privileged, so it comes to those in-person to make the adjustment to best fit the needs of the remote attendee. The effortless and all too common solution is individuals at their desk, so every attendee is equal in the meeting. This habit is similar to Zillow’s “One Zoom all Zoom rule where if one employee is attending virtual everyone should be. But in a push to be digitally inclusive are we missing out on the benefits of collaborating in-person?

Prior to COVID, answering where the “center of a meeting” was as easy as it was in-person, even if a few call-in participants lacked the same meeting experience. After 2+ years of virtual meetings, we are accustomed to all attendees having the same level of engagement and tech. However, now that some workers are together in office and others remote, how do we approach inequities? Is it okay for some meetings to have a mix of attendee (engagement) types? In the past it was perfectly acceptable to have those who could not attend in-person call in and have a “lesser” experience. Can we adjust to similar inequities in our meetings again? I have been the lone virtual attendee on a meeting when everyone else is in a room together and the FOMO factor is real, but would that encourage in-person office attendance or just exacerbate bias since we know those who benefit most from hybrid and remote work are employees with disabilities or who identify as nonbinary and/or LGBTQ .

Priya Parker, master facilitator and acclaimed author of The Art of Gathering, often says a hybrid meeting is 2 meetings in one. You have the in person, the virtual and then the hybrid and each of those meetings requires a host. I have tried this approach and it takes a level of organization, attentiveness, and communication skills that require practice. This approach also requires a “team” of hosts rather than one single person running the meeting and that team must work together to achieve the agenda of the meeting. The approach does allow for a better hybrid experience and hopefully with practice becomes second nature as it does allow for a greater level of engagement and is more inclusive than in-person only meetings. 

The use of conference space with a hybrid model cannot be thought about without discussion of AV technology. However, AV seems to be an inconvenience (one that is easiest to complain about) and is further exacerbating the problem, rather than the source. Conference Room technology needs to be as simple as the technology we have in our cars- or I would say even easier.

Over the past two years I have seen fellow co-workers who are capable and excellent at their jobs become triggered into a stress ball by technology not working the way they want or not understanding conference room AV set up and how to use it. I mistakenly thought this was mostly a trend of older workers who are not digital natives, but research has shown younger workers have more stress about technology than expected. We always say conference rooms need to be “plug and play” but I think many AV consultants need to observe multiple users try to use that AV set up and see if it is in-fact “plug and play.” Intelligent 360° cameras and other high-tech meeting technology solutions are fantastic but only if they are incredibly simple to use and ubiquitous enough that all can operate in under a few minutes.

When it comes down to it, AV and equity are only two reasons for not using our conference rooms; the biggest driver is behavioral. As my coworker observed, our behavior over the past 2+ years has been to call in to meeting on our individual devices for meetings. We are simply out of practice. We are defaulting to the easiest way to engage. Easiest, however, does not mean the richest experience.

What are we missing by sitting at our desks on a zoom call? We are missing the steps to the conference room, but we are also missing reading our team members’ body language and the energy in the room. We are missing distraction free collaboration- how many meetings do you notice yourself or others not focusing? A reported 62% of office workers admit to multitasking during video calls and 28% of workers who are expected to speak in said meeting are still multitasking. We are sitting in front of a screen where we can continue to work, read our emails, browse the news so the virtual meeting must be engaging enough to overcome all those distractions.

Perhaps the collective lack of conference room space is a sign of a larger problem- our meeting culture is broken. I recently attended a webinar on Asynchronous Collaboration. The organizers argued that meetings do not always equal collaboration. An attendee in the chat shared they noticed that meeting attendees are often unprepared as they are always in meetings and have no time for preparation. The idea of asynchronous collaboration was an interesting concept that could break us from our “at desk zoom” cycle and change our hybrid meeting culture. If a “reporting” meeting were instead a prerecorded video that team members watch prior to diving into their work for the day or week it could reduce the virtual meeting burnout and leave time for in-person connection and collaboration. Synchronous collaboration and meetings also tend to favor certain types of workers- men who are more likely to speak up and over others, extroverts, and people who are quick to process information. In terms of equity collaborating asynchronously can allow introverts, neurodivergent and learners who need time to process a way to participate equally.

We spent two years wishing to be meeting in-person, saying “if this was in-person this would be easier.” We finally have the opportunity to meet in-person and it is all about finding a new way of meeting. It would be great if we did not have to reinvent the wheel, but unprecedented times call for unprecedented meetings.

What successes or opportunities have you found in your hybrid meetings? 

About Meaghan Kennedy, IIDA, NCIDQ

Meaghan Kennedy is a senior interior designer at MDS Architects where she focuses on workplace and education projects. She is the recipient of the 2021 IIDA New England Star Award, past president of IIDA New England, and chairs IIDA New England’s Design Leaders Network.